There appears to be a lack of understanding about these materials. I would consider myself an expert.
In the engineering world, there are definitions to terms like hardness and strength. There are also several ways to define them. "Static Strength" is defined also applying a load at "low speed" and determining the breaking strength. Impact strength is a completely different property.
I work work in the aerospace industry and with carbon fiber reinforced plastics quite a bit. It has good static strength when compared to metals, but poor impact strength. A common term is called "Compression after impact" since for composites, the compression strength may be significantly lower after delamination.
Now, ceramics and glass are different than carbon fiber composite laminates, but the point is that these materials have a different way of defining strength that people are often not used to.
I have not read the claims of Apple in detail, but they may in fact be telling the truth about 30X stronger. BUT that may the static strength. However, that is not a very useful property for a phone since it is unlikely one would break it by applying a static force. The impact strength would be a much more useful property, but of course Apple is trying to make money and may not be demonstrating the more useful way of describing the material for its intended purpose.
Apple lying, probably not.
Apple giving useful data, maybe not.
In the engineering world, there are definitions to terms like hardness and strength. There are also several ways to define them. "Static Strength" is defined also applying a load at "low speed" and determining the breaking strength. Impact strength is a completely different property.
I work work in the aerospace industry and with carbon fiber reinforced plastics quite a bit. It has good static strength when compared to metals, but poor impact strength. A common term is called "Compression after impact" since for composites, the compression strength may be significantly lower after delamination.
Now, ceramics and glass are different than carbon fiber composite laminates, but the point is that these materials have a different way of defining strength that people are often not used to.
I have not read the claims of Apple in detail, but they may in fact be telling the truth about 30X stronger. BUT that may the static strength. However, that is not a very useful property for a phone since it is unlikely one would break it by applying a static force. The impact strength would be a much more useful property, but of course Apple is trying to make money and may not be demonstrating the more useful way of describing the material for its intended purpose.
Apple lying, probably not.
Apple giving useful data, maybe not.