Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Protecting Your Tablet From a Fall From Space

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the nobody-can-hear-your-ipad-fall dept.

Apple 130

First time accepted submitter xwwt writes "G-Form has a nice video of an iPad launched into the stratosphere via weather balloon and protected using its new protective gear 'Extreme Edge' to see how well the gear worked in the iPad free fall to Earth. The gear is being introduced at this year's CES where our own timothy will be attending and reviewing new products. The cool part of this whole video is really that the iPad survives the free fall from space, remaining fully functional."

cancel ×

130 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Could've been awesome. (5, Funny)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653618)

...the iPad survives the free fall from space...

Aw, shucks! I would've preferred video of a different outcome.

Also, we've had better slashvertisements.

TIMOTHY? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653784)

TIMOTHY? SERIOUSLY? You're going to write off travel expenses for TIMOTHY?
 
TIMOTHY reviewing products? The moron couldn't even install batteries in his mom's vibrator. I don't see how he's going to be able to figure out how to use iPads, mice, microphones, USB devices, games, etc.

Re:Could've been awesome. (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654036)

Also, we've had better slashvertisements.

G-Form *cha-ching* 'Extreme Edge' *cha-ching*...

Worst thing I've see all day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38654278)

...this year's CES where our own timothy will be attending and reviewing new products....

Aw, shucks! I would've preferred a competent /. editor.

Re:Worst thing I've see all day (-1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654316)

Might as well ask for an honest politician or deterministic female logic...

You know what else works? (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655770)

A parachute.

Re:Could've been awesome. (1)

PNutts (199112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656056)

Why a different outcome? It just a bunch of electronic components squeezed together. The less moving parts the less to break. It's not like they dropped Apple the company (however seeing an actual apple smash at the end would be cool).

and the camera they took it with? (5, Insightful)

BabaChazz (917957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653640)

Appeared on Fark a couple days ago, with the comment that the (unprotected) camera they used to document the flight and fall also survived. So...

Re:and the camera they took it with? (-1, Redundant)

Cyphase (907627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653882)

So did the unprotected metal rod. The camera they used is not an iPad. Therefore your point is invalid. ;)

Re:and the camera they took it with? (5, Funny)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653994)

So did the unprotected metal rod.

Did it win an 'Employee of the Month' award and get a parade?

Re:and the camera they took it with? (2)

doramjan (766519) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654146)

Wow! Did you actually get to *see* the rod?

Re:and the camera they took it with? (1)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656560)

Stupid carbon rod. It's all just a popularity contest!

Re:and the camera they took it with? (0)

Cyphase (907627) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654564)

My point was that, like the metal rod, the camera surviving unprotected doesn't mean the iPad would have survived unprotected. That said, they probably could have spared some cash to show that an unprotected iPad would not have survived.

Re:and the camera they took it with? (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655106)

Honestly, the way it was falling tells me it was weighted to fall with the face pointing up. Plus it lands face up, let's try that again making sure it lands face down without an arm making sure it does not land on the glass front.

Re:and the camera they took it with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38656564)

Aww, they were about to show some closeups of the rod...

Re:and the camera they took it with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38654266)

Appeared on Fark a couple days ago, with the comment that the (unprotected) camera they used to document the flight and fall also survived. So...

Hardly "unprotected". It looks like a GoPro, which has a very nice polycarbonate shell.

Re:and the camera they took it with? (2)

The Great Pretender (975978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655046)

Apparently it was also weighted so it wouldn't land screen down.

Re:and the camera they took it with? (4, Informative)

Jjeff1 (636051) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655404)

The camera isn't exactly unprotected. It's a GoPro Hero, which comes with a fairly thick acrylic case. They're designed to be attached to all sorts of stuff for extreme sports. Among other things, they're water proof to 180 feet.

Re:and the camera they took it with? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38655592)

It's still VERY impressive that the camera continued to work perfectly even after a good hard impact.

I was much more impressed with the GoPro than I was with the strategically weighted and FUCKING HUGE iPad case.

Why would anyone want to turn their iPad into a bright yellow Toughbook?

Re:and the camera they took it with? (1)

BabaChazz (917957) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656268)

So maybe GoPro should make an iPad case?

Misleading title (5, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653710)

Contrary to popular belief, balloons still can't fly in space.

Re:Misleading title (4, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653818)

They don't really fly in the atmosphere, either.

