[gerG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by vulc4n http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/nano.ars/3 Everyones seen that review right? Other than the LCD the Nano is a tank!

Please take that "test" in the spirit of the disclaimer at the beginning of the article. It was a very vaguely configured test, with countless uncontrolled factors. Throwing the device out the car window at 50 mph is not much punishment if it just skitters along the surface and absorbs the horizontal momentum as friction. Running over it only applies a pressure of 32 psi over the surface (less if their tires were low). Impact drops normal to a surface with the device impacting on a corner are much higher stress. Bending and twisting are also parameters that need to be tested.

I am not criticising the ars guys, it was a fun article. I am only suggesting that not much can be concluded from those specific tests.

gerG

 

[kloan]

agreed.

What a lot of people are failing to realize is that these guys didn't do anything to break their screens. They didn't sit on them, put them in a pocket with a brick, or anything else that would be considered negligent.

Is it impossible to believe that maybe some LCDs can rupture for some other reason than applied force? Perhaps a defective invertor or some other variable causing too much heat or maybe the LCD was just very weak... who knows? When someone says they didn't sit on it, I believe them.. call me crazy.

It's certainly not widespread or else we'd be hearing more of it.. there are lots of people putting them in their pockets with no effect (save for a few scratches).

Yes the plastic above the LCD flexes slightly, but the nano is rock solid, it doesn't flex, and I certainly don't think it's a design flaw. Well actually, it would've been nice to use a more scratch resistant plastic.... but what can you do.... they did afterall have to make it thinner than a 2B pencil!! How else would it sell?

 

[RedLeader]

exactly. If someone wants to lend me their nano, I'll subject it to some twisting and bending tests

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerG Running over it only applies a pressure of 32 psi over the surface (less if their tires were low). .... I am not criticising the ars guys, it was a fun article. I am only suggesting that not much can be concluded from those specific tests. gerG

Then again, an M1A2 Abrahms MBT exerts about the same ground pressure as a fully equipped infantryman, but rumor has it they hurt like hell if they run over you.

What is worthwhile from the "test" is that the Nano will likely survive a typical fall. And I certainly wouldn't want to subject any HDD-based DAP to similar abuse.

 

[lal316l]

The site seems to have been closed by Apple. I wonder why.

 

[dskywalker]

Well maybe the site was hecked by some Apple fanboy.

 

[gerG]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spad Then again, an M1A2 Abrahms MBT exerts about the same ground pressure as a fully equipped infantryman, but rumor has it they hurt like hell if they run over you.

The tank, or the fully loaded infantryman?

Actually my assumption of uniform pressure was for a smooth surface under the ipod. I suspect that there was a local anomally (aka rock) which caused a point load or bending load. Just a guess.


gerG

 

[blessingx]

This may be telling. iPodResQ has just implemented a "temporary price increase on the nano LCD repair due to LCD availability and overwhelming demand."

 

[Spad]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerG I suspect that there was a local anomally (aka rock) which caused a point load or bending load. Just a guess.

I agree. Rock is probably much more likely to crack the screen than something soothing like chamber music.

 

[scottder]

Umm sorry but the fact that lcd screens are kinda fragile isn't really news. Sorry

 

[lal316l]

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottder Umm sorry but the fact that lcd screens are kinda fragile isn't really news. Sorry

I don't think that's the issue here. The issue is the durability of the Nano's screen specifically which questions the quality of Nanos and Apple in general.

 

[blessingx]

Yeah, Jobs specifically made the point the the nano could be carried in the small inner front jean pocket (whatever that one is called), which you'd assume would bend often. Although I was amazed at the sturdiness of the nano when I saw it in an Apple store (yes I tried to flex it

), if it can't even withstand the bending in a jeans pocket (walking, sitting, etc.), it's a design flaw. The flash based nano should at least be as durable as the hard drive based iPods.

I'd be tempted to doubt the wide ranging problem from the original post (remember the constantly reoccurring mention of the inaccurate 18 month iPod battery-life video?), but that iPodResQ link seems to lend weight.

 

[vranswer]

I don't know, man, I guess I'm just a little more protective of my gear. Whether or not the nano "should" be able to withstand pocket pressure is moot for my personal rules. Like the other players I have, I simply have invested too much green into them, so I care for them accordingly. I don't believe an aftermarket case, complete with belt clip, is an unreasonable precaution against damage.

Occasionally I might brush up against something with iPod-on-hip which will elicit the customary "****h!" (I have a lispth)...but for the most part my DAPs are well-protected and easily accessed.

 

[RedLeader]

and from what I now hear, alot of people are having problems with them scratching really, really easily, especially on the screen.

 

[ripfrankwhite]

Just keep it covered to avoid scratches. But there isn't much we can do about the allegedly fragile screens. They are supposed to be kept in your pocket. The site that did that stress test should have done some pocket testing instead of throwing it around.