This video presents a comprehensive durability test of Apple's new, ultra-thin iPhone Air, subjecting it to a series of scratch, flame, and bend tests. The phone demonstrates surprisingly robust performance throughout. The new "Ceramic Shield 2" screen shows unprecedented scratch resistance, barely marking at a level 7 on the Mohs hardness scale. The Grade 5 titanium frame provides exceptional structural rigidity, allowing the phone to completely survive a strenuous manual bend test without any permanent deformation. To find its breaking point, a mechanical press is used, revealing the phone catastrophically fails only after withstanding an impressive 216 lbs (approx. 98 kg) of concentrated force. Even after being severely bent, the screen remained partially operational, solidifying the iPhone Air's unexpected and remarkable durability despite its thin design. Minor drawbacks noted include a less effective anti-reflective screen coating, a mono speaker, and slower charging compared to Pro models.
The iPhone Air's Shocking Durability Test
1:55 Unprecedented Scratch Resistance: The new Ceramic Shield 2 screen performs exceptionally well in the Mohs hardness test. It shows virtually no scratches at level 6 and only very faint marks at level 7, a significant improvement over typical smartphone glass.
3:10 Subpar Anti-Reflective Coating: When compared to a 2-year-old Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra, the iPhone Air's screen is noticeably more reflective, failing to diffuse light as effectively as its competitor.
4:22 Design and Feature Compromises: To achieve its thinness, the iPhone Air forgoes several features of the Pro models. It has a single mono speaker in the earpiece, a smaller battery, and slower charging speeds (50% in 30 minutes vs. 20 minutes on Pro models).
6:35 Passes Manual Bend Test: Despite its thin 5.6mm titanium frame, the iPhone Air completely withstands the manual bend test. When bent with significant force from both the front and back, it flexes but snaps back to its original straight shape without any damage or permanent bending.
7:30 Mechanical Stress Test: Because the phone survived the manual test, it is placed in a mechanical press with a crane scale to measure the exact force required to break it.
8:40 Astonishing Breaking Point: The phone's frame finally gives way and the front glass shatters under a concentrated force of 216 lbs (approx. 98 kg).
8:46 Remains Functional After Breaking: In a remarkable display of engineering, the iPhone Air's screen remains powered on and partially responsive even after the frame is severely bent and the front glass is destroyed.
9:23 Final Verdict: The host concludes that the iPhone Air is structurally indestructible for normal daily use, such as being sat on in a back pocket. However, it is still susceptible to damage from drops and scratches, for which a case and screen protector are recommended.
Summary of YouTube Comments
Viewers were overwhelmingly shocked and impressed by the iPhone Air's durability, with many stating the video was the best possible advertisement for the phone and that Apple's engineers must be celebrating. The most discussed topics included the surprising success of the bend test, the improved scratch resistance that broke the channel's famous "level 6/level 7" catchphrase, and the fact the phone was still functional after being mechanically broken. The satirical segment about Tim Cook and Donald Trump also generated significant conversation.
Comments on the Trump/Gold Bar Segment:
The satirical claim at (6:02), where the host jokes that Tim Cook gave Donald Trump a gold bar to have tariffs on iPhones removed, was a notable point of discussion.
Several commenters appeared to take the satirical story at face value, expressing genuine shock and concern.
One user commented, "holy shit the corruption is crazy. i really hope that isnt real," while another stated, "that's called bribery and corruption."
Another viewer showed confusion, writing, "I never knew that I thought they just got him a gold iPhone or something oof that looks REALLY Bad."
These reactions indicate that while intended as satire, the segment was interpreted as a serious claim by a portion of the audience.