What a bullsh*it test. The iPhone took a bunch of indirect hits, while the SIII took direct hits. Drop on face versus back? Beer bottle flat across face, versus a corner directly on the screen? Really?
I never take much stock in these tests. They are not professionally done, nor do they even attempt to make the testing fair. Drop iPhone 5 on pillow, run GS3 over with car, omg the GS3 screen is destroyed!
[citation][nom]Antimatter79[/nom]Ok, if the tests weren't even done fairly, what was the point of even posting the article?[/citation]
Agreed, if there's too much lack of control on the testing, then accurate conclusions that mean something cannot be drawn.
iPhone will stand up better to drops/hits. I hear its the scratching of the casing thats the problem. Of course Samsung fan boys will deny any claims that SIII is not perfect...lol. Yes bash any Apple fan boys for praising their products. Interesting isn't it? lol
[citation][nom]robochump[/nom]iPhone will stand up better to drops/hits. I hear its the scratching of the casing thats the problem. Of course Samsung fan boys will deny any claims that SIII is not perfect...lol. Yes bash any Apple fan boys for praising their products. Interesting isn't it? lol[/citation]
I'm not particularly a fan of any phone camp (come on guys, it's a phone... not your child, the crowning jewel of your life achievements... it's a fashion statement, not a way of life =-p). However, the whole point of calling something a "test" and publishing results is to do it in a controlled environment with all tests being equal.
It's like the "Ubuntu is faster than Windows, because it takes longer to load Windows in my Virtual Box than Ubuntu" article from years ago - Where Ubuntu was the host loading the VM.
Let me ask a few questions:
1) Did Squaretrade intentionally dropped iP5 and GS3 in the particular manner, i.e. iP5 on edge while GS3 on face?
2) Is it possible to intentionally do so?
3) What does it mean if Squaretrade did so on purpose? Obvious answer, IMO.
4) But, what does it mean if Squaretrade did not do so on purpose? The answer would not be so obvious, but much more interesting, right?
There's an easier way to test this, just build a test chamber with a guide to hold the phone steady. It will cost maybe a hundred dollars, but you can reuse the chamber on future tests. Or you can get the mythbusters to sponsor you
Beer drop test was also unfair. The edge of the bottle landed perfectly on the screen, while with the iphone it landed across it so it was spread across more surface area. So sad that people can do clearly unfair testing and people will claim it as proof. This is about as bad as Cnet's face off of the iphone 5 and the S3.
Worst attempt at a valid test I've ever seen. Any idiot can recognize the huge differences between what happened between the 2 phones (i.e. beer bottle on the iPhone landing across the edge of the phone) and they have absolutely no replication to control for any kind of statistical variation. They need multiple of each tests with multiple of each phone, not to mention more consistent tests (dropping things by hand is NOT consistent). Even mythbusters manages to pull off more scientifically valid stuff than this.
Lets be honest and say any smartphone has issues taking abuse like this and lets also say the tests were done unfair and lets also say Apple already knows its users are dumb and drop their phone all the time and samsung expects to much out of its users.