You think? or was it just one of those "a source well known to te issue" are talking BS?
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.
Rising Sapphire Display Cost May Limit Production of 5.5-Inch iPhone 6
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You think? or was it just one of those "a source well known to te issue" are talking BS?
Sapphire is scratch resistant, but brittle so it cracks much more easily. Gorilla Glass is shatter resistant, but softer so it scratches much more easily.
That's why Gorilla Glass makes sense for something large like an iPhone you don't want to break when you drop it. That's why sapphire makes sense for something small and attached to your body like an iWatch so you don't scratch it when you bump into things with your arms.
The first few displays are $100,000,000 each, but after that it drops way down. 
Apple is not cost limited, but production limited. The sapphire plant is producing now and also ramping capacity at an amazing rate. Apple is not cost limited, but production rate limited.
There is a severe sapphire display shortage in China for everyone else however, so that part of the report is probably right. Sucks to be a cloner right now!
I suspect the proposed retail price increase by $100 applies to the many other added features like increased screen size and added internal sensors and features.
"Nobody needs 64 bit." - Qualcomm CEO right before eating his own words
Rocketman
cite:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/07/apple-sapphire-manufacturing/
Apple is not cost limited, but production limited. The sapphire plant is producing now and also ramping capacity at an amazing rate. Apple is not cost limited, but production rate limited.
There is a severe sapphire display shortage in China for everyone else however, so that part of the report is probably right. Sucks to be a cloner right now!
I suspect the proposed retail price increase by $100 applies to the many other added features like increased screen size and added internal sensors and features.
"Nobody needs 64 bit." - Qualcomm CEO right before eating his own words
Rocketman
cite:
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/07/apple-sapphire-manufacturing/
Last edited:
I too find it hard to believe that Apple would use sapphire for an iPhone. The benefits simply don't balance with the cost. The Gorilla Glass screen on my iPhone 5 has held up remarkably well, so I'm not too concerned with scratch resistance. If sapphire wouldn't shatter if I dropped the phone, I'd be all for it. But that's not the case.
Even though the iWatch is small compared with an iPhone, Apple will produce tens of millions of them. That's an awful lot of sapphire, and I'd bet that's what the sapphire plant is for.
Even though the iWatch is small compared with an iPhone, Apple will produce tens of millions of them. That's an awful lot of sapphire, and I'd bet that's what the sapphire plant is for.
I highly doubt that the costs are that huge, considering that there are Casio watches with sapphire glass for <70. Of course, the amount of sapphire needed for an iPhone is way higher. But still, so are their economies of scale.
If you believe that Apple is a) going to spend more than 6x what they are currently spending on screens and b) haven't thought this out well; because of this article, you are not thinking this out well yourself. There will be no Sapphire screen until they can do it within cost constraints. Don't forget, they have never said they were building a Sapphire screen both that along with the cost given in this article are rumors...remember, you are on macRUMORS.com.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
There's some truth to this. However, Apple is feeling pressure from those who pay the subsidy to deliver a lower-cost iPhone. The partners are steadily grumbling every quarter about the subsidy. If you pay attention, you'll notice that while they run some commercials for iPhone, they push the other smart phones much more regularly (why? Because they cost them less in subsidy).
I don't see the masses accepting $500 out of pocket. I think the masses think iPhone should be about $0-$199 with a contract.
And the press is on to break that $2000-$3000 norm down. Even the big boys now are promoting monthly unlimited* offers in the $40-$50 range. $45 times 24 (months) = $1080. $1080 - $600 to $700+ for the Apple subsidy = unhappy AT&T, Verizon, etc.
Fat subsidy worked when the masses were signing up to pay $2K-$3K or more over the 2-year contract. It stops working as the monthly toll for unlimited* comes down… especially if Apple asks for an even higher subsidy.
"This extra expense could increase the retail price of the next generation iPhone by approximately 50 percent."
