Apple Said to Have Enough Sapphire Glass for Production of Both iPhone 6 Models and iWatch in 2014

[grjj]

So no curved / flexible / band type screen for the iwatch?

Sure you can do curved sapphire. Many/most watches have curved sapphire crystals.
For a simple curve you can just cut the curve in to the material, for complex curves you machine the material, like creating eyeglass lenses.
Of course, the only material you can use to effectively machine the second hardest substance on the planet is the first hardest substance, so you'd be using diamond abrasives to machine sapphire parts.
And you though a gold iPhone was classy.

 

[Piggie]

That only shows that you are completely clueless about what Jobs had in mind by saying that. You understand it literarily which not what he meant to say.

----------

Indeed, and that was the problem with Jobs Arrogance in thinking what HE wanted was what you should want also.

Amazing salesman. Persuading you that you should have what he thought you should have & why I could never accept him as I don't want to be told what I should have. I'm able to decide myself thank you.

 

[rp2011]

Indeed, and that was the problem with Jobs Arrogance in thinking what HE wanted was what you should want also.

Amazing salesman. Persuading you that you should have what he thought you should have & why I could never accept him as I don't want to be told what I should have. I'm able to decide myself thank you.

It's not arrogance it's called good business. Mass produced products need to appeal to the widest Apple customer possible. Not specifically YOU as an individual. We see how margins are for the myriad of PC's.

 

[the8thark]

I have to disagree with you on the 5.5" phone being a mistake.

We agree to disagree.

 

[krravi]

Your friends must:

A) work for Microsoft
B) be related to Bill Gates.

I see. I use iPhone and I never knew I worked for Apple and knew Steve Jobs.

 

[Simoleon547]

The fact that this new analysis puts Apple's manufacturing abilities at 200 million units vs the previous numbers and the sheer absurdity that Apple would only use saphire on certain iPhone models shows that whoever did the first analysis was hardly an expert. They clearly didn't know the capabilities of production ramping and severely misunderstood Apple's marketing philosophy.

Just saying that if someone doesn't really know Apple's capabilities and desire for product uniformity within the same product line then they should stay silent instead of putting out a number to get attention.

 

[richwoodrocket]

This doesn't surprise me.

 

[jlabute]

both materials are doomed on a drop

I have seen some references stating that Gorilla Glass is superior to sapphire, especially with its ability to slightly 'flex' upon impact (while sapphire is more brittle). On the flip side, it seems like a monumental waste of money for Apple to make this move unless they truly viewed sapphire as either a superior material or a less expensive one. Do we have any objective testing showing how these two compare?

Thanks,
Chris

Corning Gorilla Glass 3 can withstand more flexure than sapphire. Sapphire can withstand more abrasive force. Both are going to break on a nasty drop. Corning has a video comparing GG3 vs Sapphire. Of course, Corning has experimented with Sapphire as well. The man-made material has been around since the beginning of the 19th century.

http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/gorilla-channel/Corning®-Gorilla®-Glass-vs.-Sapphire

Watch all the videos.

Both materials will be great if you look after them Sapphire is still cool just because.lol. I believe some companies are making sapphire covers for phones now.

 

[jmpage2]

Not true. The one with the sapphire screen will be a bit more scratch resistant. It can be scratched (see all those with sapphire watch fronts that have scratches).

Even if this was diamond, it wouldn't achieve "wouldn't scratch"- just a bit more scratch resistant than Sapphire.

As 69Mustang posted, I too rarely hear people griping about existing (Gorilla) glass scratching. The gripes are almost always about shattering, for which Sapphire (or even Diamond) will shatter just about the same. As such, I dread the pain of replacing a shattered Sapphire screen relative to the pain of shattered glass. The process will likely be about the same but the parts cost will probably be a point of aggravation for anyone needing to deal with that problem.

I suspect that Sapphire here is either about marketing spin and/or that quest for ever "thinner". If the latter, maybe Apple is able to shave this transparent pane just a little thinner than existing Gorilla glass to match about the same level of (shatter resistance) integrity? We all know how important "thinner" is to Apple.

