By Graham K. Rogers

Rather than praise the freedom that the medium of the blog has brought about, in an interview, Noam Chomsky criticised the openness because of the lack of confirmation that independent news agencies with reporters on the ground would produce. The World Wide Web has brought about an amazing amount of suspect reporting.

I was sent to an Android fan page -- Android Authority -- at the weekend by a posting on FaceBook. The poster was grieved that the tester had dropped the Samsung device, 3 times and the new iPhone, 4 times, but still had a worse outcome for the Galaxy S3. The tester, who goes by the name of Darcy LaCouvee, described the iPhone as "the device we love to hate" which suggests an immediate lack of objectivity: I don't hate Samsung devices; I just think they are unnecessary clones popular because Android is reportedly free (Microsoft, Oracle and others may change that).

The three tests were attempts at simulations of realistic drop situations: pocket height, chest height and ear height. The first test produced a bit of scratching to the edge of the iPhone, but when the Samsung went down, you could hear the difference. It sounded like a cheap, empty plastic shell as opposed to the iPhone's solid clunk, despite the light weight of the new device.

The chest height drop was more of a disaster for the Samsung. Slight damage to the iPhone edge again, but striking the edge of the Samsung had transmitted forces to the glass and that was broken: about $300 he said.

The ear height drop made it clear that the same phone was being dropped each time which invalidates the test, especially as both had already received damage to the edge (the Samsung much more so) which would weaken the integrity of the devices. The iPhone sustained another dent, while the Samsung ended up in two pieces when the back came off (it did still work).

The tester had to concede that Apple had done a good job, but did try one more time from above the head to see what damage might be caused: "Very impressive . . . minor aesthetic dents (sic)" adding, "You take the pick."

Not that I wish to support Samsung, but although the tests appeared to be reasonable simulations, the randomness of the drops makes the tests automatically unfair. A phone (or a glass) can be dropped a thousand times with no apparent damage, and then a small touch with no real force shown will shatter the material.

When I was a kid, we had a vase that survived a fall from 10 storeys onto grass, but a later 10" drop from a cupboard finished it off. Likewise, I have dropped my iPhone 4S several times (from heights up to 1m) and been lucky each time: I could never predict how the phone was going to fall, or which part would strike first.

The demo was a nice little bit of fluff: at least he was trying to create his own data rather than cloning what others put out. It appears at first glance to make a serious comparison of relative strengths of two supposedly similar devices, but (even though it suggests that the iPhone 5 is a stronger device) has little real merit.

Drop 10 (or 100) of each from controlled heights onto a uniform slab of concrete instead of a crazy paving mezzanine, then report the results.

Once more: the link to Android Authority where the video and the photographs are available (for now).

Graham K. Rogers teaches at the Faculty of Engineering, Mahidol University in Thailand. He wrote in the Bangkok Post, Database supplement on IT subjects. For the last seven years of Database he wrote a column on Apple and Macs.