If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(YouTube) Video IPhone 4S vs. Samsung Galaxy SII drop test. Let's check the damage to the phone, your wallet   (youtube.com) divider line 100
    More: Video  
•       •       •

8298 clicks; posted to Video » on 19 Oct 2011 at 10:14 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-19 06:48:41 AM
That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.
 
2011-10-19 08:02:42 AM
They both have gorilla glass, don't they? Wonder why the Samsung held up better.

/wonders how much you can make when you make a video for the price of two phones receive 2.5 million hits on youtube... and counting?
 
2011-10-19 09:04:52 AM

PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.


Well, I mean, not to get in the way of your obvious white knighting, it was a reasonable stress test for the phones. People tend to, you know, drop them.
 
2011-10-19 09:42:04 AM
.

BunkyBrewman: They both have gorilla glass, don't they? Wonder why the Samsung held up better.


I'm pretty sure the iPhone doesn't have gorilla glass on the back. Only the display side.
 
2011-10-19 10:19:36 AM

IgG4: . BunkyBrewman: They both have gorilla glass, don't they? Wonder why the Samsung held up better.

I'm pretty sure the iPhone doesn't have gorilla glass on the back. Only the display side.


That's a pretty good design decision for a device you don't want people to have to hide in a case.
 
2011-10-19 10:24:25 AM
This isn't a bug, it's a feature. It allows you to give more money to Apple.
 
2011-10-19 10:24:30 AM
I have the Casio g'zOne Commando. ruggedized. Mil Spectested with MIL-STD 516.6 Procedure IV.(dropped 26 times from 4ft). not sure if it means anything. so far only dropped it once...face down, no damage. Oh and it's water proof to boot!
 
2011-10-19 10:26:03 AM
Apple phone: Repeatedly destroyed from simple falls
Samsung phone: No problems, just a few scuffs on the edges.

Went to SquareTrade:
- Any Iphone warranty for 2 years: $125, on sale for $100
- Any Android phone warranty for 2 years: $125

So shop around / don't use Squaretrade for either android phones or cheaper iPhone models. But if you have the top of the line, most expensive and most likely to break iPhone, it's good insurance.
 
2011-10-19 10:33:43 AM
Hence the market for cases/covers for these devices to avoid shiat like that.
 
2011-10-19 10:35:32 AM
Samsung Galaxy SII - weight 116 grams.
iPhone 4S - weight 140 grams.

That might have affected the impact results.
 
2011-10-19 10:37:29 AM
People who have glass iPhones shouldn't throw them like stones.
 
2011-10-19 10:38:25 AM

kingoomieiii: PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.

Well, I mean, not to get in the way of your obvious white knighting, it was a reasonable stress test for the phones. People tend to, you know, drop them.


Give him a break, he's still in mourning.
 
2011-10-19 10:41:45 AM

kingoomieiii: PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.

Well, I mean, not to get in the way of your obvious white knighting, it was a reasonable stress test for the phones. People tend to, you know, drop them.


Obvious white knighting?

Anyway, it was a stupid test because while it may appear the phone were held exactly the same way at exactly the same hight, they were not. Consequently, if the points of impact were slightly different, and they most certainly were, then the tests were a complete waste of time . . . and money.
 
2011-10-19 10:42:00 AM
This was very scientific. These results matter.
 
2011-10-19 10:42:33 AM

PsyLord: Samsung Galaxy SII - weight 116 grams.
iPhone 4S - weight 140 grams.

That might have affected the impact results.


Ummm obviously. Maybe also the fact that the back is not glass either.
 
2011-10-19 10:46:22 AM
I have an iPhone 4 I broke the back glass within a month of getting it, I replaced it with an aluminum back from Amazon, I dont know why apple didn't put one of these on in the 1st place.
 
2011-10-19 10:49:31 AM
Now do the test 100 more times. If the results are generally the same, I will be convinced that the Samsung handles drops better than the iPhone.

I have dropped my iPhone 4 with no case 10+times. 1 small scratch on the back, 2 corners have visible damage. Phone works perfectly fine, no broken glass.
 
2011-10-19 10:51:37 AM

PsyLord: Samsung Galaxy SII - weight 116 grams.
iPhone 4S - weight 140 grams.