Re:Misleading title (1)

pahles (701275) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655530)

I don't see the word 'balloon' in the title, so how can this be funny?

Re:Misleading title (2)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655562)

Better let NASA know that they haven't sent up balloons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echo_satellite [wikipedia.org]

For balloons ascending to space *as* balloons, you don't need orbital velocity, just get high enough. None have broken 53km. Since the height varies between agencies (usually 100km, with some using 50 miles, which is about 80km), different people have been recognized as astronauts (USAF vs. NASA). Repeat in different countries. Looking up this balloon, it got to 30km, which is well below either definition.

So, yes... balloons have been sent to space (with other means of propulsion). No, this one did not. It failed to get halfway to the most generous limit, and less than a third of the most commonly accepted threshold.

Re:Misleading title (1)

chrismcb (983081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656782)

Contrary to popular belief, balloons still can't fly in space.

What do they do? Fall to the ground?

Why so high? (5, Insightful)

rHBa (976986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653712)

Wouldn't it reach terminal velocity from a few hundred meters?

Re:Why so high? (4, Insightful)

MetalliQaZ (539913) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653724)

Publicity.

Re:Why so high? (2)

Whiternoise (1408981) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653766)

The amusing part is that it would actually reach a slower terminal velocity as the atmospheric density increases.

Re:Why so high? (2)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656362)

yea but impact velocity is the same and that's what counts.

Re:Why so high? (2)

ricky-road-flats (770129) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653880)

Maybe to get that beautiful video of the awesome view of the Earth from so high it was curved? And the cool way the balloon got so big it almost looked like a straight line on the video and then popped - also cool. Or to put it another way, why the fuck not?

Re:Why so high? (5, Informative)

FunkyELF (609131) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655126)

It was curved because of a wide angle lens.
With that lens you can see a curved earth from sea level if the center is above the horizon.
When the center is below the horizon you get a concave looking earth.
Didn't you notice how the earth appeared concave up there too?

Re:Why so high? (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655842)

And me with no mod points to make this informative. I was wandering how that happened in the video.

Re:Why so high? (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653940)

If it was running telnet, then all velocities would be terminal.

Re:Why so high? (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653964)

Why? Publicity stunt.

Re:Why so high? (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654998)

No, that's only true in the denser parts of the atmosphere. It would be in near free fall until perhaps 50-60k feet.

Re:Why so high? (2)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655430)

Yes. Anything over 1000 meters is overkill if you care about impact.

But if you also want to demonstrate the ability to continue to work when exposed to excess radiation/sunlight and lower air pressure, then the "edge of space" drop makes more sense.

Re:Why so high? (2)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656384)

don't forget low temperatures. I doubt the cover does much for those conditions though.

Re:Why so high? (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655798)

Not only that, but it was configured with the attached weight to fall flat, increasing its drag and lowering it's terminal velocity.

"Space", my ass (2)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653728)

30,500 meters is NOT space, and falling from stationary at 30,500 meters is nothing at all like re-entering from REAL space at full orbital velocity.

Re:"Space", my ass (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653764)

video claimed 150,000 and sped the rise and fall with montage

Re:"Space", my ass (3, Informative)

fnj (64210) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654764)

The article says "The high-definition video shows the iPad falling from a height of 100,000 feet (30,480 meters)".

No reentry (2)

bflong (107195) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653732)

No reentry. It wasn't falling from space. Put it in orbit next time and see what happens.

Re:No reentry (5, Funny)

jd (1658) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653972)

If it's designed to make sure an exec dropping an iPad out the window of a Virgin Galactic can retrieve it later, there's no point in reaching orbit.

Re:No reentry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38655140)

Put it in orbit next time and see what happens.

It would probably go round and round and round a lot. Oh, and the battery would probably run out. That power cable always seems to be just a little bit to short.....

Re:No reentry (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38656714)

Put it in orbit next time and see what happens.

Aliens destroy us, after a fanboy calls the iPad to make ET jokes.

Irrelevant stunt (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653750)

The "height" of the fall doesn't really mean much given how it falls. If the thing falls level then the force of the impact will be well distributed. The protective cover helps, but in real world application, it isn't going to offer much protection if you drop your coffee mug onto a tablet's glass surface.

Re:Irrelevant stunt (2)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653856)

Dropped my iPad from a table unto concrete; corner took the impact (it's dented now), but tablet worked just fine afterwards.

As long as you aren't hitting the screen they can take quite a lot of abuse.

