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'm a long time Apple customer, a sizable investor in Apple, and a scientist. I'm shocked by the number of people in denial and making up all kinds of wild excuses for Apple taking a cost cutting measure. All the justifications above on why the 'sapphire' could scratch w/ a #6 pick are laughable at best if you know anything about hardness testing and Mohs scale. The fact remains he used an industry standard test to show the lens isn't sapphire. I want it to be sapphire as much as the next guy but the evidence doesn't lie. In fact, now that I'm thinking back to the launch, I remember thinking I was surprised they didn't mention a sapphire lens when describing the cameras. I think the most likely explanation is someone just edited the iPhone 6s tech specs for the 7 and didn't remove the sapphire part. Apple has had these kinds of errors on their site in the past.
Last edited:
You would use sapphire to prevent scratches to a part of the phone that really needs to be kept free of scratches. Nobody wants a scratched camera lens cover because it would affect their photos. SO, if you're going to then apply a coating to the lens cover then you may as well just use standard glass or even plastic because you're completely defeating the purpose of using sapphire in the first place.
The other possibility as eluded to is this is a very low percent alumina glass w/ slick marketing instead of being pure aluminum oxide (sapphire). I question the value of even adding alumina to the glass if it still scratches w/ a #6 pick.
To the people who are saying that the guy on the YouTube channel or that Apple execs are flat out lying, you're both almost guaranteed to be wrong. Both have too much to lose and too little to gain to flat out lie.
I'm not a scientist, but my guess is that it's man made sapphire which means it's not really sapphire. They could have cheaped out and made it a lower quality version of sapphire than they've used before, but still technically be able to call it sapphire. That would prevent any legal issues and keep most people happy because of the sapphire buzz word. I highly doubt they'd put any coatings on the lens because that would do more harm than good. Besides, look at the video yourself, those aren't small scratches in a coating.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is Apple cutting cost. Just like our nice new cardboard headphone holders instead of a carrying case.
I'm not a scientist, but my guess is that it's man made sapphire which means it's not really sapphire. They could have cheaped out and made it a lower quality version of sapphire than they've used before, but still technically be able to call it sapphire. That would prevent any legal issues and keep most people happy because of the sapphire buzz word. I highly doubt they'd put any coatings on the lens because that would do more harm than good. Besides, look at the video yourself, those aren't small scratches in a coating.
I hope I'm wrong, but I think this is Apple cutting cost. Just like our nice new cardboard headphone holders instead of a carrying case.
Yeah, well I'm in business, and one thing I know is that large companies like apple HATE being made fools of in public. The smallest, stupidest issue can turn into several points in the stock market and millions in lost market capitalization.
The specs are listed that way on the site. Schiller(sp?) doubled down on it, so that rules out a typo on the spec sheet. Apple knows these types of tests are done. They know they'd get caught.
So it's possible a supplier supplied them with substandard parts or some sapphire hybrid was used, but apple didn't just simply change advertised parts on purpose. There's no way Apple is intentionally misleading the public on this one. NOBODY buys a phone because of the material a lens cover is made out of. Knowing apple, if they had made a change, they would have billed it as some new magnificent shatter proof glass and tried to spin it as a feature.
Last edited:
So there's no chance that Apple just put in an inferior version of man made "Sapphire"? They could still technically call it Sapphire which is all that Apple cares about and wants you to believe. You think its more likely that a supplier purposely gave them substandard parts which would ensure they would be sued and out of business within weeks?
No, I edited my post. I think that's plausible too.
In the end, I'm just about 99% sure apple is somehow legally bulletproof on this one. They might be fibbers, but they aren't liars.
I mean...if that is so controversial, why aren't there other YouTubers doing those scratch-tests with a hardness pick?
You know...like with the iPhone 6 back in the day and the bending issue. Some guy on Youtube did bend it first, then all the others followed with their own "bending video".
But I see nothing like that for this issue. No one is jumping on this bandwagon. Getting to call Apple a liar on YouTube with a sapphire lens scratch test and proving that Apple did false advertisement is going to get you huge viewing numbers.
Seems so strange, hmm :/
You know...like with the iPhone 6 back in the day and the bending issue. Some guy on Youtube did bend it first, then all the others followed with their own "bending video".
But I see nothing like that for this issue. No one is jumping on this bandwagon. Getting to call Apple a liar on YouTube with a sapphire lens scratch test and proving that Apple did false advertisement is going to get you huge viewing numbers.
Seems so strange, hmm :/
If you actually look, we're not in denial. We're saying this test shows a lens cover being scratched - that's all. We've said that there are multiple reasons (that we believe would be far more likely and credible) other than Apple lying, but haven't even ruled that out (even if we really, really doubt it to be true). In fact, I'd say that the more likely people in denial are those closed minded that have jumped to a "definite conclusion" based on a YouTube video that isn't very scientific.
As a scientist, you understand that the scientific merit to this video is limited to zero. You understand the need for proper scientific methodologies, calibration, repeatability, reproducibility and verification. You understand that there will be variables that could have affected this test. You also understand the concept of scientific evidence - and that this video is not that.