That might have affected the impact results.


so now heavier is better for apple? my how the mighty have fallen... see what i did there.

gravity is a biatch to the obese.

i have a sanyo taho. i can beat the shiat out of it and it will still work fine... the drop test on it was from 2 stories. the front cover popped out a little but was able to be popped back into place. i couldn't own either of the phones in the video... i would break them way too fast, and with what they cost... i would go broke fast.
 
2011-10-19 10:53:55 AM

chewielouie: kingoomieiii: PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.

Well, I mean, not to get in the way of your obvious white knighting, it was a reasonable stress test for the phones. People tend to, you know, drop them.

Obvious white knighting?

Anyway, it was a stupid test because while it may appear the phone were held exactly the same way at exactly the same hight, they were not. Consequently, if the points of impact were slightly different, and they most certainly were, then the tests were a complete waste of time . . . and money.


WOW... its really that big a deal to you?
 
2011-10-19 10:55:24 AM
Oh, this thread again.
 
2011-10-19 10:58:40 AM
I have a Ballistic (brand) case on my iPhone 4. On their site, they dropped one in a case from 30 feet repeatedly, no damage to the phone. It adds bulk, and as Apple says "ruins the aesthetic of the phone design" but I know that WHEN (not if) I drop this thing, it's not gonna' end up costing me $300 to fix.
 
2011-10-19 11:06:26 AM

trey101: chewielouie: kingoomieiii: PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.

Well, I mean, not to get in the way of your obvious white knighting, it was a reasonable stress test for the phones. People tend to, you know, drop them.

Obvious white knighting?

Anyway, it was a stupid test because while it may appear the phone were held exactly the same way at exactly the same hight, they were not. Consequently, if the points of impact were slightly different, and they most certainly were, then the tests were a complete waste of time . . . and money.

WOW... its really that big a deal to you?


well, from an actually scientific point of view, it IS a very flawed test with an extremely small sample size, so the results are completely unreliable. Drop two items of comparable dimensions and mass, but drop them at different angles so that they impact on different portions of the device, and you will assuredly get two largely different outcomes in terms of damage.
 
2011-10-19 11:10:04 AM
Anyone who buys a +$200 phone and doesn't stick it in a case is asking for trouble.
 
2011-10-19 11:10:42 AM

msupf: trey101: chewielouie: kingoomieiii: PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.

Well, I mean, not to get in the way of your obvious white knighting, it was a reasonable stress test for the phones. People tend to, you know, drop them.

Obvious white knighting?

Anyway, it was a stupid test because while it may appear the phone were held exactly the same way at exactly the same hight, they were not. Consequently, if the points of impact were slightly different, and they most certainly were, then the tests were a complete waste of time . . . and money.

WOW... its really that big a deal to you?

well, from an actually scientific point of view, it IS a very flawed test with an extremely small sample size, so the results are completely unreliable. Drop two items of comparable dimensions and mass, but drop them at different angles so that they impact on different portions of the device, and you will assuredly get two largely different outcomes in terms of damage.


Yeah. That's why when they do these tests for realsies, they put the phone in a cradle at a predefined angle and drop a calibrated weight from a calibrated height:
www.sans.cn
 
2011-10-19 11:11:19 AM
Let he who is without phone cast the first phone.
 
2011-10-19 11:11:54 AM

msupf: well, from an actually scientific point of view, it IS a very flawed test with an extremely small sample size, so the results are completely unreliable.


I believe that was covered in the abstract of this paper, yes.

Oh, no, sorry, it's a youtube video.

It's obviously not conclusive. Though it's maybe intuitive that the phone covered in regular, non-durable GLASS might be a little more fragile than the plastic phone when it hits asphalt.

/iPhone 5- constructed of attractive, sustainable balsawood
//Don't squeeze it!
 
2011-10-19 11:16:09 AM
i wonder how the insurance excesses for the repairs compare
 
2011-10-19 11:16:22 AM

msupf: trey101: chewielouie: kingoomieiii: PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.

Well, I mean, not to get in the way of your obvious white knighting, it was a reasonable stress test for the phones. People tend to, you know, drop them.

Obvious white knighting?

Anyway, it was a stupid test because while it may appear the phone were held exactly the same way at exactly the same hight, they were not. Consequently, if the points of impact were slightly different, and they most certainly were, then the tests were a complete waste of time . . . and money.