Also, I call BS on the "freefall", that thing was extremely stable during the decent - most likely they fitted some form of guiding parachute to make sure the back of the casing took the impact - gotta wonder how it would have survived hitting on a corner (screen on rocks would obviously have killed the ipad).

Re:Irrelevant stunt (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654452)

The remains of the balloon are enough of a parachute, and the placement of the camera and mount can help it fall level as well.

Re:Irrelevant stunt (1)

Lashat (1041424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655180)

Give this man a cee-gar!

Re:Irrelevant stunt (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656412)

I wouldn't call it a parachute, maybe a drag device.

Eh... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653770)

Unless the protective case is shaped like some sort of hyper-aerodynamic reentry vehicle, wouldn't the relatively low terminal velocity make the vast majority of the fall completely irrelevant?

Re:Eh... (2)

d4fseeker (1896770) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653848)

Who said irrelevant? Marketing is NEVER irrelevant
Especially not if you can show that you $EXPENSIVECOVER can fall a few km while the $LESSEXPENSIVE cover from the next boot was only thrown down of a bridge...

Very good (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653892)

Well, then, this means the iPad will not mind falling from the top position as a tablet.

Rules? (4, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38653896)

What are the laws for sending something high up in the atmosphere and dropping it to the earth at high speed like a poor-man's ballistic missile? Is there a law that keeps people from doing this over an inhabited area? What counts as an "inhabited area"? The last thing I'm thinking of when hiking in an uninhabited wilderness is that someone's iPad might land on my head.

It seems that these amateur baloon experiments are becoming more common (or maybe Youtube just makes them better publicized), but in any case, I'm wondering what the rules are for dropping random things from the sky.

Re:Rules? (1)

Rudisaurus (675580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654008)

What are the laws for sending something high up in the atmosphere and dropping it to the earth at high speed like a poor-man's ballistic missile? Is there a law that keeps people from doing this over an inhabited area? What counts as an "inhabited area"? The last thing I'm thinking of when hiking in an uninhabited wilderness is that someone's iPad might land on my head.

It seems that these amateur baloon experiments are becoming more common (or maybe Youtube just makes them better publicized), but in any case, I'm wondering what the rules are for dropping random things from the sky.

Your survivors will be able to sue for wrongful death (provided they can find out whose random thing from the sky it is).

Re:Rules? (2)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654436)

(provided they can find out whose random thing from the sky it is).

That's easy: Their video is on YouTube.

Re:Rules? (5, Informative)

rHBa (976986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654040)

The only thing I'm legally allowed to drop from my paraglider is water, that's over inhabited or uninhabited space

Re:Rules? (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654256)

Ahh well there is the difference, you may drop water...but they launched the ipad with an external gravitational acceleration engine. The whole case story is just a cover to make it seem like it worked. It was actually a complete failure as the computer models, based on dropping frictionless point masses, roughly equivalent to that of an ipad, indicated that it should continue to gain velocity until the engine shut down, but, somehow it stopped accelerating early due to some unseen force.

Re:Rules? (4, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654364)

The only thing I'm legally allowed to drop from my paraglider is water, that's over inhabited or uninhabited space

Is that before or after you have drunk it?

Re:Rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38655208)

In the US, you're allowed to drop anything you want as long as you ensure that anyone or anything on the ground will not get hurt or damaged from it. That is spelled out in FAR 91.15.
 
Bill

Re:Rules? (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656168)

My mistake, I was thinking competition rules, only water and fine sand is allowed as jettisonable ballast.

Re:Rules? (1)

Medievalist (16032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656314)

In the US, you're allowed to drop anything you want as long as you ensure that anyone or anything on the ground will not get hurt or damaged from it. That is spelled out in FAR 91.15.

Wow, you don't see common sense lawmaking like that very much any more.

Although some people are still trying [movetoamend.org] to enshrine common sense, I guess.

Re:Rules? (3, Funny)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654168)

Coke bottles [imdb.com] , OK. At least they are worth a few cents for returns.

iPads, no. Not unless they've been rooted and we can load something useful.

Re:Rules? (1)

JTsyo (1338447) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656454)

I remember seeing that in elementary school. Had to get my parents' permission first though.

Re:Rules? (3, Informative)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654220)

in any case, I'm wondering what the rules are for dropping random things from the sky.

