My watch has sapphire crystal on it and it's still perfect after 3yrs. Not one single micro scratch at all. I've nicked my watch many times over the years and you can see them on the metal surroundings but not on the sapphire crystal.
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's Move to Revolutionize Sapphire Manufacturing Likely to Leave Competitors Behind
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My watch has sapphire crystal on it and it's still perfect after 3yrs. Not one single micro scratch at all. I've nicked my watch many times over the years and you can see them on the metal surroundings but not on the sapphire crystal.
Of course they don't cost that much, even from a normal third party OEM. The entire BOM plus labour for the iPhone 5S starts at $199 for the 16GB phone. That news story was a bunch of bullshiner.
I have a sapphire watch, I smashed it into a wall once, took out a chunk off the wall and scratches the metal a bit. Not a single ding on the sapphire glass. TOTALLY weirded me out.
I thought this was related to Macbook Pros based on the picture. This is just for Iphones and watches?
Good article, I liked the link to this:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...to-iphone-ipad-future-iwatch-cover-glass.html
.. so the iPhone 6 screen will be made of Corundum ... http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Skyrim:Corundum_Ore#Corundum_Ore
I'm wondering exactly how far Apple goes with sapphire crystal applications. The iPhone? What about iPad?.. MacBooks?
I'm a huge believer in sapphire crystal as my Rolex Submariner has zero scratches over 15 years of rugged service.
I'm a huge believer in sapphire crystal as my Rolex Submariner has zero scratches over 15 years of rugged service.
I see lots of phones with cracked screens, not just iPhones. If sapphire is significantly more resistant to breaking than Gorilla Glass, it would be a big plus, IMO. If it still breaks as easily, not such a big deal.
I am sure the guys at Apple figure this out already a lot smarter than you and IYou forgot: Heavier, thicker, and less light transmittance
Not ideal for a phone, ipad, and much less for a notebook.
A lot of people commenting about brittle sapphire and cracked screens are missing the point. Apple can easily laminate a thin layer of sapphire on top of a sheet of glass, making it durable and scratch-proof as well. And I'm sure many here are too new to remember the anguish in 2007 when Apple announced that the screen of the as-yet-unreleased iPhone would be glass instead of plastic. As if Apple engineers aren't aware of the physical properties of the materials they're making stuff out of
Not only can they do it, they have a patent for it:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...to-iphone-ipad-future-iwatch-cover-glass.html
Digging into macrumors forums is painful anymore...It's nothing but a bunch of self-declared experts stating gut reaction as irrefutable fact and absolutely refusing to acknowledge things like evidence, precedent, or logic.
I've noticed over the past few years as we get closer to iPhone release day a fairly clear picture has already shaped up of what to expect, but you wouldn't know that reading MR forums - it's still a utterly disorganized grasping at straws right up to the keynote, then a flood of disbelief afterwards. It's like watching FOX on election night 2012.
I'm not even sure where to begin with this. Yes harder is more brittle, but that doesn't mean it is specifically more likely to break. It means it is more likely to break before deforming. Diamond is very hard, but how often do you shatter it? Other people are pointing this out though, so I'll move on the part that is actually wrong, and not just misleading.
A surface having a higher index has absolutely nothing to do with chromatic aberration. Chromatic aberration is a property of an imaging system, and is related to dispersion, not index of refraction. Yes, higher index materials will often have higher levels of dispersion, but it isn't the same thing. For a single lens imaging system, dispersion directly leads to chromatic aberration, but that is about as far you can go with that claim. This is a cover "glass" near an image plane, and not at anywhere near a pupil. At the image plane you cannot create chromatic aberration. Chromatic aberration is the difference in focus or overlay of different wavelengths within the plane. For normal viewing angles the best high dispersion can do is create a color dependance on the output angular spread (possible slight color change, but not aberration) if the back surface is immersed (no air gap). The only direct impact of having a higher index material is that reflections will be higher, unless an anti-reflective coating is used. For normal glass, with an index of refraction of 1.5 the reflection per surface with an air gap is about 4%. Sapphire typically has in index of refraction close to 1.75. This means the reflection would be about 7.5%. While noticeably higher, I'm not so sure it will necessitate an AR coating. However, if Apple chooses to use an AR coating I'm not sure why this will result in "defeating the outer superior durability". The coating will be around a micron in thickness, and relatively tough. If it does scratch you will just have an incredibly shallow region that reflects a little more light. I typically have to look under a microscope to see AR coating scratches.