WOW... its really that big a deal to you?

well, from an actually scientific point of view, it IS a very flawed test with an extremely small sample size, so the results are completely unreliable. Drop two items of comparable dimensions and mass, but drop them at different angles so that they impact on different portions of the device, and you will assuredly get two largely different outcomes in terms of damage.


I'd say that, in this particular case, it doesn't much matter on that scale. The fact is that in that they ARE different devices, they are bound to have different stress points. Dropping them exactly the same way won't actually provide any more meaningful results than what we see here.

There would have to be a series of fixed position manual collisions. Wherein the phone were held in a particular alignment, and an object was dropped on it/pushed into it, at sufficient velocity to simulate the phone itself falling. That way the structurally weak/strong points could be determined, and using that data a valid drop test performed.

In the end though, who really gives a shiat. This is a 'hey! this device seems to hold up better in these particular circumstances'. Big deal. I like Samsung phones, and do not like iPhones, but this particular data point has no impact on that choice, and I really doubt it will have an impact on anyone else decision making.
 
2011-10-19 11:16:50 AM

p4p3rm4t3: Let he who is without phone cast the first phone.


I don't own a cell phone, can I throw yours at someone?

/no cell phone in over 4 years, only had that one for a year because wife made me get it.
 
2011-10-19 11:17:42 AM
Theaetetus:

What he said....
 
2011-10-19 11:18:00 AM
img851.imageshack.us
/also what happened to this? I want my semi-impervious tricorder.
 
2011-10-19 11:19:09 AM
Isn't the Samsung shell made of plastic that wraps around the front? If so, this is entirely expected.
 
2011-10-19 11:25:13 AM

animal900: Isn't the Samsung shell made of plastic that wraps around the front? If so, this is entirely expected.


Yes, the back is plastic and wraps around the front, creating a thin border around the screen.

Do we really need a series of drop tests to tell us the glass phone is more fragile?
 
2011-10-19 11:25:37 AM
Any bets on whether Samsung rigged this?
 
2011-10-19 11:27:32 AM
This test is skewed as it can be. They should do a test of how awesome someone holding an iphone perceives themselves to be compared to someone holding a Samsung. Variables would be; are they wearing a black turtleneck? Are they taking turns holding line places for others OWS protestors at the Apple store for quick purchasing? Have the done all they could to promote Jobs Death Cult of Personality lately?
 
2011-10-19 11:29:14 AM
I just dropped my Charge (which is a Samsung) at the mall last weekend from about 5' and slightly gave it forward momentum trying to catch it. Fell right on the upper corner then slid on it's face. 0 Damage. All that happened is the SD Card moved a bit inside.

Then again I had a Droid X which was equally durable.

iPhones are made entirely of glass, regardless of drop height, the glass won't take repeated shocks just because ... well .. it's glass.

Either way, bogus test methods and that old chestnut...
 
2011-10-19 11:30:08 AM

Macinfarker: Any bets on whether Samsung rigged this?


Its a glass phone, is it really so shocking that it breaks easier than the plastic phone?
 
2011-10-19 11:34:16 AM

Macinfarker: Any bets on whether Samsung rigged this?


There's no need to. Apparently the iPhone is slightly heavier, and made of glass, so it's understandable results. However given that the results are understandable and pretty much pointless I don't understand why the Apple herd is bothered by this in the slightest.
 
2011-10-19 11:41:21 AM
Makes sense, the iPhone is heavier, uses glass, and its primarily designed to look slick and modern.

The Galaxy S2 is lighter, uses more plastics (which absorb shock better then metal), and Samsung doesn't care as much about aesthetics as Apple. Samsung engineers probably specifically designed parts of the case to help with drops and shock. Apple simply designed its case to look "sexy" and modern.

It all depends what you want in a phone. For it to be practical or sexy. As company share values will tell you, the majority of Americans prefer sexy over practical.
 
2011-10-19 11:44:19 AM
Its so strange how they make toddler's sippy cups out of plastic instead of glass. There's got to be a reason for this. I'm thinking that its either the powerful plastic lobby in Washington buying influence or a ploy by Samsung to discredit Apple.
 
2011-10-19 11:57:07 AM

PreMortem: That was an ignorant thing to do. Proves absolutely nothing except those people are idiots.

Why not just close your eyes and throw them over your shoulder? The results would be the same. Irrelavent.


