The video shows him scratching it with a tool with a 6 on the Mohs hardness scale, and it leaving visible scratches. Sapphire is the second hardest naturally occurring material and has a hardness scale of 9. The fact that it scratches with a tool of #6 means it is either not sapphire, or it has another material on top of it which can be scratched much easier.
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
Or the tool was faked in order to muster up more views. Which seems to be the more likely? A company committing fraud and selling a product that is not what is advertised, or a Youtuber trying to start a controversy? The latter has nothing to lose, but everything to gain.
So, exactly, he could have made a mistake or he could have done it deliberately. The individual unit might have had a defect. This video does not prove that it's not sapphire.
It will be, though this is a case of guilty until proven innocent. Really it should be up to this guy (or someone else making the challenge) to prove - properly and scientifically that it's not sapphire.
No, the video shows him scratching it with a tool. It isn't proven to show that it's being scratched with a tool of a hardness of 6, nor that he's scratching a unit without defects.
This issue is literally no different than the camera sensor issue. People went on and on about how the sensor on the Plus was smaller than the one on the 7. People took the word of bloggers and refused to believe what Phil said when he said they were identical. Turns out they were identical. People need to stop listening to random sources that may have an axe to grind with Apple, and actually take Apple's word as the truth.
I guess a fair number of people believe that Independence Day (or any other movie that isn't factual to what's seen) is real, because they saw it on a screen with their eyes?
Sorry if I appear to be being facetious, but I think it provides a valid analogy....
Sorry if I appear to be being facetious, but I think it provides a valid analogy....
Apple used AR coating with the SS watch last year and while i have my 42mm since launch with not a single scratch i have other watches for example a breitling SO with the AR scratched; maybe apple coated the lens ? but it doesnt make any sense because there is nothing to see on the lens or home button to make it clear/non reflective like looking at a watch face.
Unless that YouTube tester had some calibrated sensors on his hand to apply the appropriate (recommended) pressure by the tool maker it's just a fun test.
Put differently, that tool could have been made of diamond but if he didn't apply enough force it wouldn't have scratched.
And of course the corollary - you could have ordinary garden sand on that cover but apply enough force behind it I'm sure it'll scratch all day long, sapphire or otherwise.
It's a YouTube vid people, let's not give it the same factual weight as a Caltech research paper.
LOL
Put differently, that tool could have been made of diamond but if he didn't apply enough force it wouldn't have scratched.
And of course the corollary - you could have ordinary garden sand on that cover but apply enough force behind it I'm sure it'll scratch all day long, sapphire or otherwise.
It's a YouTube vid people, let's not give it the same factual weight as a Caltech research paper.
LOL
Maybe they had to coat the lens because of the quad-flash and it glared? Totally speculation, but the quad-flash is ridiculously bright.
Now that you mention it is one of the reasons i dont use a case, they always get in the way of the light it shows on the picture like a spike.
Actually it's a rather poor analogy. One is claimed fiction the other not. Trusting Zack (Jerryrig) is up the the viewer. There's many more things he could have sabotaged in order to receive clickbait. I choose to believe him about the Note 5 scratchability the Nexus 6p bendability and that the iPhone 7's overall great build quality. Both lens scratched at the same level as GG4. That's certainly not bad IMHO.
Even if it's sapphire it's man-made and not natural but since it scratches at MOH 6 vs previous iPhone at MOH 9 it's a lower quality man-made sapphire. Personally, I think it's just the same glass composition as the screen since it scratches the same so Phil Shiller is not telling the truth.
I thought there was a chance that the tool itself was abrading and leaving debris on the target material which looks like scratches. I am positive I heard this explanation somewhere regarding another scratchgate controversy.
Okay point taken over the analogy.
My point is "choosing" to believe him doesn't actually prove what he's showing. However, I'm not saying that he's done something for click bait, or is intentionally lying. Although I don't think that can be removed from the table, there's also the option of human error, too much pressure (non-calibrated test), a defect on his unit.
You choose to believe him - but what appears to be shown is not proven to be shown.
If the almighty Apple says so, it must be true. lol
Does it scratch at MOH 6 though? That is not proven.
So you "think" Phil Schiller isn't telling the truth - when he has so much to lose, both personally and for Apple - but based on what you "think" over "proven fact".
