Aluminium vs. Plastic, "premium materials", and the need to stop nonsensical criticism.

[Smooth Operator]

It's just another case of dumbass reviews, people who will share their feelings on a product instead of factual information which is what you need for an actual informed purchase.

 

[J Tyran]

Nice OP, I like the research on material costs. Very interesting overall

There are a couple of other things to consider when judging the costs of the materials in such applications. Aluminium needs to be machined to the desired shape, which takes time, energy and means you get a lot of wastage.

Not really, it does take time and energy and investment of course but the cost for each form cut is negligible. There are various laser and waterjet cutters that cost about $250,000 per machine with efficient running costs that cut thousands of small forms in an hour, from there its a simple press then off to powder coat or anodisation (which is probably the most expensive part at around 1/5th of the net cost of each piece). The old days of CNC machining for thin sheets of metal are long gone, the machines are computerised and incredibly accurate and can leave a few human hairs width of space between each cut. All the waste is shipped back to the foundry that produced the rolls of sheet metal and discounts future shipments, all of the swarf and left over forms and pieces that fail QC are bailed and sent back this way.

 

[Gibbatron]

Nice OP, I like the research on material costs. Very interesting overall

There are a couple of other things to consider when judging the costs of the materials in such applications. Aluminium needs to be machined to the desired shape, which takes time, energy and means you get a lot of wastage.

Not really, it does take time and energy and investment of course but the cost for each form cut is negligible. There are various laser and waterjet cutters that cost about $250,000 per machine with efficient running costs that cut thousands of small forms in an hour, from there its a simple press then off to powder coat or anodisation (which is probably the most expensive part at around 1/5th of the net cost of each piece). The old days of CNC machining for thin sheets of metal are long gone, the machines are computerised and incredibly accurate and can leave a few human hairs width of space between each cut. All the waste is shipped back to the foundry that produced the rolls of sheet metal and discounts future shipments, all of the swarf and left over forms and pieces that fail QC are bailed and sent back this way.

This is true for some pieces, however not everything is a pressed sheet design. The HTC One, for example, is milled from a block of aluminium. I'm sure you are able to recover most of the wasted material but it is additional cost.

One other thing I forgot to mention is that when quoting $/tonne figures you need to take into account the density of the material and the amount used. Aluminium is more dense than plastic but the final thicknesses are much the same, in fact plastic is probably thinner. This means a tonne of plastic will make more devices than a tonne of aluminium, even if you didn't get any wastage.

 

[JayRPG]

Reading your post, I have changed my mind about plastic phones. It may feel and look better with metal, but apparently plastic is a better material, and this surprises me! Good luck changing the mindset of the consumer though. Metal will always be a premium material in the mind of most people. I'd like to know what you think of metal as a build material for larger consumer electronics, like laptops. I'm currently on a laptop with a case made entirely from magneisum-aluminium alloy, and it doesn't feel very bendable to me. In my entirely subjective and biased opinion, it feels much more sturdy than a plastic case. It doesn't bend, squeak or sound hollow as all the other laptops made from plastic I have tried.

I don't detest the use of metals on electronic products, but I do detest the use specifically of Aluminium for the all the reasons in the original post. It's just not premium, suitable, or good in any way but companies can sell their products at a premium over other (objectively better and better made products) because of their supposed "premium" materials.

Magnesium alloy is a premium material, it is expensive, it is semi rare and it has good properties.

Magnesium alloy is a relatively flexible material, however, it has a high resistance to stress fractures.

Aluminium is an extremely flexible (pliable) material and has a crippling weakness to stress fractures, a lot of the iPhone 6 bend test videos showed the owners trying to bend them back into shape, and more often than not the aluminium would tear or snap in half. This is a stress fracture and it is just one more reason aluminium isn't suitable for an electronic device.

The bend test of the Galaxy note 4 (which has a magnesium alloy frame) bent a little bit, I won't down play it because it did bend (though no where near as much as the similarly sized aluminium iPhone 6 plus) but the tester was able to bend it back to perfectly straight in a few seconds with no signs of damage or that it had been bent.

This bending vulnerability appeared on the note 4 which moved from an all plastic construction (from the note 3) to a metal one that everybody is crying out for. Consumers really are all about facade over function.

To answer your question though, Laptops are a different area, there are lots of things a laptop can be made out of to be premium other than metal as well, there are a few carbon fibre laptops, magnesium alloys and magnesium based build materials are very popular too. With laptops, the amount of material you are using is a lot thicker than a mobile or tablet device which should mean that bending won't be an issue. Aluminium is still far from the best material, even in thicker uses like the Macbook, while a macbook doesn't bend, it is very easy to dent. Magnesium alloys are not so easily damaged.

Who doesn't put their smartphone in some sort of case?
I can't stand how my samsung s3 feels out of its comfortable, grippy artificial leather case with a flap.
It's slippery, thin and feels fragile and I don't want to hold something so thin in my hand, it just feels awkward which also has to do with its price point of ~200 bucks.
I'd imagine it's that times 100 for the latest iphone.

The reason why aluminium is regarded as "premium" is because it's metal. I don't think it's all entirely apples marketing.
Metal always had the connotation of being high quality and robust in contrast to the cheap plastic.

