Or how about the most likely scenario. The video tester is right, Apple is right, but they used a coating on the lens that scratches easily as some sort of "anti-glare" measure.
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
Which if you look further up the thread is also an option I've actually suggested. Many people have dismissed it because they've said that a coating wouldn't scratch like that, so I haven't offered it up in more recent posts... But in any case, I haven't said it's definitely anything. I've offered several potential reasons (so have others) including "something else" or the unit may be defective or it may not be sapphire (although, again I think that's unlikely). I've not said that the tester isn't right.
The video tester makes a claim - that it's not sapphire. It is down the video tester to prove it, he doesn't attempt to back up his claim beyond one test, and doesn't consider that there could possibly be any alternatives. That one point in itself does raise a question, surely?
Is it possible the supplier or assembler is secretly using glass instead of sapphire without telling apple? Just my awful guess.
Not an awful guess, and plausible (as are all explanations). The only counter I can offer is that if found out (and given the high likelihood of being found out - because of testers, because of iFixIt, etc) that the supplier would lose future orders from Apple. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it's a heck of a gamble.
Regardless if it's plain old glass or sapphire it shouldn't scratch easily anyway. The simplest way he could fake the scratch test would be to use a different Mohs pen than a level 6. I don't think he's doing that. He seems rather humble and believable in most of his videos. All manufacturers cut some corners with products, all he claims to do is expose those weaknesses. He doesn't seem biased. Like someone else mentioned we are all ignorant really as to what sapphire is capable of. As far as I know there's different levels of sapphire?
Indeed. Also, if they used sapphire it would be specifically to prevent scratches to the lens cover. Adding a scratchable surface covering would defeat the purpose.
this discussion is not going to lead anywhere, since everyone is just going to believe whoever they want. unless someone will actually proof it.
When i get my phone next week i will take it to my local pawn shop and have him test the dam lens
lol. make sure you do that in vegas #pawnstars. at least you will be on tv
When the truth is inconvenient, people want a scientific test, a sample variation, batch variation, independent verification, and etc.
When it is convenient for them, they accept it blindly!
When it is convenient for them, they accept it blindly!
Quite true. In all fairness though, it was just one test and like anything, in the absence of established benchmarks, more tests and further examination must be made.
Who is the "they" you are referring to. Seems like a straw man argument to me.
You know what the chemical name for sapphire is?
It's aluminum oxide.
You know what the chemical name for anodized aluminum is?
It's aluminum oxide.
He used the pick to test the anodizing on something and a bit of the oxide stuck to the pick.
Then the same pick managed to scratch the sapphire because it was now coated with a substance of equal hardness.
Mystery solved.
It's aluminum oxide.
You know what the chemical name for anodized aluminum is?
It's aluminum oxide.
He used the pick to test the anodizing on something and a bit of the oxide stuck to the pick.
Then the same pick managed to scratch the sapphire because it was now coated with a substance of equal hardness.
Mystery solved.
At the mall today I stopped to visit a buddy who works at a jewelry store. We were talking about this and that and then he was checking out my new 7 plus as he's thinking about upgrading from his 6. I asked if he could test the hardness of the lens cover with his meter and he said sure let me go grab it. Sure enough it tested at almost a 9 hardness. So I'm guessing the scratchability is due to a coating. It's definitely sapphire.
They may as well use a plastic lens cover then. Coating sapphire renders its high scratch resistance pointless.
You know what the chemical name for sapphire is?
It's aluminum oxide.
You know what the chemical name for anodized aluminum is?
It's aluminum oxide.
He used the pick to test the anodizing on something and a bit of the oxide stuck to the pick.
Then the same pick managed to scratch the sapphire because it was now coated with a substance of equal hardness.
Mystery solved.
Finally, someone who used logic, thought and science for an explanation. This sounds very plausible.
Saying a YouTube video is credible is...well....just never say that
[doublepost=1474335236][/doublepost]
Or an anti reflective coating because sapphire isn't great with glares and such
I guess we know why the phones have shipping delays. There are way too many people who get them who don't care about them and just want to make click bait videos that too many people legitimize.
Well....I'd choose to believe them being that there could be legal consequences to lying about it than a YouTube reviewer.
I don't know the brand. It tests the hardness so they can determine what kind of stone/material is on a ring, necklace etc to determine the value. 9 is the hardness of sapphire.