Why do you assume it's for a phone? If this was for an iWatch, Apple wouldn't need to design a drop-proof device if it's attached or worn, rather than held.
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.
Corning Again Criticizes Sapphire as Potential Alternative to Gorilla Glass
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why do you assume it's for a phone? If this was for an iWatch, Apple wouldn't need to design a drop-proof device if it's attached or worn, rather than held.
Well it wouldn't exactly be a blind assumption. Last month Apple filed a patent on a technique for mounting sapphire on mobile phones.
I personally do think scratching is a big problem, though I've always suspected those very fine scratches are from the oleophobic coating. Who knows, but I get tons of very fine scratches in daily use. I've never cracked a screen, but that's probably more because I've been lucky and careful.
Gorila Glass and Sapphire are both strong when it comes to cracking, they can both take a lot to the point where i doubt iPhone screens actually "crack". Do you wana know what actually does happen? They shatter because they get hit in a corner or side. Do you wana know what material doesn't shatter? Sapphire, well look at that?
What?? Sapphire most certainly does shatter, and if you believe the Corning strength test video then you'll see that it shatters more easily than Gorilla Glass.
Here ya go:
http://www.edmundoptics.com/optics/...-windows/gorilla-glass-windows/3379?#products
http://www.rayotek.com/techincal_info_glass_sapphire.htm
Basically, we're talking about a ~5% difference in transmittance between gorilla glass and sapphire. You'd be hard pressed to even see that difference, in fact you'd notice a bigger difference just by putting on your reading glasses (does the world get noticeably darker?)
Understandably, Corning is a bit worried about their future, but the claim that sapphire will require more battery power due the glass being less transparent is a bit bonkers.
Either you haven't seen the video, or you don't know the definition of "shatter". I would consider a sudden explosion of a pane of sapphire into several smaller separate parts to be "shattering". Maybe you can explain why you don't agree.
This is the first definition of the verb "shatter":
to break (something) into pieces, as by a blow.
I have seen the video and it cracked it half.
This is shattering
This is a crack
They are quite obviously different.
So wrong. Only a small minority of iPhone screens are cracked. 100% of them are scratched, or hidden behind a screen protector. Just because the scratches can't be seen from across the room does mean they don't distort the sharpness and dull the colors, just like screen protectors do. I don't use a screen protector and have zero grossly visible scratches, but my screen is noticeably less sharp and colorful than my wife's when I take her screen protector off. Micro scratches matter. Forcing the majority of users to get screen protectors matters. Apple is as huge as they are because they know what actually matters.
When Tim Cook said "we are using sapphire for a top secret product" I'm pretty sure he was talking about the iWatch.
The reason I say that, is simply because all high end watch company's use sapphire to cover the face of there watches. Less glare, no scratches.
I truly believe that apple will stick with GG for the iPhone. Sapphire breaks more easily then GG. So that's why I think apple will only use sapphire glass on items like iWatch and maybe even iTV.
The reason I say that, is simply because all high end watch company's use sapphire to cover the face of there watches. Less glare, no scratches.
I truly believe that apple will stick with GG for the iPhone. Sapphire breaks more easily then GG. So that's why I think apple will only use sapphire glass on items like iWatch and maybe even iTV.
Uh, right. I think you're just arguing for pride's sake at this point. Following is the video that shows the pane of sapphire shattering into several (way more than two) pieces:
http://www.corninggorillaglass.com/gorilla-channel/Corning®-Gorilla®-Glass-vs.-Sapphire
You can keep arguing that this is just "cracked in half", but you're plainly wrong and anyone who watches that video can see it. The fact is that sapphire does shatter and this video almost shows the textbook definition of shattering. On the other hand, if you want to get technical about it, your images above both could be considered as "cracking" due to the fact that there is no separation of the individual pieces of glass. Here's the first definition of the verb "crack":
to break without complete separation of parts; become fissured:
Why would I want something so useless? My phone either sits in my pocket or on top of my desk. Neither place has any solar charging capacity whatsoever.
You're a genius. Or maybe not, but at you've come up with a very good insight/rationale as to why Apple's sapphire will be for a watch. If they could get enough charging out of such a system so as not to need additional charging in normal use that would make for an awesome product feature.
It was separated X'D, the phones Bezel keeps it in place tho!!! O wow, you are just cracking me up with your "facts"! Have you not seen the glass fall out of people's phones when they are like that?
Here read what it says about sapphire fracturing
Now read why glass shatters, it's a property it has, not everything can shatter because not everything has that property!! Put please tell me more about your suppose made up "facts"?
And no, i don't argue due to pride, i argue on facts, if I'm proven wrong I'm more than happy to admit it because now i have more knowledge thanks to the debate.
Last edited:
There's no iTV (it won't be called that). A personal gripe I have is that people just refer to some hypothetical tv project as just that.
Also - there's no confirmation of any iWatch either. A wearable that MIGHT also have the time on it sure - but that doesn't make it a watch or an iWatch.
My .02
Buddy, I could care less if your images are considered cracking or shattering. It really doesn't matter and it does absolutely nothing to prove sapphire doesn't shatter. I'm just pointing our that you have invented your own definitions for these terms.
Sapphire does shatter. It's been proven, it's easily demonstrated, and it's a fact. You've invented some alternate definition for the word "shatter" and you're using it to claim that sapphire doesn't shatter. However the best you can do to prove this is to show me a thick watch crystal with a crack in it. Golly, I guess that means that sapphire never shatters. That's really convincing logic.
HAHA, you logic is that I'm making up my facts when i posted links to the actual facts when you have done nothing but post your opinion and act like it's a fact. It's known sapphire doesn't shatter, please prove me wrong!!! I dare you!!
Right, except that none of your links prove (or even suggest) that sapphire doesn't shatter. I've already proven you wrong with both a video of sapphire shattering, and a formal definition of the word "shatter". Done and done. Thanks for the articles. And thanks for playing.
Are you saying that if I produce a piece of Sapphire that is 1mm thin and 1'x 1' and then drop it on top of a rock from 10 feet up - it will NEVER shatter?
Right except that is quite obviously a crack in the vid and you definition actually agrees with me, so thanks for agreeing!
No I'm saying Crack not= Shatter. Tho i doubt it would crack under those conditions.
Then u are in the minority.I have seen many many cracked shattered iPhone screens.Gorilla Glass its NOT strong at all.
I don't understand what you're saying. Under those conditions I find it hard to believe it wouldn't crack OR shatter. But have a nice day.
It physically can't shatter like how rubber can't conduct electricity, shattering is a property. Also it's harder than a rock so the rock would be the thing to be damaged.
Thanks for clarifying your faulty logic. I understand where you're coming from and completely disagree.