Corning Again Criticizes Sapphire as Potential Alternative to Gorilla Glass

[goobot]

Other guy likely to get the ignore too, but a quick google of "sapphire shatter" makes it appear you are the wrong one. A fact is not something that can be proven, because every "proof" is based on a theory. The temperature outside is not a fact because the theory of thermal expansion and thermodynamics are used in making that determination. "scientific fact" is a term, but it's just a theory that is so well tested, nobody bothers anymore, but it is never a fact, any one experiment can invalidate the theory at any time. Heck, our existence in general is still a theory. There are no facts in science, testable theories are as good as it gets.

Looking through google you can see that many use the wrong phrase any way, so that is irrelevant, many say their iPhones are cracked when they are shattered ect. Any way if I say my shirt is green is that not a fact? I understand most of science is a theory but that doesn't mean facts don't exist.

 

[Analog Kid]

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.

That Raytek site gives a chart showing 85% transmittance for sapphire, and text saying "up to 98.5%". The Edmunds site quotes "greater than 90% transmission" over a spectrum that is oddly shifted relative to human vision (UV to orange?). So I'm not sure where your 5% number comes from, but I'm no closer to knowing actual numbers-- and that's fine. I don't intend to care.

Whatever the actual transmission difference is, I don't think you're looking at what it means correctly. Every mobile device is a highly optimized system. Every parameter trades off against every other.

One way of evaluating tradeoffs is to reduce every thing to dollars. For these high end mobile devices, I find reducing everything to Watts is a better currency. In this case, the current iPhone backlight draws something like 750mW-- scaling to a (rumored) iPhone 6 form factor easily tops 1W. 5% additional transparency in a (rumored) iPhone 6 form factor display is about 50mW. 10% is 100mW. That's a lot of power in this kind of device.

Where do you want to spend your mW? Better gaming performance? Improved accel/gyro specs? Smaller package? Longer life? Better color gamut? Better scratch resistance? New features?

Transmittance will be much less of a factor for a watch or anything else with a smaller display. The backlight power will be much smaller because the display is much smaller.

 

[Solomani]

Of course they have to complain, they are losing money.

Pepsi: Our cola is better!

Coke: No! Ours is way way better!

Pepsi: Is not.

Coke: Is too!

 

[Stephen123]

Or maybe Corning knows more about glass and sapphire than Apple does?

Corning probably knows more about glass. GT knows more about Sapphire. That’s what Apple hired GT for.

 

[bwillwall]

Corning, we don't care if our phone's glass can bend, we care if they shatter when they come in contact with something.

 

[69650]

I would think the opposite as cases are a great aftermarket "sell."

They might want to laud their phone as the most "unbreakable" - but I really don't think it's an effort to kill the "case" market at all.

and iPhone 5c without cases? Seems Apple is very please to sell you one... http://www.apple.com/iphone/accessories/#iphone-5c-cases

How much money does Apple make from selling aftermarket cases? I bet it's not very much as most cases are made and sold without any Apple involvement or any money going to Apple.

They won't kill the case market, just make it less necessary to use one.

I've seen a few people using the 5c in the street but I've not seen a single one using the associated Apple case. Why would you? The 5c doesn't need a case and looks better without a case. I don't think Apple have done this by accident.

 

[cosmolv]

1. He say that saphire is more nature unfriendly - that it needs more time to produce than glas.

A. Apple is pushing solar energy plants, so... Forgot about environment polution about this.
The second is that Apple by saphire investigation is doing great job, and after some jears technology may be polisht and becoming more efficient...
Any new and non popular technology needs time and hard work.

By example:
(I working almost 7 jears in alternative electric energy research - this is so hard to bring something new in industry - and more than that everytime i need to hear scepticism, and words like "this is impossible etc.." When we start to learn past and technology/inovation revolutions, then you realize "nothing is inpossible" only what you need is time, imagination and dont lose creativity, just go and you will reach the top of the mountain)

 

[aaronvan]

News flash: cows are anti-steak.

 

[alphaod]

Are we surprised they're complaining?

I would talk sh** about my competitors non-existent products.

 

[alexgowers]

sapphire is the god of glass, no encapsulated gorilla glass is ever going to beat it. Watches use it and it really is resistant to scratches even blocks of concrete!

Why can't they admit they're wrong, they should be attacking it from the we're cheap and sustainable not that sapphire isn't.

 

[Jess13]

So if I were Corning, I'd rename Gorilla Glass as "Diamond Glass".

"Our new Diamond® Glass, made from glass. It's like Cubic Zirconia, but it isn't, because it's still only glass. Diamond..."

"Quick, look over here, look away from the Sapphire iPhone!"

 

[kdarling]

They won't kill the case market, just make it less necessary to use one.

Umm... you'd still need a case to guard against impact. Not to mention that the entire phone is not likely to be covered with sapphire. Just the display.

However, it would put a big dent in the screen protector market (except for the anti-glare ones, perhaps).