Samsung basically gave consumers the grippy artificial leather case with the Note 3 and Note 4, by making the back out of synthetic leather, but it is still seen as cheap by reviewers and consumers despite the costs involved and how functional and good it feels (and looks, in my opinion, I often get the question in regards to my note 3 if that leather backing is a case and most are stunned to find out that that is how it comes out of the box).

As for your second line, it is all apple's and HTC's marketing in regards to aluminium, because aluminium is not regarded by most people as being a premium material. In fact, most people connect aluminium with coca cola cans and tin foil.

That is what this post was about, quite often people will compare metals like titanium to plastics like a water bottle and claim that metal is expensive and plastic is cheap; but the reverse is true when we are talking about electronic devices, the comparison is the material coke cans and tin foil are made out of in comparison to plastics like polycarbonate which are used to make bullet proof "glass" (bullet proof glass is rarely glass, it is more often than not, Lexan or polycarbonate, both plastics).

Plastic doesn't mean cheap, and metal doesn't mean expensive. There are equally crappy and premium materials on both sides, and as explained in detail in the original post, plastics are more expensive, of higher quality, are stronger and more suitable than most metals (aluminium) used in "premium" phones.

But, but Apple said all metal casing was cool! /snark

While I generally care more about how well the phone is designed vs materials (why the hell aren't the screens of every phone made from gorilla glass or something equivalent?), the biggest issue I have is with batteries. Lithium-ion rechargeable technology has been around for decades, we need something better. Now that more and more phones are shipped as sealed units, it's almost impossible for the average consumer to get a new battery and install it on their own. All this does is add to the general carelessness many people have with their phones because they know in a couple years it'll effectively be useless.

I have a nokia lumia 925 and I know for a fact it's a hell of a lot more durable than of the iphones my friends have had, but alas I know in another year or so it's battery will finally hit that point where I have to replace the whole fucking phone because it's somehow cheaper than fixing it. Also, it is really tempting to walk into a cell phone store and bend all of the iphone 6s on display.

Agreed on the gorilla glass front, though most phones these days do come with at least an equivalent, which is good. The laggards definitely need to catch up.

There are some good developments happening on the battery front but we are still at least a few years away from something at consumer level, lithium-ion is just the best they can do at the moment (to still remain cost effective and functional). Now you mentioned the sealed units part, and this is another gripe I have with reviewers who mark down Samsungs (and older LGs, and other earlier plastic phones) on their "cheap" plastic backing (which is anything but, especially on the note line which is synthetic leather) but they never mark it up for having an actual function... it's removable, so you can replace the battery, and you can have your micro SD card and sim card behind the back so you don't have ugly flaps and holes on the sides.

Having a removable back is both aesthetically pleasing, for the most part, and more functional. The faux leather back on the note 3 and note 4 don't look cheap to me, or to anyone that has ever held my note 3 and commented on how nice it felt and looked with fake stitching and all, and it serves the great function of being removable which is not only great for the card slots and battery, but cases as well, a flip case is usually big and bulky, but on phones with removable backs you can by flip cases that replace the back that comes with the phone, so now it's completely protected with only millimeters of difference in thickness over a traditional flip case which could add several centimeters and push the weight up too.

On the Nokia front, it is more about their choice of material (solid polycarbonate) that makes a removable back impractical. Polycarbonate is an extremely strong and durable plastic (used to make bullet proof "glass" as already mentioned in this post earlier) but it's strength lies in it being a solid piece. All Nokia's now are made of 1 solid piece of polycarbonate, they really are near indestructible, there are several reports of the Lumia series actually repelling a bullet, including a cop who's lumia 520 caught a stray bullet and nothing but the screen smashed, the bullet didn't penetrate the phone and the phone's internals were fully functional (though the screen was smashed).

How on earth a phone that can withstand a bullet doesn't win every build quality award in the world is exactly what is wrong with the emphasis on aluminium we have had for the last few years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On an unrelated note, thanks everyone for the discussion and I'm glad some of you enjoyed it, this was mainly incoherent ramblings in my head that had been building up over the last few years.

I honestly believe that we will be in a better place as consumers when companies drop Aluminium altogether; It is just a shame that clever marketing has caused consumers to discount the one perfect material we already have for electronic devices (especially light and thin ones!): Plastic.

 

[Flatfrog]

they really are near indestructible, there are several reports of the Lumia series actually repelling a bullet, including a cop who's lumia 520 caught a stray bullet and nothing but the screen smashed, the bullet didn't penetrate the phone and the phone internals were fully functional (though the screen was smashed).

I've seen enough Mythbusters episodes to doubt these reports a bit! But I take your point anyway.

 

[JayRPG]

they really are near indestructible, there are several reports of the Lumia series actually repelling a bullet, including a cop who's lumia 520 caught a stray bullet and nothing but the screen smashed, the bullet didn't penetrate the phone and the phone internals were fully functional (though the screen was smashed).

I've seen enough Mythbusters episodes to doubt these reports a bit! But I take your point anyway.

Mythbusters did the bullet proof testing on 1/2" Lexan polycarbonate and found it to be bullet proof against pistols. Half inch Lexan polycarbonate is 12.7mm thick and the Lumia 520 made of the same material (solid polycarbonate) is 11.2mm thick.

I am highly skeptical of claims like this too, but this would seem to be pretty believable.