I think you're seeing a lot of pushback because the thread is based on a false premise. The OP's evidence does not corroborate his claim.
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.
Camera Lens on iPhone 7 not sapphire. [MERGED]
- Thread starter MarkX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you're seeing a lot of pushback because the thread is based on a false premise. The OP's evidence does not corroborate his claim.
Actually all I did was post the link as others would be interested in. Others went from there and started to argue. Get the facts right.
Pushback and what is happening here is rather different. Regardless we are now simply arguing over why we are arguing. How silly is that? We aren't even talking about the original statements made. But.. The original statement was that the lense isn't fully sapphire. What doesn't corroborate this?
The reality is that some of us, myself included, feel like this was a dishonest classification by Apple. Or at the very least misleading. Again, happens in the industry all the time. I just don't think that should default to my being ok with it.
Apple is the one selling the product and yet the OP is the one being set to the higher standard of his claims being picked apart. And again, his only initial claim was that the lense isn't fully sapphire and provided a video to back that statement. I'm really honestly unsure why people are taking apple's side here. Unless the video is a complete fabrication (which it could be), the sapphire coating, or whatever we decided apple is doing, provides little to no scratch resistance to the lens cover. So it begs the question why even mention sapphire at all, if not to get people thinking "hey, that's super extract hresistsnct and I know that because Apple does this in their watches?" - I feel this sort of thing is very misleading.
It seems to me like people are just attacking each other because they simply don't know how to have an adult conversation about this. And it's happening on both sides here. I won't quote anyone specifically, if I may, because it would be well over half the thread st this point. It's odd to me that if a person makes a statement about something they need to provide various peer reviewed articles and videos and still be claimed to be full of it. A large company says something and their word is taken for what it is "because they have too much to lose". Why? Why shouldn't we be able to question without being crapped on?
[doublepost=1475519331][/doublepost]I'd also like to add, if I may, why it's important for a company to make factual and clear claims about their materials.
Let's say I bought a wedding ring. I wanted platinum. Now there are many different alloys of platinum, but it is understood that my platinum ring can't be simply 1% platinum and the rest some other metal.
So I buy my ring for $1000 (just picking a number here don't read into it) and have it for a couple years. I then decide to test it (maybe I am melting it down to make a different ring or something) and it turns out there is hardly any platinum at all.
Now, according to some folks, this shouldn't matter because it didn't effect my usage for the years I used it. Why should I care? It still met its function as a ring right? It didn't break. Or tarnish. It did what it was supposed to do. Except that it wasn't quite the thing that it was implied to be when I bought it.
Like the example of the ring, I think most people will agree that whatever the lens cover is made of, it is properly serving its purpose for damn near everyone that owns it. I didn't take this thread, at least when it started, as trying to say thisneffrcts the user in any great direct and immediate way. It's just that people thought they were getting one thing and actually may not have.
Last edited:
I skimmed over the previous posts in this thread, but I'm trying to get an idea of the "big picture". I understand we are both evaluating Apple's camera lens AND Apple's claims. Regarding the lens itself, what is the conclusion we can draw when comparing the iPhone camera lens to other premium Smartphones? Do the other makers use a similar material or are theirs more scratch resistant? A few years ago I had an HTC One M8 that I had to return because of camera lens issues (permanent scratching was very easy on it, whether it was just a cover or coating). The referenced video seems to provide solid evidence that while the iPhone lens is indeed primarily made of "sapphire", there are impurities and a composition that isn't as strong as pure sapphire. I guess the question remains, which is how much more cost would be added to the iPhone if they used pure sapphire rather than this lesser grade sapphire. And as I mentioned earlier, how does it compare to what other OEMs are doing?
https://www.macrumors.com/2016/10/05/iphone-7-rear-camera-sapphire/
To: A few people on this thread arguing in no uncertain terms that the lens is not sapphire.
I bet you're feeling pretty silly round about now, if you don't you should.
To: A few people on this thread arguing in no uncertain terms that the lens is not sapphire.
I bet you're feeling pretty silly round about now, if you don't you should.
Actually no one is arguing its not sapphire. Peope are arguing its a weaker recipe or impure sapphire. Thats still valid.
Sorry, but that is bogus. Like apple has said in the past, your holding it wrong. It's just anther excuse for another screw up they did. Million dollar machine was used to test the lens and verified it is more glass than sapphire.
