Consumer Reports: New iPhones Not As Bendy As Believed

An anonymous reader writes: Over the past several days, we've been hearing reports about some amount of users noticing that their brand new iPhone 6 Plus is bending in their pockets. The pictures and videos shown so far have kicked off an investigation, and Consumer Reports has done one of the more scientific tests so far. They found that the iPhone 6 Plus takes 90 pounds of pressure before it permanently deforms. The normal iPhone 6 took even less: 70 lbs. They tested other phones as well: HTC One (M8): 70 lbs, LG G3: 130 lbs, iPhone 5: 130 lbs, Samsung Galaxy Note 3: 150 lbs. The Verge also did a report on how Apple torture-tests its devices before shipping them. Apple's standard is about 55 lbs of pressure, though it does so thousands of times before looking for bends. One analysis suggests that Apple's testing procedure only puts pressure on the middle of the phone, which doesn't sufficiently evaluate the weakened area where holes have been created for volume buttons. Consumer Reports' test presses on the middle of the device as well.

Comments

In other words...

[Moderator]

<tt>Consumer Reports: The iPhone users wearing skinny jeans aren't really as skinny as they believed.</tt>

Re:In other words...

[tysonedwards]

The general consensus that Consumer Reports seems to be getting at here is that the results that they observed shows that while the iPhones do bend, the amount of force required to do so results in phones from other manufacturers simply breaking under the stresses involved. It also appears that Apple may have done some investigation into the engineering behind what is "good enough" behind the stresses that a phone needs to endure, much as traditional building codes have adopted. Looking back into the past, there have been great feats of engineering that have stood the tests of time and survived admirably, and a large part of that has been due to being "over engineered" than what was technically required, or from a simple lack of knowledge at the time of what really *needed* to be done to withstand the rigors of severe, gail force winds, earthquakes, or the like. Apple has fallen into the fallacy of "good enough" in an effort to reduce materials used, lower production costs, ease manufacturing, and all the while use those traits to leverage themselves as a positive for why the casing is thinner than ever before, lighter than ever before, and yet the product is now bigger than ever before. Less material, less weight, less volume, greater screen size... Uh. Something had to give *somewhere*, hence a product that is now less sturdy than it was a year ago. As such, they are likely going to have an increased number of warranty claims this year compared to previous years due to the folding potential at the structural weak point between the opposite inserts for the volume and power buttons.

Frankly, this is more a sign that they may have reached the point that using a highly malleable metal like Aluminum simply isn't a great choice and will ultimately lead to further structural issues like this in the future in the push for ever thinner, lighter devices that was exacerbated a little earlier than I expected due to the moving of the Power button. Long term though, there are ultimately ways around this through shifting to alloys, polycarbonates or carbon fiber and employing more complex geometry into the design, such as a honeycomb configuration as to allow for force to be dissipated through the surface rather than through a sudden catastrophic failure as they are seeing with the iPhone 6 Plus design due to the structural weak points of the recessed volume and power buttons on opposite sides of the casing that will itself only get worse over time. Should the buttons themselves been raised outwards so that they were not flush with the case or staggered so they were not adjacent with each other, while not being as aesthetically pleasing it would have resulted in a stronger, more durable product and I think that's ultimately the point for something that is intended to be with someone 24/7 for the next 2 years of their life.

End result is that life sure is easier for an armchair engineer to sit back and look in on why something failed than it is to see the forest when you're trying to make every branch on each tree "elegant".

Apple = cash cow for scumbags

[Space cowboy]

As is the case a lot (not all) of the time with Apple. They're worth a lot in click-bait, so what you do is try to find something outrageous to say about a popular product, put adverts on the page to generate you cash, and try and profit from the massive public interest in yet another Apple product...

Or maybe I'm getting too cynical in my old age.

Simon

Re:Apple = cash cow for scumbags

[Tough Love]

Hmm, this is for Apple astroturfers downmodding that inconvenient truth. New video posted by the bendgate dude to rebut the swarm of camp followers claiming the test was somehow faked or exaggerated. If anything, worse results for Apple this time.

OK, spin that Apple.

Re: If people bend their phones

[saloomy]

I agree with you it should be free of charge if there is a defect, and it would have to be counted as one if they claimed it could survive > 90lbs of force, but that wasn't a claim. Realistically, if it was a free replacement, how do you get away from the "I nicked my iPhone dropping it out of my car, let me bend it and get a new one" crowd?

This is a defense of iPhone 6?

[aaron4801]

Read it again. People are accustomed to treating their iPhones in a certain way (storage-wise), but the 6 bends at nearly HALF the pressure of the 5. That's the crux of the problem. The 6 is a step backwards in strength. The larger size in part of it, since there's more leverage potential, but LG and Samsung seem to have solved that problem. No, it's not made of cheese, as some users seem to have reported, but it will bend under circumstances that the 5 would not.

Re:This is a defense of iPhone 6?

[phantomfive]

No, it's not made of cheese, as some users seem to have reported, but it will bend under circumstances that the 5 would not.

That seems to be true, but it is also not the question anyone cares about. Given two phones, one is likely to bend under circumstances that the other won't.