But they said 3...2...1.

That makes it, like, an engineering test, right?
 
2011-10-19 12:00:24 PM

Namahs: As company share values will tell you, the majority of Americans prefer sexy over practical


Correction, the majority of money will be spend on sexy over practical.

Android has the majority or market share-- 56% as of September.

That being said, "aesthetics" and "sexy" are completely subjective. It wouldn't be hard for Samsung to blow a bunch of money on advertising to convince people that the aesthetic that their phones have is sexy, it's just not worth it to them.
 
2011-10-19 12:02:30 PM

dustlesswalnut: Correction, the majority of money will be was spend spent on sexy over practical.


FTFM
 
2011-10-19 12:03:19 PM

ericroane: I have the Casio g'zOne Commando. ruggedized. Mil Spectested with MIL-STD 516.6 Procedure IV.(dropped 26 times from 4ft). not sure if it means anything. so far only dropped it once...face down, no damage. Oh and it's water proof to boot!


Nice phone. However unless that screen is made from unobtanium I can break the thing in 10 seconds. I just need a fish tank of water. Accelerate phone in to edge of tank with your hand so it's got a nice big crack in it... then toss in to the tank. BzzzT. Pretty much what a guy at a trade show did to an 'indistructable' handset... much to the sales drones annoyance.

It's a good example of how passing some MILSpec procedures doesn't mean something is actually, MILSpec... as it just failed the grunt/squaddie boot to the face test.
 
2011-10-19 12:12:05 PM
A stunning revelation. I believe I shall design a case for these devices. A case with the sole purpose of limiting the effects of dropping such a device. Cya Fark, I'm off to strike it rich.
 
2011-10-19 12:13:20 PM

Shoop008: Now do the test 100 more times. If the results are generally the same, I will be convinced that the Samsung handles drops better than the iPhone.

I have dropped my iPhone 4 with no case 10+times. 1 small scratch on the back, 2 corners have visible damage. Phone works perfectly fine, no broken glass.


It doesn't need to be dropped 100 times. I understand this wasn't a rigourous testing process, and that there was some error in heights, angles, etc. But that's not the point.

The point is that just three drops a brand new phone suffered a lot of damage...probably more than it should have. The fact that the SII didn't suffer any real damage ...just mean that it didn't break on those three drops.

The fact that your phone didn't break, doesn't change the fact that this one did. Unless there was some B.S. trickery going on....the phone was dropped three times and is suffered some pretty serious damage.
 
2011-10-19 12:13:27 PM

Namahs: Makes sense, the iPhone is heavier, uses glass, and its primarily designed to look slick and modern.

The Galaxy S2 is lighter, uses more plastics (which absorb shock better then metal), and Samsung doesn't care as much about aesthetics as Apple. Samsung engineers probably specifically designed parts of the case to help with drops and shock. Apple simply designed its case to look "sexy" and modern.

It all depends what you want in a phone. For it to be practical or sexy. As company share values will tell you, the majority of Americans prefer sexy over practical.



Except that you have to hide your sexy phone in a case because it has a good chance of breaking if you drop it. The S2 is a very aesthetically pleasing phone too. The large glass screen with a thin body and textured back is very nice to look at.

My ipod touch 4 sits in a case mainly because I broke one almost immediately by dropping it although I convinced the Apple store geeks that it was broken when I got it (it wasn't activated or anything) while my galaxy s2 has only a screen protector and it has survived a few journeys from the couch to the wooden floor unscathed. CSB
 
2011-10-19 12:13:32 PM
This is not a surprise to anyone who doesn't care about their cellphone brand.
 
2011-10-19 12:18:47 PM

Theaetetus: Yeah. That's why when they do these tests for realsies, they put the phone in a cradle at a predefined angle and drop a calibrated weight from a calibrated height:


Got nothing to add to the discussion that hasn't already been said, though I agree that test isn't sciencey at all. But the picture in your post sets off Avast which then won't let it load.

Disclaimer -- I have a 4s and the case for it (and the case for the 3gs before that) were picked for damage free dropability.

/One of the few times I didn't just say I have a smart phone because it's one of the few times the brand might be relevant.
 
2011-10-19 12:20:07 PM
The glass that the iphone is made of is complete garbage. My sisters broke from falling onto the carpet. Not to mention is gets ridiculously cold in the winter time.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report