In another thread on this topic, someone(s) made a few posts about a new approach to screens that would allow a Sapphire front to let a bit more light through than could be accomplished with glass, though the source of that information didn't explicitly say that. As I read it, it looked like a leap that clear Sapphire could allow more light to pass through than clear glass but maybe there was something to that too. But even if that's true, is a brighter display an obvious need/want? Or is it another variation of "when is thin, thin enough?" as in "which is bright, bright enough?"

My gut feel is that this is probably more about marketing spin and "thin" than anything else. But that's just gut guess. Maybe there's something "magical" in this particular transparent rectangle that can't be matched by a cheaper (Gorilla) glass rectangle?

I have several sapphire crystal watches and they've never scratched. What exactly are you referring to that scratches diamond and sapphire because they are pretty much unscratchable.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Try a search for "sapphire watch face scratched". Conceptually, you should find no such references but you'll find pages and pages of them. If you click into some of those pages, you'll see pictures of scratches on sapphire watch faces- especially on those where there's step-by-step processes for trying to remove the scratches.

You've been lucky. As usual though (especially around here), one person's experience is not representative of all people's experiences. However, I'm not much interested in having an argument about the scratch issue. Sapphire IS a bit more scratch resistant than Gorilla glass. There's a definite gain there as there would be a further gain to that "problem" if Apple decided to replace Gorilla and/or Sapphire with transparent panes made of diamond.

The point I was referencing revolves around the idea of is this (scratching) really a big problem needing a more expensive solution? There's lots of people who shatter their Gorilla glass screens (little shops that replace shattered screens seem to be popping up like cell phone stores). However, Sapphire or even Diamond screens won't do much about that apparently common & mainstream problem. They would shatter just as easily.

To me this seems more and more like a lightening connector mentality. When these sapphire screens shatter, where can we go for their replacements? That's probably going to be only Apple or only repair shops that buy that part from Apple. I suspect replacement screens for iDevices that use Sapphire will be meaningfully more expensive than they are now.

OR, Sapphire is a "thinner" play, meaning Apple can shave that front glass a bit thinner by using Sapphire and maintain about the same level of tolerance. That gets us another round of "thinner" spun for an otherwise invisible benefit that will probably cost more should a shattered one need repair.

 

[Jvanleuvan]

The point I was referencing revolves around the idea of is this (scratching) really a big problem needing a more expensive solution? There's lots of people who shatter their Gorilla glass screens (little shops that replace shattered screens seem to be popping up like cell phone stores). However, Sapphire or even Diamond screens won't do much about that apparently common & mainstream problem. They would shatter just as easily.

From my understanding, Sapphire is 3.3 TIMES more shatter resistant and about 3 time more scratch resistant than gorilla glass. Though Gorilla glass is more flexible, it is my understanding that flexibility is not really an issue in a fully supported piece of glass such as an iphone. Meaning that all of those current Iphones out there with shattered screens, they did not shatter because they were flexed too far. See Corning's own video, Gorilla glass can bend considerably, yet I am sure those Iphones didn't bend like a banana when dropped.

What actually happened was that when they were dropped, the glass impacted a hard surface that chipped the glass and that caused the glass to shatter (Hardness and Fracture toughness, of which sapphire is superior as opposed to elasticity)

so if what I understand is true, then a sapphire phone would be significantly more shatter/scratch resistant but less flexible(but phones aren't flexible anyway. )

look how flexible gorilla glass is:

 

[kdarling]

OR, Sapphire is a "thinner" play, meaning Apple can shave that front glass a bit thinner by using Sapphire and maintain about the same level of tolerance.

I don't see how sapphire would make it thinner.

It most likely will be bonded to a glass back to save money and provide strength without thickness. (It's also is an extra layer to see through.)

Without a glass backing, a sapphire cover would have to be pretty thick. Heck, watch crystals are relatively small in area, but are usually several times the thickness of normal smartphone glass.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

From my understanding, Sapphire is 3.3 TIMES more shatter resistant

Do you know where you got that understanding from (hopefully not someones posting here for example)? That's the first I've heard of that. Actually, I heard that it offer little additional in the shattering scenario and that the big benefit is scratch resistance. So if you have something objective that states that 3.3 number as fact, that would be a BIG deal that would change my own whole view of "why Sapphire?"