The question that needs to be answered is, what circumstances exactly? If I hold it in my hand while pressing on the screen, is that enough to bend it? If I sit on it, will that be enough to bend it? If I drive a car over it, will that be enough to bend it?

Details matter.

Re: If people bend their phones

[itzly]

how do you get away from the "I nicked my iPhone dropping it out of my car, let me bend it and get a new one" crowd?

1. Examine old phone carefully for damage
2. Damage the new phone in the same way (minus the bend), before handing it to the customer.

I still don't get this.

[aussersterne]

Who thinks it's okay to sit on their phone? Why do people think they ought to be able to? It literally makes no sense. It's an electronic device with a glass screen. If I handed someone a sheet of glass and said, "put this in your back pocket and sit on it!" they'd refuse.

But a phone? Oh, absolutely! Shit, wait, no! It broke?!?!

So Consumer Reports didn't test the actual issue?

[apparently]

One analysis suggests that Apple's testing procedure only puts pressure on the middle of the phone, which doesn't sufficiently evaluate the weakened area where holes have been created for volume buttons.

One analysis? Every documented case of the issue shows that the bending occurs at a specific weakpoint that is not in the middle of the device. What fucking idiot would test for this weakness by only bending the device in the middle?

Consumer Reports' test presses on the middle of the device as well. Oh joy, a whole team of professional fucking idiots.

Re:70 lbs of pressure

[Em Adespoton]

Also true for if a 250lb man puts it in his back pocket... unless he also happens to put a ball bearing in his back pocket and then applies all his weight to that one precise spot.

Really... a person's weight != the force placed on a specific spot on an object a person has in their pocket. The entire reason we sit down is to distribute the force along our hips and thighs.

You might have a point if people were standing on their iPhones while they were suspended between two bricks.

Of course, what worried me (and this is where you can get a legit comparison) is that a six year old kid or a medium size dog CAN generate 150lb of force pretty easily.

Here's one data point for you: I've carried an un-protected iPod Touch 4g in my back pocket since around 2010 -- no scratches, no bends. The thing is about the same thickness as the iPhone 6 (0.26 in thick vs iPhone 0.27 in), and only a slightly smaller form factor. I've only come close to putting 50lbs of force on a single point a few times (landing on a pointy rock) -- result was that it got some stuck pixels for a few days that eventually returned to normal.

Re:30-46% less force is required to deform?!

[Pieroxy]

Wait, wait, wait...

iPhone 5: 130lbs. force to deform

iPhone 6+: 90 lbs. force to deform -> 30% less force
iPhone 6: 70 lbs. force to deform -> 46% less force

A reduction in resistance to deformation of nearly one third to one half over previous models and they are supposedly "not as bendy as believed"? WTF? That's a recall class problem in my book.

Is it? So if I design a phone that can withstand 1 ton, then I am not allowed to ship any phone that withstand less than that or it's a recall? Man, come on. If the thing is too weak for regular use, it's case for a recall. If not, it's not a case for a recall. Nothing to do with "is it weaker than the latest model".

Video of how easy the new iPhone 6 Plus bends:

[JackAxe]

It doesn't take much pressure at all to bend/break an iPhone 6 Plus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Yes, reality is a defense

[SuperKendall]

but the 6 bends at nearly HALF the pressure of the 5

Neither figure matters if the pressure actually put on the phone in your pocket is 1/10th of 55 lbs.

To phrase it differently since you seem to have a personality tailor-made for being "misled by statistics", if the only force a device undergoes is 10-20lbs, why does it matter if a device can sustain a million pounds of force, or 30,

Remember that in realty Apple's has reports of just six actual phones being bent.

I have a 6plus and have been using it in my pocket. After sitting or leaning over or whatever, there is zero bend or even flex to the thing. To actually bend it would take enough force I'd be concerned about my own structural integrity.

Exactly, reality says "not an issue"

[SuperKendall]

So, if the phones are bending in real world situations, they are by definition defective

Except they aren't.

Apple sold 10 *million* phones over the weekend. Of those, Apple says they have six complaints. And we haven't seen that many pictures from real owners.

So the reality is that the iPhone 6 is not defective, a few have undergone more extreme forces than is reasonable. In the end a large flat object can be broken, that's just physics and no amount of design will change that.

If you plan to put ANY phone through more extreme forces than normal, get an Otterbox and call it a day.

Unboxy Therapy Bent 2nd iPhone 6+ w/Witnesses

[Scot Seese]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

The guy from Unbox Therapy, angry at the accusations that his original video was somehow staged, just posted a new video yesterday. In the new video, he unwraps a brand new iPhone 6+ on the street in Toronto with a handful of random witnesses watching, and again - by placing his thumbs on the back of the phone and applying moderate pressure- IMMEDIATELY produces a 25-30 degree bend in the unit, with the crease forming again at the bottom of the volume control cutouts.

In the new video, the iPhone deformed so badly the screen separated from the body.

He then attempted to bend a Moto X (2014 model) with visibly considerable force applied to it, and couldn't.