This is a secondary source, but pretty good

http://www.eoss.org/pubs/far_annotated.htm [eoss.org]

If you mean legal civil liability its not a whole heck of a lot different than dropping things from a bridge, or tossing something off the top of a building.

Re:Rules? (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654706)

What are the laws for sending something high up in the atmosphere and dropping it to the earth at high speed like a poor-man's ballistic missile?
I don't think they have made laws for that yet since it is pretty uncommon. But Federal Aviation Regulations Section 91.15 allow for dropping whatever, so long as if doesn't create a hazard to person or property.

Re:Rules? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38656754)

I'm not sure about unmanned balloons, but I am allowed to drop anything from my airplane if I ensure that it does not pose any risk to persons or property on the ground.

ok nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38653944)

this thing you're buying is to protect your ipads from the pavement. Seeing it protect from a fall from any height higher than 5 feet, while unnecessary, is still proof that it works.

I agree it would be nicer to see it fall on a corner or face down on cement or something, but that rocky cliff wasn't too far off.

Re:ok nerds (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654134)

this thing you're buying is to protect your ipads from the pavement. Seeing it protect from a fall from any height higher than 5 feet, while unnecessary, is still proof that it works.

I agree it would be nicer to see it fall on a corner or face down on cement or something, but that rocky cliff wasn't too far off.

Given that it was hit a grass and dirt covered hillside, and was strapped to a camera bracket (and possibly the remains of the balloon to help slow its fall), I don't think it's even a good representation of what would happen if you dropped your iPad to the hard pavement. Even if the hillside was covered with small stones, the dirt would have a certain degree of springiness to help absorb the shock.

Instead of this stunt from 100,000 feet, I'd rather have seen them drop the iPad a number of times from 5 feet in different orientations to a hard surface to see how it held up.

Re:ok nerds (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654274)

I want to see them drop the iPad screen-side-down directly onto a pointy rock. Surviving that would be impressive!

Re:ok nerds (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38654206)

Any chance that the heavy lock on the back side played a part to insure that it falls screen side up? I too would have like to see how it fared had it landed on a corner or face down.

But how many drops will survive from the couch? (1)

itsme1234 (199680) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654060)

If this "protective device" becomes popular can we take bets how long it'll take a poor soul to crack the display from a "couch drop"?

Fall? Hell, What About The Cold? (3, Insightful)

cmholm (69081) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654088)

Per the Apple iPad 2 spec: Nonoperating temperature: -4 to 113 F (-20 to 45 C)

We didn't get a *real* good look at the display post-flight, but it seems the system was still usable after a cold soak down around at -23 F. Ok, so it wasn't that far out of spec, the system probably enjoy some solar heating, and it was a *dry* cold.

Re:Fall? Hell, What About The Cold? (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654418)

I would expect the insides would probably warmer then the outside, with the padding to keep it isolated a little better.

Besides these specs are not the limits, but the first 2 standard deviations of normal. So still a lot of them can handle far more extrams but don't expect it to be normal conditions for long period of times.

the -4 to 113 F means Keep it stored in a heated storage area, not in your outside shed with your snow blower, and don't keep it on your car dashboard.

Re:Fall? Hell, What About The Cold? (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654572)

A lot? No about 2.5% of them given a two tailed distribution. How many $500 bills are you willing to launch in space with a 0.025 probability of recovering it?

Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? (1, Insightful)

Pausanias (681077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654164)

I can't quite explain why, but this is the most amazing thing I've since on slashdot in quite some time. Something about that little lonely iPad going all the way up there... my colleagues were just gathered around my computer and everyone exclaimed aloud.

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? (2)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654546)

It's a pointless stunt. There is no difference in dropping it from 100,000 feet or 5 feet, the impact would be the same. Everyone knows this gimmick is not going to protect your iPad from a serious fall, because it all depends on where and how it lands.

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38654906)

There is no difference in dropping it from 100,000 feet or 5 feet

You mean 500 ft, as terminal velocity won't be achieved until that height, roughly (assuming > 200 mph terminal velocity).

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654558)

lonely iPad

I guess we're underwhelmed because we don't quite see iPad as pets yet.

Re:Why is everyone here so underwhelmed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38654582)

I was wondering that too. Guess there's no pleasing geeks. Not that there's a problem with liking accuracy but that video was pretty freaking cool and I think all of us would agree that an unprotected iPad (making the same fall) would not have survived.

My biggest disappointment is that they don't appear to be water-proof. I'm much more likely to drop my electronics into a river than I am from space.

