Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple LIED about the lens cover being made out of Sapphire c

jetlitheone said:
Not exactly. Sapphire isn't the best at glare resistance. And the coating wears off completely. Apple did the same thing with the stainless steel Apple Watch.
Click to expand...
Not exactly... what? I don't really think you answered my question. I don't understand why you would use a material to keep scratches at bay (in this case sapphire) and costing it with a material much more readily scratched. Maybe I just don't understand. Which is why I ask.
 
  • Like
Reactions: willmtaylor
jetlitheone said:
Not exactly. Sapphire isn't the best at glare resistance. And the coating wears off completely. Apple did the same thing with the stainless steel Apple Watch.
[doublepost=1474001436][/doublepost]

Well they can and they have. The Sapphire on the Apple Watch has a coating that's weaker than sapphire on it.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I can understand that as it's meant to be touched. I'm really hoping they wouldn't add it to a camera lens, but perhaps they figured some people don't understand you need to wipe it off periodly with a shirt.. we'll see.
 
lordofthereef said:
Not exactly... what? I don't really think you answered my question. I don't understand why you would use a material to keep scratches at bay (in this case sapphire) and costing it with a material much more readily scratched. Maybe I just don't understand. Which is why I ask.
Click to expand...

Because a lens needs a coating for glare resistance and fingerprint resistance. Sapphire alone wouldn't be the best option. I'm just speculating but apple did it with the Watch too..
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterSwede
entraik said:
Oh I bought it and I know it will be a pleasure to use. Apple gets props where due (dual camera, color gamut upgrade, new home button etc),but they lied about one thing and it's important that people know. I will use a case and screen protector. But for those that use no case, and put their phone on random surfaces... a scratched lens cover may be in your future.
Click to expand...

Hmm maybe Apple can respond to this info then. I've never had a scratched camera lens or Touch ID but I'm not trying to start having one either.
 
skwood said:
Then sue Apple, I'm fed up with people finding things to have a go about. It's the same material as the 6s, be it sapphire or not, I've never heard anyone complain about a scratched lens cover before.
Click to expand...

Two things:

1) Im not sure anyone cares about what youre 'fed up' with. Actually I am sure: No one cares.

2) If its not Sapphire, and Apple marketed the product as in fact having those components as Sapphire, it is bad for Apple, and they must be held accountable. Consumers trust your company, that does not mean take advantage of their trust by making them fools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scrtagntman, mrex and TommyA6
dmx said:
This 100 percent. Apple wouldn't use scratch proof sapphire only to coat it with something that scratches easily - in that case, might as well just use glass!

I've never had an iPhone lens cover scratch - believe me, I have tried multiple times with old iPhones.

I'm hoping and expecting this to be somehow debunked, or at least evidence that the 7 is as strong as any previous iPhone.
Click to expand...
I guess you haven't used a camera before. Lenses have coating on them to control flares, glares, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterSwede
This guy thought he found something and tried to share it - probably not completely benevolently (he wants hits on his videos, right) - but nevertheless, there was a "public" capacity to what he did....

That said, he can't say - categorically - that it's not sapphire, nor can anyone else, unless it's tested properly. Ideally you'd want to be getting a lab report if you're going to claim a huge multi-national company is lying..... Just, ya' know, to cover your own back.... Until it's proven though, it's just a claim - and it's likely that it is a misinterpreted claim.

A coating is the most likely explanation. "Why would they do this" people ask? Well, it's for different reasons - anti-reflection does a fundamentally different job to something that's providing scratch resistance. One of the two things would always have to be harder or softer than the other.

Ultimately which would you want to fail first - the coating (which could be removed, not be quite optimal - but still work), or a big dirty scratch that would require the whole lens to be replaced?

This said, if a razor blade can't damage either - then I'm happy. Others? That's their choice to make!

Just as on prescription eye glasses, many of us have both scratch resistance and anti-glare coatings added, it really is no different.

Remember folks.... Controversy = clicks = $$$ + fame.....