Is this really important? You decide. A lot of people - men, particularly - have carried their smartphones in the pockets of their jeans. If you're a big guy, and you have a tiny iPhone 5S in your back pocket and sit down in your car on a 3 hour road trip, the iPhone 5S won't deform because it's thicker, and much shorter in length, therefore providing a much shorter lever for your rump to apply force to. The iPhone 6+ however, being both thinner and significantly taller, provides a much longer lever for your 200+ pounds of man ass to press against the back of the car seat, making it quite conceivable that the iPhone 6+ WOULD have a bending problem in actual consumer use.

This issue has gotten enough viral traction and major media attention that it isn't going to go away. Worse yet for Apple is that unlike Antennagate, this problem won't be solved with a rubber bumper case costing Apple 20 cents manufacturing cost - NO, bent iPhone 6+ units still within their return period or covered by AppleCare are going to cost the company $200+ per unit, according to recent teardown parts costing estimates.

When, as educated tech consumers, are people going to stop confusing "smaller and thinner" as being "more advanced" ? All we are doing here, people, is sacrificing durability and battery life.

Re:Useless

[Sarten-X]

Torque is what matters.

If you test bending in the middle, you put 70 pounds force (approximately 300 newtons) in the middle, and support the ends firmly. That means that if the weakest point is in the middle, the torque on that point is (2 x 150 newtons x 80 mm), as the length of the lever arm to the support at the edge is about 80 mm. We'll ignore the fact that the test support is really a little bit inside that, and assume that the subject is supported right at the edge. Note also that the force is 150 newtons, which is half of the 70 pounds force used to break the phone, because the force is opposed evenly by two supports. Their equal force is then summed, which is why our total torque has that "2" scalar, giving us a total of 24 newton-meters of torque.

If we bend off-center, such as half-way towards one of the ends, the forces on the test supports are no longer equal. Our lever arms are now 120 and 40 mm, and the force would be unevenly distributed as well. The force is distributed inversely to the length of the lever arms, so the short arm, being 25% of the length, now supports 75% of the load, which is 225 newtons. The long arm supports 25%, which is 75 newtons. This gives us a total torque of (225 newtons * 40mm + 75 newtons * 120mm), for a total of only 18 newton-meters of torque.

Since testing off-center actually applies less torque to the test subject, the question then becomes one of whether the weak point is really 25% weaker than the rest of the beam.

However, we can also compute the torque on the supposed weak point during the center test. In that case, the lever arms can be computed as though they behave as a typical lever, scaling the force. they apply. The longer lever would be a class 3 lever, which would reduce the effective force of the test to 100 newtons. On the other hand, the shorter arm would behave as a class 2 lever, increasing the force to 300 newtons. The total torque on the weak point during a center test, then, is (100 newtons * 120mm + 300 newtons * 40mm), which is again 24 newton-meters.

If the weak point were really weaker than anywhere else in the phone, it would break during the center-loaded test. Looking at the pictures from Consumer Reports, though, that's exactly what happened. On both the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus, the most significant damage is at the edge of the volume buttons closest to the center.

However, it's worth noting that the Consumer Reports test was conducted until the screen detached, even if that happened after the phone itself was permanently deformed. Looking at other pictures of bent phones, their screens have not separated from the cases, so they likely used less force to deform. Bending to separation, though, provides a consistent point of comparison to other phones, which may have internal damage even if their cases return to normal.

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist, and not a test engineer. If my math or methodology is incorrect, please feel free to tell me why.

Get a real phone.

[Animats]

Apple needs to get their ruggedness act together. Meanwhile, here's a real phone, the Caterpillar B15.

Cat B15 tested by users. Dragged behind car. Used to play basketball. (As the ball, not as a computer game.) Dropped off bridge. Run through cement mixer. Frozen in bucket of ice. Run over by car. No problem.

Cat B15 tested by Caterpillar. Dropped into pool of water. Scooped out with heavy equipment. Run over by front end loader. (One of Cat's smaller front end loaders.) No problem.

It's an Android phone. The B15 runs Android 4.2; the new B15Q runs Android 4.4. Price around $300. Available in the US at Home Depot. Unlocked; pick any GSM carrier. T-Mobile works. No annoying carrier-provided apps. Caterpillar preloads apps for ordering Caterpillar heavy equipment parts and renting heavy equipment.

If you have one of these in a pocket, you will break before it will. I carry one of these horseback riding.

Re:Useless

[occasional_dabbler]

I'm an aerospace engineer and I have designed and run plenty of tests for certification of aircraft parts. This test is fine as far as it goes but it is not testing the real issue, the FAA would have thrown me out of the room if I'd shown them this.

What the test shows is that most phones will resist a reasonable amount of bending when the load is applied uniformly at the centre. They all do pretty well. That's great.

The issue with the iPhone 6 Plus is that it has a weak corner, if you watch the 'bendgate' video you can clearly see that the bend line is not straight across the phone, but at an angle near to the weak spot.

A properly designed test would have clamped each phone flat with a corner sticking out unsupported and force applied until it suffered plastic deformation (stays bent). Each phone could have all four corners tested and the weakest result is the 'winner'. In such a test the iPhone 6 Plus would clearly fail at its weak point much more readily than any of the others.

Bad science.