First off, let me say I now wish I had made my earlier comment to you privately. That wasn't an appropriate comment for the open thread.
> So, that said, if you have nothing technical to add, why are you here?
Actually, I had intended to add later comments on the technical issue; and you recall I agreed with your technical assessment and said so. But the tone of the thread threw me off, and after that first comment I had to drive to work, so now I'm back...
> Yeah, I'm being snippy, but I'm tired of always being attacked and treated as the bad guy (like you're doing here) for reporting OBJECTIVE data, and discussing technical reasons for why it came about. You don't like it? You're free to move to another thread...
Of course I am, thanks.
Note, however, that I did NOT take issue with you "reporting OBJECTIVE data, and discussing technical reasons for why it came about", whatsoever.
I chided you for -- as I saw it, remember -- setting a trap, gathering the resident anti-Apple folks for what promised to become a bash-fest, and waiting for pro-Apple folks to fall into it. You are free to do that, as I don't think there are any site rules about setting traps or any number of other things. I just thought it was unfortunate and unworthy of you. That's my opinion, you don't have to worry about it.
BTW, I think BunnySlippers was unwise to take the bait and give driftdiver a hard time for posting on an Apple thread. I'm not going to join their pissing match, but it pained me to see that happen. Oh, well.
> Got a problem with it, let's take it to private mail.
On reflection, I should have made my initial comment to you privately, and I now regret that I did not. Sorry about that, learned that lesson I think.
Meanwhile, having thought about the thread topic today, I stand by my comment over here:
Having glass on two sides rather than one presents twice as much chance of something breaking:I will be very interested to see what Apple does in the next release of the iPhone. I expect some changes with regard to the antenna and the glass.3GS = 2.1% cracked the front glass
4 = 3.9% cracked either the front glass or the rear glass
So to me, that sounds about right. Twice as much opportunity for something to break, and twice as many breaks.
I fail to see the big deal in these stats.
That's of course a different question from the technical issue of whether having glass on both sides was a good idea.
Personally, I'm quite sure it's NOT Gorilla Glass on the phone; Corning's never said so, and Apple has never stated so (Jobs simply said that Apple developed some new glass for the use). Gorilla Glass can take a huge amount of abuse. And the iPhone 4 cannot take what's being shown there.
It's a combination of a stronger glass that Apple bought somewhere - a glass that is more brittle, however - and the all-metal sides and less shock-mounting used. A downgrade all-around, and actual real-world results are proving it out.
Over a 2 year span, extrapolating these numbers, and we'd see a 30% screen break rate for the iPhone 4 - that's a HUGE failure rate over 2 years. Clearly there's a problem, and Apple better get on it to fix it (along with the antenna, and proximity sensor, and...)