Sadly too late (2)

nescientist (1770702) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654176)

Would tiling the bottom of the shuttle with iPads have been less expensive? Perhaps this technology would have kept those beautiful birds in service.

Re:Sadly too late (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654448)

Why would you say that?
The shuttle tiles are designed to insolate the heat. iPads don't do that yet. Perhaps the iPad 20 designed to protect you from fire.

Re:Sadly too late (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654474)

Excellent idea - the tiles cost NASA around $1,000 a piece [space.com] , and since an iPad is more than twice as big as an average tile, it would have been a nice cost savings. And everyone knows an iPad in an appropriate protective case can handle 2000+ degree reentry temperatures.

I bet Apple would have donated the iPads for free if they could put the Apple logo on the tail of the shuttle, *and* NASA could light up the iPads and play Goodyear Blimp style advertising [youtube.com] for even more revenue. The advertising alone could have made the Shuttle revenue positive.

If only the iPad existed back when the shuttle was designed, it might still be flying.

now make it Child Proof (2)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654224)

Hand the iPad to a bunch of 3 year olds and see how long it lasts then!

Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing (2)

ehud42 (314607) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654352)

In the clip I just saw, the whole assembly tumbles for a while, but as the atmosphere thickens, it stabilizes into a flat spin with screen facing up. The spin I'm sure generates some lift, which along with the large surface area results in minimum terminal velocity. Combine that with it landing nearly flat on its back - against the protective cover - results in maximum protection.

Curious how it would survive being dropped from a second story balcony onto pavement, oriented so that it lands on a corner - or even face down. Bet the screen is destroyed, and its brains scrambled.

Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654536)

With the iPad's shape, if any lift is generated at all it would be on the back side - in this case it could be called downforce.

I agree though that it wouldn't have survived if it landed any other way.

Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 2 years ago | (#38654818)

Maybe the next version will include a self right mechanism, so it can turn itself screen up in much the manner that cat does using its tail.

Re:Stabilizes screen up in a spin = comfy landing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38654920)

just so long as they don't accidentally model it on bread that always falls butter side down...

Can't read the article on an ipad. :( (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38654510)

Ironically, TFA wont load properly on an ipad.

Good Value (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38655044)

And the protective cover is only 5 times the cost of the tablet. Where can I get one? I am always loosing my tablet out the side door of my space plane.

Amature rocket second stage? (1)

sgt scrub (869860) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655110)

The video made me wonder if the GPS and motion detection abilities of todays phones could be used to correct the object after the balloon popped then launch an amature rocket. Sounds like a potential way to get the phone all the way out of the atmosphere. I wonder how long the phone would last in space.

So does the iPad still work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38655292)

So does the iPad still work? He doesn't turn it on to show it working after all that. If the electronics inside are jostled around so much that it can't turn back on what value is it that the glass didn't break?

What they don't show you... (1)

NimbleSquirrel (587564) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655298)

What they don't show you is the all of other iPads they did this to that didn't survive the fall. How many takes was it until they got the money shot?

Cosmic irony (4, Funny)

clyde_cadiddlehopper (1052112) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655306)

The video cannot be viewed on the iPad it features.

eh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38655378)

Alright, that's all fine and good IF you drop it on it's back, but what about the front? I wonder how many iPads they had to go through in order to get it to fall on its back. There's probably no coincidence that everything's anchored onto the back of the 'sleeve'. Weighing the back down will cause it to fall on its back when it's falling from high up but this makes almost no difference when just holding it at normal 4ft or so from the ground. I guarantee that if someone dropped this from a normal height, it would have a much higher chance of landing on its touchscreen and breaking it. That is the weak point of tablet technology, though.

Ho hum... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38655492)

I was actually more impressed with the clip of an Extreme Edge protected iPad being thrown about 20 feet and hitting the concrete floor at CET.

I jumped off my bed (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 2 years ago | (#38655936)

I jumped off my bed, from the edge of what I call "space".

Excellent! (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656034)

Because I'm in space so much!

but will it survive the fall off my desk... (1)

Lindan9 (2465020) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656146)

..onto hard floor?

So the iPad made it... (1)

Grelfod (1222108) | more than 2 years ago | (#38656380)

What about our non-Ipad tablets??
The ones that can play the video *hehe* is this tech available for them? If not then it is nothing more than a PR stunt for the i-zombies to swoon over :P

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>