Apple Watch

grumbler

boo_star wrote: »

As a scientist you would surely know the physics that would make it possible?

If the screen protector cracks then it has clearly absorbed some of the energy of the impact. If there's less energy hitting the screen it's less likely to crack itself.

What you say is pseudo-science, not science. How 'less likely'?
The amount of energy needed to break the thinnest layer of glass is negligibly small compared to the one needed to break the screen.
I think the plastic layer is more important as it distributes the force and reduces the stress concentration in the point of impact, but effect of even this is negligible.
I had an opportunity to check this personally in experiments with a pretty thick anti-vandal adhesive film for windows. Indeed, it was very hard to rip and break through, but had no visible effect on the glass resistance to impacts.

boo_star

grumbler wrote: »

What you say is pseudo-science, not science. How 'less likely'?
The amount of energy needed to break the thinnest layer of glass is negligibly small compared to the one needed to break the screen.
I think the plastic layer is more important as it distributes the force and reduces the stress concentration in the point of impact, but effect of even this is negligible.
I had an opportunity to check this personally in experiments with a pretty thick anti-vandal adhesive film for windows. Indeed, it was very hard to rip and break through, but had no visible effect on the glass resistance to impacts.

The glass absorbs the force and distributes it across itself (and to the glass below it to some extent). That's why it cracks/shatters.

Whilst you may be correct about anti-vandal film coverings, don't think that the film used in the average phone screen protector is close to that.

callum9999

boo_star wrote: »

As a scientist you would surely know the physics that would make it possible?

If the screen protector cracks then it has clearly absorbed some of the energy of the impact. If there's less energy hitting the screen it's less likely to crack itself.

If only someone had mentioned that... Like me... In the very post you quoted... Almost word for word...

What you say isn't remotely pseudo-science, but it's unquantified. It can reduce the energy entering the phone while simultaneously allowing enough through to still crack it. I also doubt it's remotely comparable to anti-vandal sheeting on a window - completely different scenario. It's more comparable to double glazing, where the outside pane might crack but the inside doesn't (though even that's not remotely comparable due to the wildly different glass and cavity thickness).

Hence why I said I suspect it does prevent screens from cracking in a few limited scenarios (it's why I have one), but I'd want to see it specifically proven.

Voyager2002

wardlc wrote: »

We bought are daughter an Apple Watch for her birthday end of April . She dropped it only 2 ft and the screen smashed . Took it into apple today and explained what had happened and they said it would be £170 to fix . Very upset but if I had known that they could break so easily I would have never bought it . Do you think I could try and claim on a section 75 ,

The credit card provider is liable in precisely the same way as the retailer...

Now, if you bought the watch and were told (or given the impression) that it was a sports watch, and so sufficiently tough to be worn while playing sport, then you might be able to argue that it was not fit for the purpose for which it was sold. Could you convince a court of this? If you think so, then your first step would be to write to the retailer, and also to the card company.

chuckley

wardlc wrote: »

Thought it be a bit stronger than that being a sports watch ,in the store when we bought it they said it was pretty strong ,wish they would of said they were easily broken would of stayed well clear ,

just because it has 'sport' in the name, doesn't mean it's an actual sports watch. did you bother to check the durable features, if any?

chanz4

the ops daughter dropped it

Bogof_Babe

Literally two feet? What on earth did she drop it onto?

I've just ordered a silicone casing for mine. It should protect against accidental knocks, even if not dropping onto concrete from a great height.

SuperAllyB

Voyager2002 wrote: »

The credit card provider is liable in precisely the same way as the retailer...

Now, if you bought the watch and were told (or given the impression) that it was a sports watch, and so sufficiently tough to be worn while playing sport, then you might be able to argue that it was not fit for the purpose for which it was sold. Could you convince a court of this? If you think so, then your first step would be to write to the retailer, and also to the card company.

I've been trying to think if a sport that involves dropping your watch 2 feet onto a hard surface.

eddddy

It's probably worth relating all this back to whether a s75 claim is likely to be successful.

S75 specifically relates to breach of contract (including statutory implied contract terms) and/or misrepresentation.

So examples of the type of claim you could make might include:

- The watch wasn't of satisfactory quality or wasn't fit for purpose or wasn't as described (i.e. a breach of the statutory implied contract terms)

- The damage is covered by the warranty, but they are refusing to fulfil their obligations under the warranty (i.e. breach of contract)

- The person selling the watch misled you or you saw adverts that misled you before you bought the watch (i.e. misrepresentation)


You would have to judge which, if any, of those apply.