[richardjs]

When did durability stop being a factor used to assess a phone's quality? As someone who is somewhat accident prone (and who doesn't want to spend too much time fretting about protecting my phone), it's something I care about.

Granted, I don't this should be as big of an issue as some people are making it out to be, but I think the discussion should go beyond chastising owners for putting their phones in the wrong pocket. That's not much better than saying "you're holding it wrong."

If the back pocket is "not supported", that's fine, but when support is pulled on anything that people use, (however obscure or unwise its use may be), there's going to be friction.

[ghshephard]

Durability should be an important part of assessing a phone's quality. I think the issue here, is where do we drawn the dividing line on what's "reasonable" and "unreasonable" performance in that category.

I think it's reasonable to ask for phones that are water proof and shock proof. That is, a phone should be able to handle a dunk in the swimming pool, and should certainly be able to handle being dropped on a sidewalk. Both of those are every day events that happen to everyone. Until phones get to the point at which they can routinely handle both (neither of which any iPhone has ever been able to do), they come up lacking.

In addition, a phone should certainly not deform that much if it sits in a reasonable pocket.

On the flip side - I'm not expecting my phone to handle 200 pounds of force by me sitting on it on a hard surface repeatedly, particularly if there is hard edge/corner involved (which greatly increases the PSI the device has to handle). I also absolutely do not expect a phone to not deform if someone tries to bend it. People can bend freaking rebar, and I'm not expecting a phone to be structurally stronger than rebar.

That isn't to say you shouldn't be proud of your device if it can handle that amount of stress - I think it's definitely an advantage, it just isn't what I would consider the "minimum bar of performance for a smartphone."

[CountSessine]

When did durability stop being a factor used to assess a phone's quality?

When consumers expressed a clear preference for big, thin phones that offer a lot of mechanical advantage to their round butts when sitting on them.

it's something I care about

But not enough to buy a smaller, more durable phone? One with a thick, rubber or plastic exterior case? No? I didn't think so.

That's not much better than saying "you're holding it wrong."

Maybe people should take personal responsibility for breaking their belongings?

[richardjs]

But not enough to buy a smaller, more durable phone? One with a thick, rubber or plastic exterior case? No? I didn't think so.

I only just recently upgraded from an old feature phone to a Moto G. One of the major reasons I selected it was its relative cost versus other phones, and thus less worrying on my part about it (also, it was the cheapest phone Republic Wireless was offering). While that's not specifically buying based on durability, it's the same idea of being concerned about how much money you've sunk versus how easily it will break.

Even still, I don't go sitting on it (or, if I discover I'm sitting on it, I immediately cease the sitting action). I'm not arguing Apple should refund these people for their bent phones or anything, and I agree that people should take personal responsibility for their actions. I'm just fine with the potential lack of durability being discussed, which is the issue stevewepay originally mentioned.

EDIT: Upon further thinking, I agree that my comparison to "you're holding it wrong" is somewhat mistaken. While the grip one uses on a phone doesn't have any common-sense effects, putting a phone in your back pocket and sitting on it should have clear potential consequences, even if phones of the past typically had the durability to withstand it.