I like this theory. I'd like to see someone else do this with a clean pick.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.
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
Sheet, you should become a detective. Awesome reasoning and thinking skills.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.
Now I'm wondering about the truthfulness of the same guy when he said he rubbed the jet black on his shirt and it scratched. He didn't show it on video so he's either lying or maybe he had sand or chunks of metal on his shirt or something.
The 'they' are the fans of a particular company who deny obvious facts
Did no one take Earth Science? Doing a scratch test with picks and Mohs hardness scale is a very reliable, geological industry standard and method of identification of minerals, at least in a quick and dirty way where you don't have highly analytical devices. Sapphire is a 9 in terms of hardness. The scale falls somewhere between linear and exponential which you can read about if you're interested but if the lens on the 7 is scratching with a #6 pick, it's unquestionably not sapphire. True sapphire wouldn't be scratched by a #6 pick because a hardness of 9 is nearly 7X harder than a harness of 6.
Last edited:
Yup.Its amazing how a level 9 sapphire gets scratched with level 6 picks (see table above) and even gets cracked on a drop test yet people still believe Apple that's its sapphire
The jet black is designed to increase accessories sale more than the finish itselfNow I'm wondering about the truthfulness of the same guy when he said he rubbed the jet black on his shirt and it scratched. He didn't show it on video so he's either lying or maybe he had sand or chunks of metal on his shirt or something.
Or the most logical conclusion that is is not 100% pure sapphire, but some sort of "alloy" (no idea what gems are called when mixed together as metals are alloys).
Just like the casing is "aluminum" but not 100% aluminum. It is an alloy of mostly aluminum with zinc, iron, nickel, and magnesium.
Just like the casing is "aluminum" but not 100% aluminum. It is an alloy of mostly aluminum with zinc, iron, nickel, and magnesium.
Here is a denim test from CNET.Now I'm wondering about the truthfulness of the same guy when he said he rubbed the jet black on his shirt and it scratched. He didn't show it on video so he's either lying or maybe he had sand or chunks of metal on his shirt or something.
I believe what apple has to say, not some random video on youtube.
Sapphire can crack if dropped. Never owned a good watch with a sapphire crystal?
If a youtuber calls a zebra a horse you will believe them?
We don't know what the truth is yet. None of us do. That's why we need proper scientific testing. To find out. It's obviously really important to some people on this thread - whether it's because they want a sapphire lens cover, or they don't want to be lied to by a company they're spending a lot of money with, or they want to have confidence in a reviewer in the future.... Or because they want people to have those things so that in the future they maybe don't get their virtual pitchforks out too early.... People like me don't want scientific tests because the truth is inconvenient, we want scientific tests to verify what the truth is - and then we will accept it.
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.
A reasoned, logical and plausible explanation right here.... Much more likely than Apple lying or the reviewer purposefully manipulating the test (though both of those things are possible, I think they're extremely unlikely). Scientific testing, repeatable and with different samples from different batches obviously still required.....
What are the obvious facts? What you deem - without any proof - to be right must be an obvious fact? If humanity had only "accepted obvious facts", we'd maybe never have developed this far? Science would be so far backwards that we probably wouldn't have cars, trains, planes, complex machinery and rudimentary electronics (let alone computers and iPhones!).....?
I would argue that it's an "obvious fact" that Apple are highly unlikely to lie about something like this. Of course, that's just my belief. At least I accept that there's a possibility I am wrong. I want the real world situation to be scientifically tested, then we will know "actual facts" and we can discard "obvious facts" if they are wrong.
As has been said by several others - the lens cover is more likely to be cracked on a drop test than glass. This is because sapphire has a higher scratch resistance than glass, but a lower shatter resistance. It also hasn't been proven that a level 6 pick has scratched the lens cover, and if it has there are still many plausible explanations beyond "Apple lied" (a scientific hypothesis above is proposed by Gjwilly, another could be a coating scratched, another that too much force was used, another is that this unit was defective, etc, etc).
