Apple sapphire debate

[newellj]

My point about the Mohs hardness testing is there is a standard for doing the test, there has to be. And it probably states the "pen" must be held at X angle with X pressure applied, etc. That way, all devices tested will result in differences in the device, not in how the test was performed.
[doublepost=1539258902][/doublepost]

I assume this is true. I also assume that none of the destructive-for-clicks YT "tests" observe any of that. I could be wrong...

They don't become obsolete after 1-2 years. To replace in that timeframe is the choice of the buyer who just wants newer features. It wasn't until this last software update the original watch was left out. Four years isn't bad for technology

Clearly true, since there are still people wearing S0 Watches, or trading them in this year. I personally don't think I'd ever be in that set, but as you say the reason is features rather than failure to function.

 

[Marzel]

Clearly true, since there are still people wearing S0 Watches, or trading them in this year. I personally don't think I'd ever be in that set, but as you say the reason is features rather than failure to function.

I'm on of them. In general, I only replace apple products if there is a new design. That's also why I replaced Series 0 with 4 and I plan to replace my iPad Air with the new Pro. Same with macbook pro and iphones. I just find all other features secondary and not worth the money compared to a radical design change (body and screen).

 

[ZipZap]

I think the question has been raised because of the "scratch test" videos where the tools used progress upwards on the Moh's hardness scale. The first tool able to scratch the Apple Watch screen is unable to scratch the crystal on a standard watch. This has been shown in more than one or even a few videos.

I'm no geologist so I have no explanation for it but it seems legit.

The problem has been raised because people are posting with scratches that should not have occurred.
[doublepost=1539271749][/doublepost]

I have personally tested the sapphire on my SS Series 0 and it scratched at Moh pick level 6. Apples sapphire quality is absolutely horrible when compared to the sapphire from real watch manufacturers.
Curving pure sapphire is a very difficult and expensive process which usually results in a thick sheet of glass. Pure curved sapphire also also bends light significantly more than regular glass!
This is not the case with Apple watches, which proves that Apple is indeed using a different material mixed with sapphire. That’s the reason why the SS Apple Watch scratches at Mohs level 6!

You can also see on this video btw...

Thank you. Absolutely correct. Apple is not using pure sapphire. Also, sapphire would not need an oleophobic coating as it is plenty slick.
[doublepost=1539271924][/doublepost]

It is essentially a different product, though. The sapphire crystal on the Rolex I'm wearing on my left wrist is a solid piece of "glass" (it isn't really glass...). The sapphire on the S4 AW on my other wrist is at best a thin layer, and may not even have all the same material characteristics of what's typically used in mechanical watches - it probably can't, because it needs to work with the touch-sensitive display.

In any case, I'm not surprised that the sapphire displays in the SS watches aren't as bomb-proof as what you get in high-end mechanical watches. Nevertheless, in normal use, they seem to hold up very well. Heck, my wife and I both had S3 AW Nike versions for a year, and both were perfect when they were traded a couple of weeks ago. Neither of us babies our daily gear.

Yah cant call it sapphire if its not sapphire. There is an expectation that comes a sapphire crystal. Apple is using the term as puffery...but the AW does not have a conventional sapphire crystal.
[doublepost=1539272030][/doublepost]

You could read the countless threads (Literally), of the amount of members with every day experiences who have abused their stainless Apple Watches with the Sapphire display and have not suffered damage for the most part, compared to those complaining/discussing the Ion– X Glass has been far less durable in the sense of scratch resistance. That would be more than of evidence of direct user experience firsthand regarding your post.

Obfuscation. Its not a sapphire crystal display as claimed by Apple.

 

[ajm222]

The problem has been raised because people are posting with scratches that should not have occurred.
[doublepost=1539271749][/doublepost]

Thank you. Absolutely correct. Apple is not using pure sapphire. Also, sapphire would not need an oleophobic coating as it is plenty slick.
[doublepost=1539271924][/doublepost]

Yah cant call it sapphire if its not sapphire. There is an expectation that comes a sapphire crystal. Apple is using the term as puffery...but the AW does not have a conventional sapphire crystal.
[doublepost=1539272030][/doublepost]

Obfuscation. Its not a sapphire crystal display as claimed by Apple.

Wrong on all counts

 

[newellj]

Yah cant call it sapphire if its not sapphire. There is an expectation that comes a sapphire crystal. Apple is using the term as puffery...but the AW does not have a conventional sapphire crystal..

The fact that the AW doesn't have a 0.625" (or whatever) thick piece of sapphire crystal over the display has nothing to do with whether there is actually a layer of sapphire crystal on the display, nor whether use of the term is puffery (or worse). Almost nothing about an AW lines up with a conventional watch, other than the fact that both are worn on your wrist and both can tell time.

 

[ZipZap]

Wrong on all counts

You mean you are.

