Gizmodo, really?
Actually, the original article - which I linked to - was written by Ryan Block for gdgt.com. I guess you didn't bother reading it.Gizmodo, really?
I read both, the Gizmodo rehash was given priority in your links.Actually, the original article - which I linked to - was written by Ryan Block for gdgt.com. I guess you didn't bother reading it.
Err, and the first paragraph in the Gizmodo article credits Ryan Block and links to the article on gdgt.com. I posted it first as it acted as a brief summary and didn't notice any glaring inaccuracies in their reporting, although I'm not a fan of the site.I read both, the Gizmodo rehash was given priority in your links.
it be a shame to lose something quite as beautifully engineered.
I'd argue that the various issues it's faced suggest that while it's beautifully designed, it's engineering is rather poor
I don't keep it in a case.
There's always bloody one
Me neither.
And also plenty of naked ones at work too.
So is it 82% more breakable because there is twice the amount of glass?With just 4 months of data, it's clear that the iPhone 4 is significantly more prone to physical damage than its predecessor. The aluminosilicate glass seem to crack at least as often as the old glass, and there is now twice as much surface area to break.
Despite this troubling increase, it's important to take the accident rate into perspective. Overall, the iPhone is still a very well constructed device, with a non-accident malfunction rate much lower than most other consumer electronics.
According to this study the iPhone 4 has already proved to be 82 per cent 'more breakable' than the 3GS: http://www.squaretrade.com/pages/iphone4-glass-study