Huh... bummer.

Post #386,219 by folkert 2/5/14 10:51:41 PM Reply	Huh... bummer. I switched from one of those Otterbox... to a Cruzerlite Gellie. My wife dropped her Galaxy Nexus (original) in an Otterbox from the top of the Pontiac Montana SV6 we have by driving off with it on top. It exploded and the phone was ruined. We got the new CruzerLite Gellies... and she nearly exactly duplicated the same drop. The phone survived unscathed. Ehhh. Whatever works. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec
Post #386,220 by Another Scott 2/5/14 11:18:57 PM Reply	Interesting. I got an Otterbox for our first iPad (v1). It seemed to offer a lot of protection, but it was big and heavy and expensive. The idea of using something like that on a phone seemed counterproductive (it would make it harder to put in a pocket, for one thing). I've got our Nexus 4 in a thin generic leather flip-cover like this (but not this exact item) - http://www.amazon.co...us/dp/B000LGAF0I/ . It's Ok, but not ideal. I've thought about what I would use if I got a Nexus 7 or iPad Mini or similar and hadn't found something that I was happy with. The Cruzerlite TPU case looks like it might be a good compromise. http://www.amazon.co...el/dp/B00EDNK64A/ Thanks for mentioning it! Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,225 by Ashton 2/6/14 4:27:45 AM Reply	This is a (real) 'Packaging Engineer' design task-- as re Tektronix and their drop-tests on packaged instruments (have mentioned that the UPS guy who came out here a couple times Was a real P.Engr.) As with packaging heads (cycle helmets and such) I'd think that plastic foam of different crush-rate layers would be the lightest and maybe least bulky direction --even if (as with helmets) you should replace one after it has done its work. A thin veneer of rosewood or Unicorn-feathers could do the styling disguise. (Considering the hi-tech of phones, it seems antediluvian to make some bulky hard-platic box when what you want is ABSORPTION/crush-rate.) What you Don't want is any rigid/bulletproof outer case with no such thought given to its innards. I heard that F=MA, so a tiny accelerometer in a dummy case is all the test. eq. needed. Should I patent one?
Post #386,228 by Another Scott 2/6/14 7:50:08 AM Reply	Absolutely! Patent away! :-) Of course, it's a tough hill to climb - the folks making cases no doubt have already patented the obvious (and many not so obvious) things... Accelerometers were important in things with hard drives - dunno if they'll help in protection for things with Flash RAM these days. Maybe if you tied an accelerometer into a phase change material that would go from hard to soft when it senses it is falling. ;-) The Otterbox Defender claims to address issues like that and have multiple layers to cover the various functional needs. But when you don't need those various protections (99% of the time), it gets in the way. http://www.otterbox....cgid=ipad-2-cases - $90 for the iPad v2 version (they don't sell the v1 version any more). :-/ If one is willing to spend $90 for a case, one probably has AppleCare+ for it as well ($99 ($90 at Amazon) + $50 for each incident (up to 2) for 2 years total coverage). AC+ might be a better value than the case. And there's things like SquareTrade with roughly similar damage coverage (maybe?) for an additional year for a similar price (but no deductible). FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #386,307 by Ashton 2/9/14 6:41:01 PM Reply	I was imprecise.. re accelerometer, meant only: for testing of your scheme. Clearly one needs One important datum: How-many-Gs' is Max allowed before the weakest (physical) link is trashed.? (This is apt to be a different value for various angles-of-impact --and nobody may have spent more than $10 exploring the matter.) Then set a "max-height above cement floor" which your device will permit, excluding your throwing the sucker at a wall, say. The rest is pretty simple concept, testing, execution, then surveying IF the bulk is Worth the safety -vs- paying the Insurance (#s you mentioned.) One thing is clear: I haven't seen an Otterbox, but if they are transmitting drop-shock directly to a phone --sans obvious physics of 'crumple-rate' of substances: they are certifiably Incompetent. Rest case.. er, case-about Cases. This stuff is fucking-Obvious, innit? (And ya Can't 'patent' physics ... unless Patent Law IS as fubar as oft reputed.)
Post #386,309 by drook 2/9/14 9:26:41 PM Reply	I suspect ... Phones are packed so tight, with so much on a single board, that the screen is far and away the most fragile piece. I've never heard/read a report of a phone being killed by a drop that it wasn't the screen that failed. -- Drew
Post #386,221 by pwhysall 2/6/14 2:00:23 AM Reply	Was it a "Defender" or a "Commuter"? The "Commuter" Otterboxes aren't nearly as massive (or as protective) as the "Defender"s.
Post #386,252 by folkert 2/6/14 6:19:38 PM Reply	Re: Was it a "Defender" or a "Commuter"? Neither of us recall... looking I can't say for sure but it looks like it was a "defender" Not 100% sure. -- greg@gregfolkert.net "No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible." --Stanislaw Jerzy Lec

Welcome to IWETHEY!