 

[ajm222]

You mean you are.

That's right, my bad

 

[alexcue]

Regardless we do know the so called AW with a “sapphire” crystal does better the “ion glass” version

S0 was ion Glass on mine. scratched it almost immediately. Got it replaced under warranty. The rest of mine have been SS Sapphires, not a mark on them. But, I'm chicken and almost always use a Speck guard on the bezel.

 

[mbhforum]

Allow me to chime in here.....My very first S0 AW was Sapphire and within a few weeks, I had a huge scratch on it. I brought it to the Apple Store and since it was a brand new device, they were nice enough to replace it and allow me to purchase Applecare on the new one. We chalked it up to being defective. I wore an Omega watch for 5 years with a Sapphire crystal display and never had a single scratch. I was shocked the Apple display got scratched so easily.

I had that watch for 2+ years, not a single mark on it. I then had a S3 for the past 6 months, not a single mark on it....Well, just got my Apple Watch 4 and within 2 weeks, I have another scratch on it. (I think I banged it against a wall walking by). I didn't purchase Applecare on any of my watches since but luckily I was within my 14 day return window and threatened to return it. It took some convincing and adding AppleCare, but I am getting a replacement shipped tomorrow. It's completely unacceptable that I spend over $800 on a product that claims to be scratch resistant and it's happened now twice in 4 years. . The Sapphire Crystal is the only reason I buy the SS model, especially considering I have SBSS which looks very close to Aluminum model.

Going forward, I will now buy Applecare on the AW's, which is ridiculous considering how expensive they are to begin with.

 

[44267547]

Its not a sapphire crystal display as claimed by Apple.

A couple things come to mind with the posts you have made in this thread:

1.) You made multiple arguments, but can’t provide a source for anything that you’re claiming, but only to argue that ‘It’s not Sapphire.’ For the record, I think you’re being overly pedantic in the terms of that it is indeed Sapphire, It may not be necessarily the Sapphire grade for higher mechanical watches, as it may contain impurities, but it is indeed, Sapphire.

2.) The basis of your argument you’re saying that it does not have a conventional sapphire crystal, but what difference does it make to real world usage if somebody states that the Sapphire display has held up to their daily encounters? Does it change anything else if we argue over the most technical specifications? No, it doesn’t. I think for the user accounts in multiple threads who own the stainless model , are more than inclined to refute your arguments that it certainly is far more durable than what you are claiming.

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

Allow me to chime in here.....My very first S0 AW was Sapphire and within a few weeks, I had a huge scratch on it. I brought it to the Apple Store and since it was a brand new device, they were nice enough to replace it and allow me to purchase Applecare on the new one. We chalked it up to being defective. I wore an Omega watch for 5 years with a Sapphire crystal display and never had a single scratch. I was shocked the Apple display got scratched so easily.

I had that watch for 2+ years, not a single mark on it. I then had a S3 for the past 6 months, not a single mark on it....Well, just got my Apple Watch 4 and within 2 weeks, I have another scratch on it. (I think I banged it against a wall walking by). I didn't purchase Applecare on any of my watches since but luckily I was within my 14 day return window and threatened to return it. It took some convincing and adding AppleCare, but I am getting a replacement shipped tomorrow. It's completely unacceptable that I spend over $800 on a product that claims to be scratch resistant and it's happened now twice in 4 years. . The Sapphire Crystal is the only reason I buy the SS model, especially considering I have SBSS which looks very close to Aluminum model.

Going forward, I will now buy Applecare on the AW's, which is ridiculous considering how expensive they are to begin with.

Just playing devils advocate here, but are you absolutely sure it was a scratch on the crystal? I've sworn I had scratches on mine after hitting walls, corners of walls, etc and whatever it was buffed out with a microfiber cloth. Wasn't a scratch.

 

[Steve686]

One of the most basic negatives with Apple Watch is that the sapphire face does protrude well above the bezel. This is screaming for contact.

 

[44267547]

One of the most basic negatives with Apple Watch is that the sapphire face does protrude well above the bezel. This is screaming for contact.

That’s interesting. I don’t think I have ever noticed this before, even though I haven’t had a lot of encounters with objects with my watch, but I learned something new.

 

[NBAasDOGG]

A couple things come to mind with the posts you have made in this thread:

1.) You made multiple arguments, but can’t provide a source for anything that you’re claiming, but only to argue that ‘It’s not Sapphire.’ For the record, I think you’re being overly pedantic in the terms of that it is indeed Sapphire, It may not be necessarily the Sapphire grade for higher mechanical watches, as it may contain impurities, but it is indeed, Sapphire.

2.) The basis of your argument you’re saying that it does not have a conventional sapphire crystal, but what difference does it make to real world usage if somebody states that the Sapphire display has held up to their daily encounters? Does it change anything else if we argue over the most technical specifications? No, it doesn’t. I think for the user accounts in multiple threads who own the stainless model , are more than inclined to refute your arguments that it certainly is far more durable than what you are claiming.

