Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Patent Application Describes Use of Oleophobic Coatings on Sapphire Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Use a phone without it and you will realize it's not a gimmick. It's used by almost every phone manufacturer because it serves a very useful purpose.
Sapphire is also going to have benefits over glass. It will be much more scratch resistant. These aren't gimmicks. They are useful applications that you almost never even notice but they make the device better. That is kind of the opposite of a gimmick.
I have only ever had very minor scratches on my iPhones (owned 2). Scratches are not likely so long as you use a case with a bit of lip to lift the screen from any flat surface you lay it face down on. Also, never put it in the same pocket any metal object (like your keys!). Mine stays flush against my thigh in the same pocket as my leather wallet.
Enough "May"s in the quote to last the better part of a decade
I'm so last century I thought patents were meant to be accurate descriptions.
I'm so last century I thought patents were meant to be accurate descriptions.
Correct- that's what the patent claims - and apparently this is a first in the industry
"This patent allows for the oleophobic coating to be applied to a brick of sapphire and not having to apply it to each cut screen individually i.e. the patent allows for batch processing."
http://margolismatt.com/2014/03/27/oleophobic-coating-on-sapphire-patent/
Last edited:
I always suspected the "micro scratches" that I got on my iPhones was due to the coating. These scratches were very fine, almost invisible, until you look at the phone under sunlight or a clean halogen/LED light. Then they would become quite visible (and annoying). It's a bummer that they'll put this coating on a material that's even more scratch resistant.
This sapphire crystal wristwatch I've been wearing continuously for the past thirty years hasn't got a single scratch on it.
I'm predicting an iWatch with sapphire on the front and liquidmetal on the back.
regardless of the oil resistant coating on the very top. the patent is calling for a sapphire substrate with a glass surface layer on top of it. whats the deal with that ???
im certain theyve thought about that and more. these guys didnt just fall off the turnip truck.
----------
gosh, you guys had better let Cook and his executive team of ultra successful hardware engineers know, pronto!! they could be making a huge mistake!
----------
nope. it serves a function, which is why they bother with it.
please link us to some other patented marketing myths, dying to hear about them.
Yeah, with a screen that can last decades, it's almost a pity that most people only use a phone for a year or two.
"Grandpa, I found this old thing in the attic. Is this what smartphones used to look like before they became flexible screens tattooed on your arm?"
"Yep, that's right, kid. But hey, isn't the display amazingly scratch free for its age?!"
why is it annoying, if you can only detect them when putting the powered-off display into a non-natural lighting environment designed to light them?
the coating isnt what causes scratches. you have a misunderstanding about how the layers work and what they do.
Yes and it was complete BS too. It was the ONLY phone that did that. Good try though.
I'm not sure why that would be annoying, however it has little to do with what I said. Funny how you quoted me and apparently didn't read what I wrote. Nowhere did I mention "powered-off" or "non-natural". Try again.
Uh, right. So let me see if I understand correctly. The coating can be worn away in specific areas of the screen (as evidenced by many photos, including those posted earlier in this thread), but it can't be scratched? Please go ahead and enlighten us as to how this is a misunderstanding of "how the layers work and what they do".
Scratches are only the tip of the sapphire iceberg. Micro-scratches and the occasional deep scratch may be annoying to some and infuriating to a few, but a shattered screen is a heartbreaker for all affected.
As a selling point? "Fewer scratches" isn't going to sell a whole lot more iPhones - most people don't notice the micro-scratches, as all micro-scratches do in practice is reduce contrast. Up the screen brightness, and that issue is overcome (while increased brightness doesn't change contrast, the net effect is similar - easier visibility).
The key selling point is shatter-resistance. That may affect a smaller number of users than scratching, but it's a result all purchasers fear.
Meantime, the overall thickness of the transition layer places a near-maximum on the depth of scratches, and as it varies in hardness between silica glass at the very surface and nearly pure sapphire at the base, it will be more scratch-resistant than silica glass just a short distance below the surface. The deeper the scratch, the more visible it is, so this should still improve the optical performance of the screen.
The fact that a transition layer is necessary says a lot for the intrinsic qualities of sapphire - if it can't be coated directly, it's pretty slick stuff.
Marketing gimmick? Have you tried a screen without an oleophobic coating? It's far worse at handling fingerprints. At least with current day iPhones and iPads, the most you get are smudges that wipe off extremely easily.
They barely even mention this feature so I don't see how it's any sort of a gimmick. No need to go through the expense of adding an extra layer of coating just for marketing purposes.
Both my 4s and 5 ended up getting little scratches, mainly from my keys. They are not visible when the screen is turned on but when it's turned off they are clearly there. That wouldn't bother some folks but it does me. The scratches I always assumed where to the coating since they are not too deep.
----------
shatter-resistance would be nice, but I've heard with sapphire when it gets large enough for a screen that benefit goes away? Not sure of that's true but that's what Corning claimed. "Micro scratches" are still scratches. If I didn't care about those I wouldn't care about having a device like the iphone. Defeats the whole point of having a beautiful device when it's got a bunch of micro scratches. Give me smudges I can wipe away over permanent "micro" scratches any day.
----------
Exactly
I got a crappy aftermarket replacement glass put on my iPad 2 by a repair shop that clearly didn't have the coating. Trust me, it's noticeable. Then the glass cracked right away and they replaced it with the "proper" part, and it's back to normal or at least much closer to OEM if it isn't.