True. The bottom line is that there needs to be a better analysis of the camera lens. The lens indeed could be glass and replaced unknown by Apple during the manufacturing process. It's unlikely, but possible. I don't think Apple would intentionally lie about it though. It's a pretty big lie and it would be illogical to assume they would risk their credibility, Eventually, the truth will come out and class action lawsuits would occur.
If it was abrading it would leave a bump but if you watch the video he clearly explained that it leaves a "deep scratch". From a logistics standpoint, it's simpler and cheaper to use the same glass throughout the whole phone. And, since the screen, home button and camera cover all scratch at the same MOH level 6 this seems to be the case.
Whilst it's true that anyone and any company can lie, it's so incredibly unlikely for Apple and Phil Schiller to lie though:
- They would have to at least replace or refund anyone that wanted it --- huge loss of revenue and profits.
- They would likely get class action suits globally --- huge loss of revenue and profits.
- They would likely get investigated by governmental bodies globally and fined for false advertising --- huge loss of revenue and profits.
- Their reputation and trust would be damaged --- huge loss of revenue, profits and future sales.
- Phil Schiller would be sacked and find it difficult to get another job, could lose stock options.
- Other execs (right up to Tim Cook) could get sacked, lose stock options, and find it difficult to get other jobs.
- To hold up the lie would require absolutely no whilst-blowing, no disgruntled employees (or future ex-employees) going for a big media pay check - ever in the future.
Soooo.... What's more realistic, really and honestly?
Apple lying or their being another reasonable explanation?
And until it's actually, really, scientifically proven to not be sapphire, why are so many of you genuinely believing that it's not? Why don't you want actual proof? And if you don't believe it is - and that Apple are genuinely lying to you, why do you want to ever give them money again?
Last edited:
You can choose to believe anything you wish. No one on these forums yourself included is a expert including me.
I choose to believe what I see and what I have seen in the past. I have watched his videos on many many occasions. He has no axe to grind. He does the same test every time. So yes I choose to believe him. You don't have to. But why you are so intent on proving your stance to everyone who has a different opinion is beyond me. It's a phone. That's all. Believe what you want as everyone has their own opinion. So for me yes that is proven. Not what I think. So thanks.
Actually after making a quick google search, I did not find any videos which tested the iPhone 6 or 6s camera lens if it is actually sapphire.
Even on JerryRig's channel he only tested the camera lens on the 6, 6s and SE with a razor knife and then claims it must be sapphire.
Someone here willing to test their 6 or 6s??
Because then I would question...is the 6/6s and SE camera lens really sapphire??
Last edited:
No, it's not proven. That's my point. I could be wrong, I'm not saying I am right or wrong. I'm saying there's no logic behind people absolutely, in a blind-faith fashion, believing something that is unproven without further questioning and actual proof.
"He has no axe to grind" - that may be the case. He has $$$ and fame to make though. He also could have made a human error in the pick used or pressure applied. Or he could have had a defective unit. All of these things are credible explanations, but equally may not be what happened.
Saying "something is proven" because you choose to believe a video doesn't prove it. You might be right - but it's not proven, it's a belief - but it's not a fact until you can prove it.
Agreed. However, wouldn't it be a media frenzy if the Chinese manufacturer(s) of the iPhone intentionally substituted sapphire glass and billed Apple for it but in fact used glass without Apple testing it? lol.
Agreed. That would be extremely awkward. Whilst it's another plausible explanation that may have happened - I'm guessing (hoping?) the loss of future orders from Apple would stop them.....
As I say, I'd really, really like to see a credible scientific investigation and lab results. If Apple do it, people will just cry "lies!", so I'd like to see an independent body look into it....
Please, this isn't a conspiracy video. You just can't see the number, but during the display scratch test it was at a different angle and you can clearly see the different number on the hardness tools he was using. It's not like the title of the video was "OMG THE IPHONE 7 ISN'T SAPPHIRE". Besides, he has been doing this for a quite a while.
I've not said it's a conspiracy theory. In fact, I've not said it's definitely anything. I've offered a range of plausible explanations. Including this video is what it says it is.... But I've also said - like many believe the video shows what it supposedly shows - that I believe the video likely doesn't show what it appears to show.
I've said that it certainly doesn't prove to show what it supposedly shows, and that I'd like to see proof.
It's amazing that you use the word "conspiracy" when so many are so convinced that Apple have created an elaborate conspiracy that - if it was - would so easily fall down, yet at the same time can't for one second entertain the idea that this video could have any other explanation behind it whatsoever than being what it supposedly shows....