'Skimp' might not be the right word, but chose to leave out some structural rigidity to allow for a thinner phone. But it is confusing because I didn't hear any iPhone 5 or 5S users saying the phone was too thick, not sure where the necessity of change came from.It's old news. Of course Apple users want to hear it's nothing.
The fact remains they've skimped on structural integrity and because of the materials used, the phone stays bent. (unlike other phones that can bend, but don't keep the bent shape)
CR missed another point: the bend occurs at the weak button level, not in the center of the frame. Unfortunately for Apple's customers that have noticed the bend already, the phone does not choose to place itself in the pocket specifically with the center in the pressure point; it will arrange itself haphazardly, and if you're unlucky enough to put pressure on the weakest part of the frame, you're toast (well, the phone is).pills161 :While I'm not a fan of Apple, I think the report stating the problem is overblown is spot on. The amount of pressure needed to bend the phone is far beyond what would be normal use in someones pocket, and I figured there is no way Apple would make such a phone without going through extensive durability tests and real life trials to make sure it would stand up.
I'm a structural engineer. Consumer Reports tested the phones in a simply supported beam configuration - supports at the two ends, pushing down in the middle. The 90 pounds they measured to bend the iPhone 6 (70 for the 6+) is thus actually double the force needed to bend the phone. Basically, the right half is offering 45 pounds of resistance, the left half 45 pounds of resistance, and together they add up to 90 pounds of resistance.
If you place the phone in a cantilever configuration (e.g. one half held firmly in place by your butt, the other half free-floating and pressed upon by the back of a seat), by CR's test only 45 or 35 pounds of force against the seat is needed to bend the phone. Based on those forces, I'd say the problem is not at all overblown.
I am betting neither. I will go with business decision. Their testers are aware of the weak point. The editors are aware they don't want to release an article confirming a weakness in an Apple product because they may get scorned by Applites. So, they go with the middle ground - put it through a perfectly applicable test that disguises a greater weakness to an ignorant reader.So is Consumer Reports fraudulent or just incompetent? Discuss.