(It's not "something seems up with the lens, what could it possibly be - let's find out scientifically..." it's "Apple LIED!!!!!"....)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterSwede and ZombiePete
This stress test confirms that the lens glass on the iPhone 7 is not sapphire
 
Last edited:
GuyM458 said:
This stress test confirms that the lens glass on the iPhone 7 is not sapphire
Click to expand...

No. It doesn't. It shows that the glass scratched - with what we're told is a tip of a certain hardness.

If it can be conceived that Apple may have lied/got something wrong... Surely it can be conceived that this guy may have used another tip? Not on purpose - maybe just a genuine mistake or human error. Or he might not have done - he may have used the tip he says he has.

It may be the coating that's scratched. It may be the actual lens that is scratched. The lens may or may not be sapphire...

But lets at least get confirmation from a lab report, eh? You know - science instead of pitchforks....?
 
  • Like
Reactions: aristobrat, QuarterSwede and karmamule
entraik said:
Hey I'm presenting the facts. If you're butt hurt over it... then that sounds like a personal problem. A company should be honest in what it puts out there. It's their responsibility.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it's facts from a YouTube video, the camera typically has a coating over the lenses and I'm almost certain that's what the scratches were
 
Whatever the case, it's good to see tests like this as I don't exactly trust Apple that much these days. Anything that keeps them honest is good. This scrutiny is the price paid for being the most valuable brand in the world. But this is also why we don't see too much innovation that quickly because it takes time to get it right. I'm good with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: alexmarchuk
IMEX1PCT said:
Two things:

1) Im not sure anyone cares about what youre 'fed up' with. Actually I am sure: No one cares.

2) If its not Sapphire, and Apple marketed the product as in fact having those components as Sapphire, it is bad for Apple, and they must be held accountable. Consumers trust your company, that does not mean take advantage of their trust by making them fools.
Click to expand...
Because so many people buy it just for the sapphire glass on the lense, McDonald's pictures looks nothing like what you get but people don't say anything and they keep making money and you'd probably be surprised at how many things you own that's supposed to be better than what it actually is for materials
 
Coming from a background with watches that have sapphire crystals and cameras lenses with coatings...sapphire is not scratch proof, and coatings aren't either. If the lens is indeed coated (which would make sense), then the coating will easily be damaged by a test like this. No photographer in their right mind would even touch the surface of their lenses with their bare fingers, let alone try and scratch at it. Coatings are sensitive, and required for the best image quality possible in a camera system.

As far as the sapphire lens cover goes...who really gives a rip? Having owned many iPhones without them I have never had a lens cover get scratched before. Even my watches that have had mineral crystal versus sapphire have never scratched with *sensible* day to day use. Ultimately, if Apple says its sapphire, it's sapphire. If it turns out to not be sapphire, then they are accountable for false advertisement. Not a huge deal at all in my opinion (unless all of you complaining are going to pick at the lens with hard objects for kicks and giggles...to each his own I guess!).
 
  • Like
Reactions: rawlus and MrBukey
entraik said:
You're the one that doesn't find truth in the facts being presented. So I challenge you to back those words up. Clearly not....
So moving along.

All I'm doing is presenting a problem. Perhaps I'm educating people in a way so that they can avoid damage to their lens.
Click to expand...

No you aren't. You are fear-mongering.

I suspect you aren't even in the market for an iPhone 7, but instead are a Samsung fanboy over from their forums after some iPhone user trolled you about Notes exploding.

Come clean. You are combative and trollish, and frankly "you go test it" when you are presenting someone else's findings as fact is the ultimate copout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PieTunes and kiopoptr877
I really hope it's truly sapphire. I just broke the lens on my Note 7, and that was with VERY careful use so I have no idea how it happened. A big crack you can feel with a finger from one corner to the next. So for those of you who say why bother with sapphire if you can scratch the coating, I'd say it's for crack resistance.
 
entraik said:
Exactly. Jerry Rigs has a 6s scratch test on his YouTube people can see. And he confirms the 6s has Sapphire with a scratch test. However, the 7 DOES NOT. So And that means lens will get scratched easier.
Click to expand...

Cost-cutting on the 7???

Anything to increase profit...Apple isn't any different than Samsung, etc. Maybe a tad better, but essentially the same.

It's all about dollars and cents, magnified by millions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: entraik
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back