If you understand the definition of "evidence", you would have accepted the fact that Apples sapphire scratches at Mohs level 6. Pure Sapphire does not scratch at level 6 PERIOD!

Please watch the electron microscopy results of Apples sapphire:

 

[mavis]

If you understand the definition of "evidence", you would have accepted the fact that Apples sapphire scratches at Mohs level 6. Pure Sapphire does not scratch at level 6 PERIOD!

Please watch the electron microscopy results of Apples sapphire:

Fantastic video! Thanks for sharing.

It basically confirms what my personal experience has been - Apple's "sapphire" is better than glass, but much worse than other watch makers' sapphire.

 

[44267547]

Pure Sapphire does not scratch at level 6 PERIOD!

Respectively, Did you read my post you quoted? I’m guessing not, I literally stated Apples Sapphire display contains impurities that may not make it a complete grade of Sapphire, but it still is....sapphire. The basis of my post you quoted has nothing to do with ‘Pure sapphire.’

Since you didn’t read my entire post you quoted for whatever reason, I narrowed it down for you below:

It may not be necessarily the Sapphire grade for higher mechanical watches, as it may contain impurities, but it is indeed, Sapphire..

 

[mbhforum]

Fantastic video! Thanks for sharing.

It basically confirms what my personal experience has been - Apple's "sapphire" is better than glass, but much worse than other watch makers' sapphire.

Agreed. Glad I just added AppleCare!

 

[newellj]

Fantastic video! Thanks for sharing.

It basically confirms what my personal experience has been - Apple's "sapphire" is better than glass, but much worse than other watch makers' sapphire.

If you think about it, it's clear why a sapphire laminate layer in the complex sandwich that makes up the display of an Apple Watch could never perform like the thick, solid sapphire crystal of a mechanical watch. You can't have a touch display and have the performance of solid sapphire.
[doublepost=1539428648][/doublepost]

Respectively, Did you read my post you quoted? I’m guessing not, I literally stated Apples Sapphire display contains impurities that may not make it a complete grade of Sapphire, but it still is....sapphire. The basis of my post you quoted has nothing to do with ‘Pure sapphire.’

Since you didn’t read my entire post you quoted for whatever reason, I narrowed it down for you below:

I doubt that impurities are the issue. You just can't use the same thickness of sapphire in a touch display that you can in a mechanical watch.

 

[44267547]

I doubt that impurities are the issue. You just can't use the same thickness of sapphire in a touch display that you can in a mechanical watch.

Issue for what specifically? Impurities isn’t an issue if the display doesn’t scratch based on my own anecdotal experiences. As exhausted as these discussion(s) has been over sapphire in ample threads, I’m convinced Apple is using sapphire mixture for their displays, but nor is it 100% grade either, or; of the caliber of a mechanical watch, even though I’m not trying to conflate the disparity from various compounds.

 

[OriginalAppleGuy]

That was one of the more scientific videos I've seen about the sapphire question. It's focus, though, is on the camera of the iPhone, not the watch. I'm willing to bet there is a difference. And I'm willing to bet later generations are better than earlier ones. What we need here is a comparison of the ION and Sapphire watch faces for current versions.

 

[newellj]

I mean that I doubt that impurities are the cause of the scratches that the sapphire displays suffer in real world use.

That was one of the more scientific videos I've seen about the sapphire question. It's focus, though, is on the camera of the iPhone, not the watch. I'm willing to bet there is a difference. And I'm willing to bet later generations are better than earlier ones. What we need here is a comparison of the ION and Sapphire watch faces for current versions.

I think that's a very safe assumption - the sapphire window over the camera lens can be thicker than the layer on the Watch, which needs to be touch-sensitive.

It would be interesting to see what the display in a Watch contains - a side view, with the different materials shown.

 

[ZipZap]

A couple things come to mind with the posts you have made in this thread:

1.) You made multiple arguments, but can’t provide a source for anything that you’re claiming, but only to argue that ‘It’s not Sapphire.’ For the record, I think you’re being overly pedantic in the terms of that it is indeed Sapphire, It may not be necessarily the Sapphire grade for higher mechanical watches, as it may contain impurities, but it is indeed, Sapphire.

2.) The basis of your argument you’re saying that it does not have a conventional sapphire crystal, but what difference does it make to real world usage if somebody states that the Sapphire display has held up to their daily encounters? Does it change anything else if we argue over the most technical specifications? No, it doesn’t. I think for the user accounts in multiple threads who own the stainless model , are more than inclined to refute your arguments that it certainly is far more durable than what you are claiming.

My experience and the experience of many watch owners I have interacted with tells me that the Apple display is not a sapphire crystal. You're obviously not a conventional watch owner.