[doublepost=1474358054][/doublepost]
Or.... Market research showed that this is a finish people wanted? They've missed it since the 3GS and/or see it's available from other manufacturers. I know people that mainly pick their phone based on colour or finish.... They don't care about OS or manufacturer.
The demand for the finish shows it's what people want. So people want it, Apple provide it.... And it must be..... Wait for it..... Another Apple Conspiracy!
But... Apple have told everyone that it scratches really easily, and everyone can see that if you just cover it up you can't see the finish. Plus a lot of people buy a case anyway. Then those that want this finish and don't want to cover it because it's the finish they're buying it for and know about the scratching issue won't anyway. So, these things all kind of nullifies your new conspiracy theory.
Genuine question: Do you like Apple and are you an Apple iPhone owner/customer?
Last edited:
I don't understand, why would anyone believe a guy on YouTube doing pointless "tests" over the official specs listed by Apple. Who stands to lose the most? Or should I write gain the most?
Last edited:
I don't understand, why would anyone believe a guy on YouTube doing pointless "tests" over the official specs listed by Apple. Who stands to lose the most? Or should I write again the most?
This video has given him a huge payday. It's his biggest video so far, and has had 2.79 times more views than his next nearest video to date - over 9.3m views in a very short space of time. It's gotten him a lot of exposure (even onto websites like Forbes and many other big media outlets). Interestingly those big outlets don't actually say that it's "definitely" not sapphire as he does - which I think is quite telling. He's got a lot of people who have found out who he is.
However, whilst he has a lot to gain - and has gained a lot - I don't think he's done (and genuinely hope he hasn't done) anything purposefully wrong here. I think he called out that it's "definitely" not sapphire waaaaaay too early. Yes there's a question he's right to raise, but there's nothing definitive at this point in time. Yes there's a possibility that Apple lied, and the possibility that this reviewer lied or manipulated the test --- but I think those things are highly unlikely and that there will be a reasonable explanation behind all this (I won't repeat those in this thread all yet again....!
)
To me this is on the same level as the japanese toys unboxing videos. I'd never waste time watching his "tests".
Good for him that it's paying off though. There are so many people out there.
Good for him that it's paying off though. There are so many people out there.
My guess is Apple cheaped out, like they have done with other thing on this model. They don't use a pure sapphire cover lens, but a sapphire coated piece of glass. That is why the pick straches the lens, the thin layer can't withstand the pick and it goes right through the layer. That is why he the Phil said "the top of the button".
It cannot be coating, what's the point of using sapphire (hard to scratch) behind a level 6 coating?
Once you scretch the coating...it's the end.
You'd only watch anything that conforms to your reality, god forbid anything that makes you feel insecure about your purchase.
That's not what RichardF said. He said that he wouldn't waste time watching this guy's "tests". That's because the tests aren't scientific, and the guy called out that it definitely wasn't sapphire, yet he had no way with the test he did of knowing absolutely.
He could have said that it doesn't appear to be sapphire, and that there was a question here - that this needs testing in a lab or by another third party. He didn't. He said that something he thinks could be the case was definitely the case, and based on an uncalibrated, unscientific test.
RichardF never said he wouldn't watch anything that doesn't conform to his reality. A lot of people however are taking this video as gospel because it conforms to their reality, even if that isn't necessarily reality (and at this stage we can't say if it is or isn't).... Kinda ironic, don't you think?
I don't understand, why would anyone believe a guy on YouTube doing pointless "tests" over the official specs listed by Apple. Who stands to lose the most? Or should I write again the most?
You realize this is what the sapphire Apple Watch does, right? It has an oleophobic coating to help prevent fingerprints and to make them easier to clean. It's likely Apple did the same thing to the lens cover to help prevent fingerprints over the camera lens.
It's likely that it is sapphire, so Apple isn't lying, but there are other gotchas involved such as the coating.