That's way to expensive for a phone. In the UK, if the 16GB version remains that would mean it would cost around £825! Would still buy it though
That's way to expensive for a phone. In the UK, if the 16GB version remains that would mean it would cost around £825! Would still buy it though
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
A screen made of Diamond would shatter if you dropped it. There is no glass-like transparent material available that is shatterproof. Sapphire is mostly about reducing scratches as it is more resistant to those.
This whole article doesn't make any sense whatsoever. When Apple agreed with GT Advanced to a $600M production agreement, I would assume that at that point, Apple would know roughly a cost per unit. At that point in time, GT Advanced operated on low scales of production and as with any scaling up, cost invariably decrease. What hidden costs have presented themselves to increase the costs of producing sapphire by a factor of 6-7? If anything, I would predict that the cost's per unit will have fallen to potentially $10-30 per screen as the technology matures and the scale is increased dramatically. I'm definitely one for an un-scratch-able iPhone screen. I'm sick of having to remind myself to put my keys in the left pocket, and phone in the right.
Wow, there's so much ignorance to be found here regarding the benefits of sapphire crystal.
Using sapphire as a substrate achieves nothing at all, it's only as a surface layer that it makes any sense.. since it's the surface that would be part that has to fend off scratches.
And no, Gorilla glass doesn't come close to the scratch resistance of sapphire crystal.
Using sapphire as a substrate achieves nothing at all, it's only as a surface layer that it makes any sense.. since it's the surface that would be part that has to fend off scratches.
And no, Gorilla glass doesn't come close to the scratch resistance of sapphire crystal.
Exactly. Not only that, if they were moving to sapphire from gorilla glass, it would only be because it is a better material. If it is not a better material for this application, they won't use it.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
"Ridiculously sized" is eye of the beholder. For example, this beholder would ONLY be interested in a 5.5" if that's the two size choices. Competitors sell a LOT Of "ridiculously-sized" phones and Apple might want to bite into that same opportunity. Money is money even if the buyers want to be ridiculous.
I suspect it's only ridiculously sized until Apple rolls it out. Then it will be "shut up and take my money" and "best iPhone ever". Only a few years ago, 3.5" was the one and only perfect size and anything bigger was an "abomination" etc. Then, Apple rolls out the 4" and no one called it an "abomination". Only everything over 4" was "need new pants" ridiculous… until Apple rolls out a bigger-screened phone and magically all those bashes will flip right with the screen-size change. There's a pattern forming. Can we see it?
You do realize that Sapphire is as shatter resistant as gorilla glass 3 when you increase the thickness just a tiny bit right?
This seems to be something that people repeatedly forget and seem to completely lack understanding of.
A 1.16mm sheet of sapphire crystal is better or equal in every measurable dimension of durability compared to a 1mm sheet of gorilla glass 3. Apple has heavily invested in technology that makes displays thinner, so they can make a display with the same shatter resistance and several orders of magnitude more scratch resistance in the same thickness.
Read that a few times if you don't understand it.
Apple can make a 2mm saphire display that when compared to a 2mm gorilla glass 3 display, would have identical shatter resistance but would take 158 times more force to scratch with a set of keys.
If you could make anything 158 times better in a very meaningful dimension with no downside (other than cost, which is very speculative as of now), it would be a no brainer.
Last edited:
They bought a sapphire plant. These costs do not accurately reflect the costs that Apple would pay.
You mean the people reporting it? Apple seems to be thinking it through pretty well. Which is why they bought a sapphire plant to produce their own sapphire, at a much lower cost.
No.
The next iPhone will have sapphire.
Don't base your opinion of Apple's thought process on rumors. No one who knows has said the new iPhone is getting a sapphire display. The only people talking are guessing.
Sapphire isn't brittle, more brittle than gorilla glass? Yes, but not brittle in general. Also glass has a structural weakness which is why people break their devices, shapphire doesn't.