You say reasonably durable, and I say LUCKY. What are "Daily Encounters"? The truth, by Apples own admission, is that their display is a synthetic type of Sapphire Crystal.

The debate (difference) for me is in paying for something that is not as advertised.

I cant recall every reading a thread on watch sites claiming that their sapphire crystal had scratched. I come here are see many thread on the topic.
[doublepost=1539441483][/doublepost]

Respectively, Did you read my post you quoted? I’m guessing not, I literally stated Apples Sapphire display contains impurities that may not make it a complete grade of Sapphire, but it still is....sapphire. The basis of my post you quoted has nothing to do with ‘Pure sapphire.’

Since you didn’t read my entire post you quoted for whatever reason, I narrowed it down for you below:

You clearly dont understand the meaning inferred when a company sells a watch and claims it has a sapphire crystal. Apple takes advantage of that perception but then delivers an inferior product.
[doublepost=1539441654][/doublepost]

I mean that I doubt that impurities are the cause of the scratches that the sapphire displays suffer in real world use.



I think that's a very safe assumption - the sapphire window over the camera lens can be thicker than the layer on the Watch, which needs to be touch-sensitive.

It would be interesting to see what the display in a Watch contains - a side view, with the different materials shown.

Poor quality Sapphire is very definitely the cause.

 

[44267547]

My experience and the experience of many watch owners I have interacted with tells me that the Apple display is not a sapphire crystal.

I also think it’s safe to say that your arguments have been debunked by not only members just in this thread, but in other threads as well indicating that it is indeed Sapphire, but your tangent is that it’s not ‘conventional Sapphire’. Again, I think you’re being pedantic for the sake of arguing versus actually being rational.

What I don’t understand, is why you necessarily need to continually force your opinion on others without actually seeing the flipside to the argument that the Sapphire display easily suffices how Apple intended to be, which is....durable.

You're obviously not a conventional watch owner.

This quote right here is a great example of why it’s very difficult have a discussion with you about the Sapphire, because you’re so presumptuous over everything else, and for the record, you’re incorrect. But, you’re entitled to think what you want.

You say reasonably durable, and I say LUCKY.

It is durable (Amongst the 100’s of other members who in this forum alone have spouted their feedback with similar results). Is it considered fortunate if someone doesn’t scratch the display or hit it on something that could potentially scratch it? Maybe. But in my experience between the Ion-X Glass And Sapphire, the Sapphire has survived instances where The Ion glass failed for me. That alone warrants my approval.

What are "Daily Encounters"? .

I don’t think this question is necessary, but I will entertain it. Daily encounters are anything that the watch will come in contact with, but since you want examples, i.e. a door, countertop, the refrigerator handle, my car when cleaning it, etc. and no “luck” needed, because the Sapphire did exactly what I paid for, and that was to keep the display free from scratches. If you need more examples other than this, I’m sure other members can provide them in addition to mine.

The debate (difference) for me is in paying for something that is not as advertised.

OK? Can you provide an example where the sapphire display has failed for you? I mean, I’m unsure why your entirely negative towards the Sapphire and why you consistently keep replying with such Vitriol in your posts to other members who have shared their *positive* experiences with the Sapphire that has more than a proven its value in this thread.

when a company sells a watch and claims it has a sapphire crystal.

But as I asked in the previous Post, (which you didn’t answer), why does it matter if I and others are having the experiences that Sapphire has been completely durable in instances where its been through daily encounters? Is that not proof enough that it is Sapphire?

Perhaps you should contact Apple themselves and have them clarify your claims, because others clearly are not agreeing with your anecdotal responses towards the Sapphire display.

Apple takes advantage of that perception but then delivers an inferior product.

As long as Apple continues to deliver an exceptional product, that means the quality in terms of the build, WatchOS support, and the sapphire display, and that appeases to me, they could take ‘advantage’ of my money any day. Which right there is a clear and concise example that I am more than content as a customer with the Sapphire since I have owned the previous GEN Apple Watches and the Series 4, Which Have ultimately superseded my expectations.

 

[ajm222]

"Apple has confirmed to The Verge that the company uses sapphire in its iPhone camera lens. It appears the correct testing conditions weren't adhered to in JerryRigEverything's tests. "Apple confirms the iPhone 7 camera lens is sapphire, and under proper testing conditions achieves the hardness and purity results expected from sapphire," says an Apple spokesperson."

 

[Hanson Eigilson]

"Apple has confirmed to The Verge that the company uses sapphire in its iPhone camera lens. It appears the correct testing conditions weren't adhered to in JerryRigEverything's tests. "Apple confirms the iPhone 7 camera lens is sapphire, and under proper testing conditions achieves the hardness and purity results expected from sapphire," says an Apple spokesperson."

"you're scratching it wrong"