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 Confirms iPhone 7 Rear Camera Cover is Sapphire
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There should be NO difference between the watch and the lens cover. Under the electron microscope there clearly is a difference. While technically both are sapphire, the Apple lens does not live up to the expectations one associates with the moniker "Sapphire Crystal".
So Apple's take is BS.
So Apple's take is BS.
I know it's possible to ignore individual members, but can I ignore certain keywords for phrases? I'm sure these people have worthwhile things to say at other times but this kind of snark is past its "best if used by" date...
Also, can I get an ASCII feed so I don't have to look at this? There might be interesting information in there but my visual cortex refuses to process it...:
I finally gave up trying to wade through the dross, realized that I harbor little hope that the forum is going to improve on its own, and have taken to pretty aggressive use of the "ignore user" feature, to filter out, for instance, most of the ones that sound like Samsung shills (the ones who are working hard to find the most twisted, relentlessly negative angle to present about Apple on every story), and I miss seeing everything, a bit (and it's funny, occasionally, seeing smart people arguing seemingly against thin air, because the quote is blocked), but it makes for much more palatable reading, brings the quality of the conversation up a bit closer to what it used to be. If someone makes it clear that, no, they really just want to hate and whine, rather than having something approximating an intelligent conversation, then off they go. Consider the possibility.
Last edited:
And realistically, would you not have purchased it if Apple made it out of something else this time around?
It wouldn't have phased me. (Well, at least until I scratched it...)
Excellent point. And your correct, being I how I purchase the iPhone annually, I still would have it, Saphirre or not. Being how I take care of my iPhones.
So, the article states, "Apple has used sapphire crystal for iPhone components for multiple years and maintains that sapphire crystal continues to be present in the iPhone 7 and the iPhone 7 Plus, a conclusion that was also ultimately reached in the video."
In other words, even the people making the video, aknowledge that its sapphire. So, at the end of the day.......a non-story.
Ok...... can you not grasp the difference between a watch crystal and the crystal on the camera?
It doesn't crack under normal use.....they have been using the same glass on the last few iPhone models.
[doublepost=1475715674][/doublepost]
Huh what? Ok obviously you don't.... I'll explain. The watch crystal is MUCH thicker than the lens cover therefor the pressure to scratch the watch won't crack it..... the thinner camera crystal can't sustain the same pressure....therefor cracks. Through normal use this will not be a problem.
Like walking on ice......thick ice = no problem thin ice get ready to get wet.
Got it now?
I mean, I understand what you're saying...I just have no idea why you're saying it. My original post was saying essentially the exact thing?
You did? Guess I lost something in your translation. (or my understanding of your statement)
Yeah, I was just saying that it was obvious in the video that what they were doing was essentially cracking the sapphire and not scratching it. Therefore, the iPhone's sapphire parts weren't "scratching" more easily, just fracturing because of the relative thinness as compared to the watch cover. But it's all good.
Hmm, makes you wonder if some of Apple's suppliers/assemblers aren't pulling a switcheroo and using cheaper materials to increase profit, hoping Apple won't notice.
I don't know if Apple's suppliers would dare do something like that. Apple is most suppliers/manufacturers' bread and butter and they have an army of lawyers and air tight contracts.
lol...... Apple would do savings to help themselves, even if it's "almost sapphire, but not quite"
For me it's not a matter of not buying. I didn't actually buy a 7 (wife did) but it wouldn't have been a must have feature; and this certainly isn't why I didn't buy one.
I'm disappointed that Apple is apparently meaning or implying different things between the material used in this lense and their more expensive watches. As far as I can tell this is completely unclear, even in fine print.
If something like this was done on a supply chain level I imagine there would be hell to pay. Or maybe not. I can't really be certain.
I suppose what I'm saying is that I think a bit less of them for this marketing tactic because I feel it's taking advantage of something the customer doesn't know. I certainly hope this doesn't become a trend. But for now it's not s deal breaker.
Ok Macrumors....you're dropping the ball a bit here. Come on now. This is pretty obvious what Apple has done. If you watch Zach's video...he details and explains exactly what is going on. It isn't a pure slab of Sapphire. Plain and simple. It makes perfect sense.
Unlike the Tissot (and other true Sapphire covers), Apple is using a Saphire coating, on top of another material. Most likely glass. The Tissot is close to pure Sapphire under the electron microscope he used. Hence no carbon. Hence no different material layers.
It had nothing to do with contamination...please. You could clearly see there was a different coating under the microscope, in Apple's cover. Not just the carbon present....but an actual layer on top of another material. A Sapphire layer on Glass. Most likely to save money. Makes sense. You can still technically call it a Sapphire cover...but that thin layer, will scratch easier than pure Sapphire.
It's really is a little silly for Macrumors to dismiss this...as possible contamination and use quotes by Rene and Phil, that are old and wrong. Or or at least a partial truth by Phil.
If you doubt Zach...then do a detailed test yourself M.R. Step up and prove him wrong.
In any event, as a tech fan, it's fun to know exactly what is going on...and not just accept the company statement. We need more people like Zach, holding companies accountable. It's healthy.
Cheers
Unlike the Tissot (and other true Sapphire covers), Apple is using a Saphire coating, on top of another material. Most likely glass. The Tissot is close to pure Sapphire under the electron microscope he used. Hence no carbon. Hence no different material layers.
It had nothing to do with contamination...please. You could clearly see there was a different coating under the microscope, in Apple's cover. Not just the carbon present....but an actual layer on top of another material. A Sapphire layer on Glass. Most likely to save money. Makes sense. You can still technically call it a Sapphire cover...but that thin layer, will scratch easier than pure Sapphire.
It's really is a little silly for Macrumors to dismiss this...as possible contamination and use quotes by Rene and Phil, that are old and wrong. Or or at least a partial truth by Phil.
If you doubt Zach...then do a detailed test yourself M.R. Step up and prove him wrong.
In any event, as a tech fan, it's fun to know exactly what is going on...and not just accept the company statement. We need more people like Zach, holding companies accountable. It's healthy.
Cheers
Last edited:
Remember... Every component, every piece that comprises an iPhone is built by the lowest bidder.
Apple knows how to maximize profits better than any other large scale enterprise in existence today. That's quite the accomplishment, and the Devotees love to brag about it.
It's their elitist attitude that they demonstrate when looking down their noses at Android buyers that "can't afford" an iPhone.
No, you are scratching it with a wrong tool and lying about it to make up a story.