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I don't see how sapphire would make it thinner

I was just speculating in an effort to try to justify an answer to "Why Sapphire (vs. Gorilla Glass)?" My guess there was that since Sapphire is dense, maybe that pane could be shaved a bit thinner than a glass pane and thus contribute to overall thinner design goal. After all, once something gets down to being measured in a few millimeters, ever little bit of shaving contributes.

Personally, I'm in the camp of "when is thin, thin enough?" as I think continuing to make iPhone thinner and thinner starts losing something. For example, where does it stop? Does anyone actually want an iPhone that is as thin as a sheet of paper? While that might be cool for a moment, the day-to-day utility of just picking it up might become an aggravation (not to mention structural integrity of being in a pocket and what would seemingly be miserable or impossible battery life tradeoffs).

"We" have somewhat conditioned ourselves to expect "thinner." Like any rumor that goes from rumor to "very likely", "we" tend to get behind anything we expect from Apple. For example, hop backwards a bit in time and any phone with a screen bigger than 3.5" was an "abomination", "need new pockets", etc. Then the 4" was rolled out as the new and perfect size and any phone with a screen bigger than that was tagged "abomination", etc. Now, 4.7" has crossed the bridge from early rumor "abomination" to very likely and the crowd is shifting into liking it while still poking negative at bigger.

I think "thin" is very much that same thing. Since we're used to Apple spinning "thinner" every time, "we" expect the next one to be thinner so "we" mentally like the idea even if we personally think the current one is thin enough.

So, if Sapphire is about thinner, I'm personally not excited about that at all. For that slight thinning, the replacement part will probably cost quite a bit more for those who have an accident. Unless scratching screens is a big deal to some, I'm not seeing it. Maybe there's something to Jvanleuvan's post about 3.3 times more shatter resistant? If so, THAT would be a big deal. I just haven't seen that anywhere myself until his/her post. If it could cut the shattering pain by some meaningful level for users, that could definitely make the case for the switch.

 

[kdarling]

I was just speculating in an effort to try to justify an answer to "Why Sapphire (vs. Gorilla Glass)?"

Yep, I know. Same here, except I was speculating in the other direction

Cheers!

 

[Chazz08]

TIL the major product launches covered on MacRumors are actually just eerily accurate speculation.

Hahahaha. So true. I wonder how much Apple leaks themselves to build suspense for the next thing.

 

[Jvanleuvan]

Do you know where you got that understanding from (hopefully not someones posting here for example)? That's the first I've heard of that. Actually, I heard that it offer little additional in the shattering scenario and that the big benefit is scratch resistance. So if you have something objective that states that 3.3 number as fact, that would be a BIG deal that would change my own whole view of "why Sapphire?"

Based on it's fracture toughness. Which is 3.3 times higher than gorilla glass (if I'm understanding what fracture toughness means)

 

[Premium1]

So one week they have enough, the next they don't and there will be huge delays. Which ones it gonna be? Or just more false "demand boosters" where they knowingly don't make enough for the first month or so has the long delays

 

[Isamilis]

Sapphire is good but not essential.

 

[firewood]

Quite a few of us (myself included) don't want to go larger than 3.5 or 4 inches, and we still want to buy the high end model in 4 inches, instead of being shoehorned into a lower specced model, or a stupidly big (in my opinion) display.

Really bad news for people who prefer smaller high-end mobile devices would be if Apple drops the 5s, and only keeps the 5c as their smallest phone. Hopefully, Apple's move to 64-bit software will prevent that... unless they drop an A7 in a newer 5c form factor device... Ick.

 

[oldmacs]

Really bad news for people who prefer smaller high-end mobile devices would be if Apple drops the 5s, and only keeps the 5c as their smallest phone. Hopefully, Apple's move to 64-bit software will prevent that... unless they drop an A7 in a newer 5c form factor device... Ick.

I think they should just make a 4 inch 6... It doesn't have to be wiz bang. Just The new processors, camera and slightly changed form factor.