About the only people needing a plastic screen overlay for protection, would be those who wear things like diamond bracelets that could scratch the sapphire.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Breakable ?
---------
Sapphire : ✓
Corning GG : ✓

Scratch Proof ?
----------------
Sapphire : ✓
Corning GG : X

Sapphire wins. End of story.
Also with re-usable crucible sapphire cost will come down significantly.
Go

You should publish your scientific results professor.

 

[sixrom]

Sapphire gives iPhone's the snob appeal Apple craves, then there's the price increase that'll fatten up the bottom line. Apples the master at extracting every last cent out of their customers. Nothing if not powerful, convincing and clever, Apples got this game down cold.

 

[skinned66]

Maybe when you tried it Tony.

It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

 

[ry23]

Is this an English sentence?



Thank you! Had someone else not mentioned it, I sure would have!! I was thinkin.. Am I high and just can't read this sentence right?? But after reading it 15 times, and it still didn't make sense, I decided that they were high.

 

[Ian Howlett]

How about making it fingerprint-resistant?

I've owned mobile devices for 15 years, including feature phones, iPhones and iPads. I've never, ever scratched a screen. So scratch-resistance isn't important to me personally.

If they could make the screens resistant to fingerprints and grease, that would be a bigger win for me, meaning no more need to clean the device.

 

[aooa]

I've signed up to Macrumors just to correct the large amount of misinformation included in the comments.

First of all, I don't like how aluminum oxide is continually refered to as sapphire in this context. Sapphire is a gemstone, even synthetic sapphire is meant as a gemstone. This is an engineering application and as such it would be better to either call it aluminum oxide or more commonly alumina.

Secondly, hardness usually is associated to brittleness but they are not the same. To gauge whether something would more easily shatter it would be better to evaluate the material's fracture toughness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_toughness : the material's ability to resist crack propagation)or possibly just its toughness ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toughness : a material's ability to absorb strain energy). Tenacity as some are mentioning comes from a different field of study and is less relevant. Tenacity is in mineralogy, fracture toughness or toughness are from materials science.

When comparing the fracture toughness of alumina to gorilla glass, alumina has a higher value (higher being better). Alumina is 3-5 MPa*m^(1/2) ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracture_toughness ) compared to gorilla glass' 0.68 MPa*m^(1/2) ( http://edu-observatory.org/olli/iPad/GG2_PI_Sheet.pdf ).

Finally, the image shown in the posting is for a very thin sheet of gorilla glass. Any material when made thin enough can bend a lot, think of the ability of paper to bend a lot compare to a wooden board. The image shown does not necessarily convene gorilla glass' superiority to alumina.

 

[Rygaard]

They are worried about loosing business.Gorilla Glass is NOT strong.I have owned every Apple iPhone including the first one.I am careful with my phones and keep them in a case.I have had 3 screens break.Gorilla glass is not strong at all and can't wait for Apple to use something else.

iPhone 4 and 4s did not have Gorilla glass

 

[baryon]

I think the biggest problem is screen breaking when dropped. Not scratches, people can live with that. To be fair plastic is shatter resistant and in that sense would be more suitable for a smartphone as it is likely to get dropped. But it doesn't feel as nice to touch so no one uses it. I don't know if we really need more scratch resistance than what we currently have. We need shatter resistance more.

 

[sanook997]

Wether any of these "disadvantages", are really in fact disadvantages depends on a cost benefit analysis. I'm sure much the same could have been said about the IPhone unibody aluminum frame and we all know how that turned out.

Given Apples materials record I think Corning's EVP might want to tone it down or risk pulling a Qualcomm 64bit gaff.

 

[sanook997]

Sapphire gives iPhone's the snob appeal Apple craves, then there's the price increase that'll fatten up the bottom line. Apples the master at extracting every last cent out of their customers. Nothing if not powerful, convincing and clever, Apples got this game down cold.

Are you Apple profit critics just haters or really that stupid? Have you ever seen the Gross Margins of the following products?

Cigarettes, beer, watches, jewelry, auto parts, fashion accessories, razor blades etc.

Apple makes 37% gross margin, an absolute pittance compared to many of the products you use every day and never complain about.

 

[69650]

Apple makes 37% gross margin, an absolute pittance compared to many of the products you use every day and never complain about.

To be fair 37% GM on computer hardware is a lot. Most of their competitors make considerably less. 37% is generally the sort of GM you would expect from software rather than hardware.

But nobody is forcing anyone to buy Apple products. I spent £700 on an iPhone 5s recently. I could have got a much cheaper smartphone but I like the iPhone experience so it's worth it to me.

Equally I'm sure BMW make a much better GM than say Ford and yet lots of people still pay the extra for a BMW.

It's all down to the power of marketing and the fact that some people are willing and able to pay a premium for brands and quality products.

 

[oplix]

complaining about a competitor. WHOAAA THERE MERICA, take it easy.

 

[Gasu E.]

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 hesitate to inject myself into this otherwise horrid argument, but you should check some other dictionaries. The common definition of shatter is to break something suddenly into many small pieces. If a dictionary is so imprecise as to lead you to think that shattering would include breaking something into three large pieces, you might consider comparing to other sources.

This is not to disagree with the overall thrust of your general argument.