As a scientist you will see that this video just appears to show something - it doesn't show anything for definite. It doesn't show that a pick with a hardness of 6 on the Moh scale was definitely used, nore that too much pressure wasn't used, nor that the device used didn't have a defect, nor that a coating wasn't scratched instead, etc, etc.
As a scientist then I don't see how you can see any other explanation as laughable? This video doesn't prove to show anything. It appears to show something - and that something warrants investigation to validate or nullify it. As a scientist you would want that further investigation to take place.
I see you say you're a scientist. I don't know whether you are or you aren't. I wouldn't just doubt you for saying that, but your post goes on further in a way that doesn't really back up a scientific mindset. That in itself doesn't mean you're not a scientist, but it equally doesn't mean you are either. I just don't think - in this case - it backs up your argument the way you think it does.
I also see that you say you're a "sizeable Apple investor". Sizeable in relation to your personal circumstances, or sizable as in significant to Apple? If it's the latter, I really, really doubt you'd be on here making a post like this. Either way, you'd know that Apple are likely not to lie about something like this otherwise surely you wouldn't invest in them?
Maybe you've got caught out here as an investor, you trusted them but think there's an issue here? But if that's the case why would you be be on a forum like this casting doubt over them in this way? Why wouldn't you be wanting proper, scientific investigation to validate or nullify this video? Why would you just accept something that could be wrong, and affect your investment? And if it's not wrong, why wouldn't you want to find out so those responsible could be held to account, got rid of, and Apple could start trying to rebuild trust in customer relationships?
As with you being a scientist - I don't know if you are or aren't a "sizeable investor in Apple". I wouldn't just doubt you for saying so, but your post goes on in a way that doesn't back the mindset of an investor in this situation. Again it doesn't mean you're not a "sizeable investor in Apple", but it doesn't mean you are either. Again I don't think - in this case - it backs up your argument the way you think it does.
Exactly.Thats your belief that Apple MUST be right.It could just as be the opposite.Lets look at the facts of the case.Level 6 pick scratched the lens and home button.End of Story.Some will justify it as a coating yet I question whats the point of the coating?If the coating scratches then why use sapphire in the first place if the scratch is gonna be visible anyway?Isnt the point of sapphire NOT to get scratched?Schiller tweeted that it is real sapphire and Apple wouldnt dare lie a second time now that people have seen the video and I just read the tweet so there MAY be a possibility that there are varying qualities of sapphire out there.For example,in the drop test the lens on the 7 cracked and the 6S lens didnt crack despite a fall from 10 feet.Now why did that happen if both are sapphire?
As to whether the test was rigged?maybe so but Jerry is one of the most reliable on YouTube.I follow his channel for a long time and he has never shown bias
I am probably(still considering Matte Black somewhat) one of the potential Jet Black buyers and I already selected a transparent case which lets the finish be viewable in all its glory.Its a ploy for the accessories industry
The JB iPhone 7 got scratched just by rubbing it on a shirt.Keeping it with keys made it look like it came out of a grinder.Anyone using this without a case will have the resale value drop to 0 after a year.Reviewers noted Jet Black to show wear equivalent to a normal color after a year in 1 week.
Yes.I own a Apple Watch, iPhone 6,MacBook,iPad Pro,iPad Air 2 and Mac Mini.But I also confess to using Android a lot a Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge,Tab S2 and Nexus 5 and Nexus 7 2013
There is no difference between "man made" sapphire and natural sapphire. It IS really sapphire.
Why do you doubt they would put any coatings on the lens? Anti reflective coatings are commonly used on lenses and on sapphire watch crystals.
@MrBukey: We'll have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately, I don't have the time required to respond to each point in a meaningful way but I will say scratch tests w/ mineral picks are a quick & dirty "field" test if you will and don't necessitate the extreme controlled conditions you elude to -- that's the point of these picks and the properties they test.
I'm not saying Apple is lying but people are being misled if they think this lens is pure sapphire and has the hardness of sapphire (9, second only to diamond). As previously stated, it's possible the glass is a compound with alumina added to it just like borosilicate glass but then it should really be called "sapphire glass" or something similar; however, from the marketing standpoint, I see the benefit of dropping the "glass" part of sapphire glass... it's disappointing to see that the percentage must be so low that it doesn't confer anywhere near the hardness (9) associated with sapphire.
I'll also add I have submitted the question for clarification to Apple Investor Relations. I'll post whatever I find out.
I'm not saying Apple is lying but people are being misled if they think this lens is pure sapphire and has the hardness of sapphire (9, second only to diamond). As previously stated, it's possible the glass is a compound with alumina added to it just like borosilicate glass but then it should really be called "sapphire glass" or something similar; however, from the marketing standpoint, I see the benefit of dropping the "glass" part of sapphire glass... it's disappointing to see that the percentage must be so low that it doesn't confer anywhere near the hardness (9) associated with sapphire.
I'll also add I have submitted the question for clarification to Apple Investor Relations. I'll post whatever I find out.