I don't think the phone screens will be made of sapphire. I don't see what the advantage would be over gorilla glass, only more expensive and easier to shatter, although harder to scratch. I think the factory was for iWatches.
----------
haha give me one of your disposable diamonds and I will show you it is very easy, in fact, to shatter a diamond
----------
haha give me one of your disposable diamonds and I will show you it is very easy, in fact, to shatter a diamond
I think you misspelt 'Samsung', buddy.
I literally laughed out loud at my desk at work. Now all of my coworkers are looking at my like I am crazy.
I don't think anyone is making that claim. I believe it's understood that a perfect Gorilla Glass screen is more resistant to shattering compared to a perfect Sapphire screen. However, there's also an understanding that scratches can contribute to the ease at which a panel can break. So if the Gorilla Glass panel is heavily scratched then it may be more easily broken compared to Sapphire. And Gorilla Glass scratches more easily.
IMO this one will come down to marketing. Gorilla Glass will probably come out with a new version of their product, maybe even give it a new name, and then market its advantages over sapphire (strength, clarity, weight, though probably not hardness). In the end Apple may win because their marketing is better than anyone. But I also don't see this being such a big deal and could be a turnoff for consumers if the price is jacked up due to this "feature".
I also suspect that some of the very fine scratches that I get all over my iOS devices are actually in the oleophobic coating. And if that's the case then it would make me wonder how effective a sapphire screen would be if it has the oleophobic coating.
i'm studying aluminum extrusion, and i can tell you that this is just plain nonsense.
Al, and extrudate of Al alloys are very common products and it's industry is well grounded, automotive, aircraft, trains, all have an extensive use of Al, and from a technological POV all these have bigger issues and more stringent quality factors than laptops' cases...
This boggles my mind...the only explanation I have is that you have never used a MacBook with Retina Display. The advantages are obvious, just open your eyes! Better viewing angles, less glare, more accurate color reproduction, and NO EYE STRAIN. You pay for quality. I also think you are forgetting that you don't ONLY get a retina display for $2000...use a retina display for a day and then try to go back...good luck with that.
The majority of past features have been gimmicks but this one does pique my interest. Technology in general has been extremely dull lately. It does not keep my interest.
Easy is relative. For comparison, the question is if that defect free diamond will shatter with the force of 4 oz dropped from 5'. Btw, I wish I could supply us both with disposable flawless diamonds for the experiment.
No doubt. I've personally never been a fan using protection. It just doesn't feel right. But I think more people would be going bare if Apple incorporates this.
The problem is people are still going to drop their phones just like now and the outcome will still be the same. Crystal is still a type of glass and that's a fact. Also Apple has a good thing going for them by using glass and when the phone breaks they will replace that device for a certain amount of money. GO APPLE! :0
1,000 additional furnaces. As if Arizona isn't already hot enough
/sarcasm
Here in AZ we have to put air conditioners in our furnaces to keep 'em from melting.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I think the issue is that this would be an invisible innovation one couldn't even notice unless they have a history of scratching the glass fronts of their iPhones and then are able to notice that this one wouldn't scratch as easily. As others have posted, I hardly ever seen gripes about scratched iPhone glass- just cracks/shatters (which this would do just as easily).
So it's an invisible benefit accompanying a rumor that it's going to cost some-to-a-lot more. If the cost rumor is true- and speculatively, I would think Sapphire will come at a great cost vs. sand (glass), either Apple is planning to eat the higher cost of a transparent, glass-like front of an iDevice or we are going to pay more to cover that added cost. Pair that idea with the other rumor of Apple seeking $100 more for iPhone 6 and rumors appear to come together.
That's speculation and maybe seeing converging rumors where there's no such convergence at play but there is some logic in that speculation and it seems like to could fit the facts.
Actually that is completely wrong. By definition glass is non-crystaline. It is amorphous. You seem to be equating transparent with glass.