I stand corrected i guess someone is arguing that. The lens is all sapphire just a weak version. The electron microscope showed the whole lens is sapphire in the video.
People treat Apple like a carnival game, always throwing bean bags and trying to knock it off its pedestal.
Honestly, does anyone think that Apple believes that they can say a product has a certain specification when it really doesn't and not understand the effort that would be made to prove them wrong by the entire amateur internet? With all these super experts and sleuths running around smashing away at their keyboards in fury at the utter indignity of it all how have we not solved the Kennedy assassination, the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey and Bigfoot?
Hey look everyone! YouTube Review Guy caught Apple telling a lie!
Sometimes I want to thank Al Gore for helping to bring us the internet and sometimes I want to punch Al Gore in the face for helping to bring us the internet ( aaaaaaannnnddddd cue the people taking issue with idea that Al Gore blah blah blah rage rage rage internet blah blah blah rage rage rage).
Hey look everyone! YouTube Review Guy caught Apple telling a lie!
Sometimes I want to thank Al Gore for helping to bring us the internet and sometimes I want to punch Al Gore in the face for helping to bring us the internet ( aaaaaaannnnddddd cue the people taking issue with idea that Al Gore blah blah blah rage rage rage internet blah blah blah rage rage rage).
Then you just simply dont want to accept how physics works.
When you scratch something with a sharp object gently it makes and INCREDIBLY clean cut scratch. When you press too hard you are actually causing shattering of the crystal structure around where you are pressing. So it is not scratching but breaking the crystal structure.
It makes perfect sense actually if you are not in denial that things are as they seem AND the guy in the video even said is IT IS sapphire.
Where you are getting "more glass than sapphire" you are just making stuff up as you go now. You OWN VIDEO, try watching it again especially at 7 in 30 sec, EVEN SAYS 90% or more aluminum oxide aka sapphire.
Conspiracy over other than making crap up now.
Last edited:
But... but... scientific test! People can talk, test dont tell bs; tecnically called sapphire, industrial term would be 'low quality sapphire' if you compare it to the pure sapphire. I can buy Al2O3 from the store and it is labeled "techical grade" to "puriss" for the purpose. Or you can buy a crystal glass to drink wine, some are just glass while other are from a low quality crystal glass (cheap) to a high quality glass (expensive). Still both are used to drink the same wine.
The next question should be "why are there so much impurities?" Function or just saving money?
Last edited:
But not scratch resistant sapphire. It is like selling lead belt to divers that float on water because they made them porous with air bobbles. Technicly it's lead, but it doesn't perform the function expected of it.
Even if we hypothetically accept this test was accurate; and the crystals aren't fracturing from pressing too hard like Apple says (who I tend to believe more than some random guy on Youtube), it is still very scratch resistant. 6 to 7 range contains quartz, what many many watch faces in lower price watches are made of.
It is still perfectly fine to prevent scratches from every day use. After all, when is the last time you rubbed your phone lens against a mohs pick or something that hard?
Lets be real here and real life usage. Most items you set your phone on; glass, wood and plastic (like tables or in your car) are not as hard and wont scratch the lens. That is what the lens is designed to withstand, every day usage, not some arbitrary lab tests. This is again, accepting this test as true which I still dont unless the amount of pressure used was regulated to prevent crystal structure fracturing.
If people had scratches on their camera lenses in mass quantities then this would be anything more than nitpicking. But that's simply not happening at all. And it was never a problem on the 6 or 6S lines which were identical material.
This is a non-issue being made an issue by trolls. If this ia THAT big a deal go buy yourself an exploding Note 7 and see what a real issue is.
Last edited:
dont you think that that was abit stupid sentence? Abit childish?
I think the problem here is more like the way how you lead people to think rather than the non-issue. Where is the point when you think it is abit misleading to say something when there is obviously more behind?
You believe a company that told you that there is no antenna issue and you're just holding it wrong? The company that told you that there isn't a GPU soldering issue on multiple Macbook Pro models? The company that told you that there isn't a display soldering issue on the white macbook? That company? That company that presently claims there is no touch disease?
Just because there currently ->may<- not be much impact doesn't they should get away with bogus PR claims, it is sapphire, just doesn't work like sapphire. If it is due to pressure, why doesn't the 5 pick crack it?