Last edited:
Read through my posts. I've never said that. I believe that they are right. I've shared my reasons. I never said that they MUST be right, even though I really, really think they are. But I concede that I MAY be wrong, you don't.
I've said that! You have never conceded you could be wrong....
That's not a fact. Could you explain to me how you know that is a fact, please? I'm genuinely interested in how you are getting to that conclusion. Because from what we, as the viewer see, we don't KNOW that it's definitely a pick with a hardness of 6 on the Moh scale. That's what we're told - but we don't KNOW. So it's not a fact.
However we see a scratch - and that is enough to raise a question and warrant further investigation. So far from being the end of the story, surely this should be the start of the story?
So you will question this, but you won't question the original video? It's good to question things though --- you should be questioning it all. The purpose of a coating would be to stop glare, dust, finger print markings, etc. Look at why coatings are used on other lenses (prescription eye glasses, camera lenses, etc). Just because you question it, it doesn't mean there's not a reason. If you question it, you should be looking for the answer rather than question it and take that as time to end the story.
The point of sapphire is not to get scratched yes - a coating can be re-applied/repaired, whereas a scratch requires a full lens replacement.
You know that there are different tolerances in things, right? There will be a variance. If those tests were performed in the same room, by robots at the same time (or within the same session) with phones made with the same batch of sapphire, you'd expect a very low variance (but there's still a chance one could have been defective during manufacture). Variances are likely to increase if you change any of the variables - but still, if they're both sapphire and made to the same spec (and we don't know that they are - the lens covers may be thinner in the 7/7plus, as an example). My point is that these things could explain the differences. They don't confirm - definitively - that the lens cover isn't sapphire.
The lens cracking actually also shows that it's likely to be sapphire - sapphire is more scratch resistant but less shatter resistant than glass - therefore it cracking would indicate that there's more of a chance of it being sapphire.
I'm not saying that the test was rigged. I say it remains a possibility. I think it's unlikely, this guy would end up with a big payday, but then his reputation would be shot. He would have a lot to lose, as would Apple. The truth will most likely be some other reasonable explanation - many of which have been offered in this thread.
There's a simple way to find out though - proper scientific testing that have scientific merit.
So - from your perspective - this really, really, really untrustworthy company that's lying to you about the materials used in order to make a few extra bob, then offering a really dodgy finish in order to boost the accessories industry at your cost.... You still want to give them money and support them? I really don't think you're as behind your arguments as you're making out on here?
Exactly - and most people who want this finish are pretty vocal in saying they'd want to see it, and so they'll either not get it or they'll live with the scratches. Look throughout these forums and you'll see that. So in that case, this doesn't boost the accessories industry. There are people that buy cases, and people that don't. Some switch about now and again, but this finish doesn't really boost the accessories market for cases as they're not - in the main - likely to be the target market for this phone.
I own many Apple devices, as well as those from multiple other platforms. MS's products effectively pay my salary. I'm a multi-platform user. Although many may just think I'm an Apple fanboy, there's nothing further from the truth. I just hate the negative world we've come to be in because so much media now get most of their money from negative stories which creates clickbait which gets them ad revenue.
It's then turned into an ugly consumer fashion to always jump to the worst possible conclusion, "stick it to the man", blame companies actually releasing great products that we want, and dismissing out of hand any thinking about any issues critically with any logic or reason.....
That would be utterly pointless because there would still be scratches between the lens and whatever you were taking a photo of. The *only* point to using sapphire crystal is to avoid scratches. Otherwise thick plastic or regular mineral glass could be used.
"Sapphire is an exceptional optical material: in addition to its extreme hardness, it transmits light of wavelengths between 0.2 and 5.5 μm, is highly transparent for all but the edges of this range, and conducts heat well. It does have drawbacks, however. First, it is a birefringent crystalline material, and as a result is used only in applications that tolerate this property, such as windows, domes, and certain lenses. Second, it has a high refractive index and thus usually requires an antireflection (AR) coating."
The lens cover probably uses a very budget form of 'sapphire' and will be nothing like Omega would use on their high end watches for instance. I should imagine that Apple would be covered if they released their formula. There is of course a possibility that some form of anti-glare or anti-smudging coating is on the lens but if this is the case then I would wonder why they used sapphire in the first place.
I agree - scratch tests with mineral picks are a quick and dirty field test. In themselves they don't necessitate controlled conditions.
I've said that this video ;raises a question. Only by using proper scientific methods that have scientific merit can we confirm what the quick and dirty field test appears to show.
To take what this video appears to show as definitive is doing no justice to the YouTuber, nor to Apple. The question is raised, now let's confirm it. Surely that's the correct approach?
A compound is another more than plausible solution. Again let's find out? Instead of just saying - as this video and so many others have - that it's not sapphire and Apple have lied? If it is a compound, then we have an explanation - Apple didn't lie, but maybe they could be clearer to avoid confusion in the future. If it's not a compound, then there's still a reason to discover....
You realize that high end watch makers often use AR coatings on their sapphire crystals, right?