Has your sapphire screen scratched yet? [MERGED Scratched Sapphire Display threads]

[roddenshaw]

So the sapphire screen does have oleophobic coating on it. This seems very counter productive to have on the sapphire. If both sport and apple watch screens get scratches from the coating, then there is no point getting apple watch for the sapphire glass.

Also, I guess I am not the first. There is another person scratched his sapphire apple watch too.

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7021615?start=0&tstart=0

I think Apple's response would be that the sapphire glass would show marks far too easily without the coating (even with the coating it's not ideal), and as the coating wears marks will be far less obvious. I do agree with you, though. Beyond marketing and margins I don't understand the decision to offer sapphire glass on the watch at all.

More than anything I am disappointed at the decision to put aesthetics before practicalities. I have owned quite a few very nice watches over the years, and they have all had glass that was slightly recessed within the case, so that blows and scrapes that were anything but perfectly parallel to the (bevelled) glass would hit the case. A scratched or nicked case may be annoying, but it is significantly less so than scratched or broken glass. This point is all the more important for a touchscreen device.

When I originally got the watch I had planned to keep it naked, save (maybe) for a screen protector. It has become apparent to me that from a practical perspective I will need a case or bumper at least some of the time, but I would rather not have the hassle of removing the band each time I want to put a protector on, or take it off (which seems to be required by all of the good protectors), so I suspect that I will find one that isn't completely hideous and leave it on all of the time. I will be interested to see how many other users come to the same conclusion.

 

[qliu34]

the tag watch I ware has the glass above the stainless frame, and there is no damage on the sapphire at all. I think I am going to get a sport version and a screen protector. There is really no point getting the sapphire glass.

I think Apple's response would be that the sapphire glass would show marks far too easily without the coating (even with the coating it's not ideal), and as the coating wears marks will be far less obvious. I do agree with you, though. Beyond marketing and margins I don't understand the decision to offer sapphire glass on the watch at all.

More than anything I am disappointed at the decision to put aesthetics before practicalities. I have owned quite a few very nice watches over the years, and they have all had glass that was slightly recessed within the case, so that blows and scrapes that were anything but perfectly parallel to the (bevelled) glass would hit the case. A scratched or nicked case may be annoying, but it is significantly less so than scratched or broken glass. This point is all the more important for a touchscreen device.

When I originally got the watch I had planned to keep it naked, save (maybe) for a screen protector. It has become apparent to me that from a practical perspective I will need a case or bumper at least some of the time, but I would rather not have the hassle of removing the band each time I want to put a protector on, or take it off (which seems to be required by all of the good protectors), so I suspect that I will find one that isn't completely hideous and leave it on all of the time. I will be interested to see how many other users come to the same conclusion.

 

[phpmaven]

I probably own 15-20 watches. Some as old as 20 years old. Most have glass displays. Guess what? Not one has EVER been scratched or cracked. Am I extra careful when I wear watches? Absolutely not. They simply have quality displays. Not one is an Appple Watch. I'm really glad that I returned my $600, 42mm Black, Stainless Steel with so called sapphire glass after a mere 6 days of wear. I won't be blinded by the Apple brand again. Apple IS NOT A WATCH MAKER.

Cool story bro

 

[roddenshaw]

the tag watch I ware has the glass above the stainless frame, and there is no damage on the sapphire at all. I think I am going to get a sport version and a screen protector. There is really no point getting the sapphire glass.

Is it completely above the frame, even at the edge? I've had plenty of watches where the edge of the glass was protected by the frame, but the sapphire nonetheless protruded because it was bevelled. They were still much better protected than the AW.

Anyway, my conclusion was the same as yours. The benefit of the scratch resistance of the sapphire is somewhat negated by the coating, bare sapphire crystal doesn't make much sense for a touchscreen device, and it is more susceptible to shattering, yet not given any physical protection by the design of the AW. In practice I see no benefits of the sapphire over Ion-X.

 

[WilliamG]

I don't understand why anybody does not appreciate your last point from the very outset. The 'Apple Watch' does of course tell the time, but it is not really a watch, it is a small wrist-worn computer (or a fourth screen). Dedicated watches will always be able to do a better job at telling the time, just as with dedicated cameras vs smartphone cameras.

Actually, my Apple Watch does a much better job (i.e. it's a lot more accurate) than any watch I've ever owned.

Also, it's far more useful, of course.

You can't really compare a dedicated camera to a phone camera and use that as an analogy for the Apple Watch vs a "real" watch.

I don't understand why Apple is being bashed. They've sold millions of Watches already and a few got scratched. That's about it. ANY sapphire watch can get scratched given the right circumstances.

----------

Is it completely above the frame, even at the edge? I've had plenty of watches where the edge of the glass was protected by the frame, but the sapphire nonetheless protruded because it was bevelled. They were still much better protected than the AW.

Anyway, my conclusion was the same as yours. The benefit of the scratch resistance of the sapphire is somewhat negated by the coating, bare sapphire crystal doesn't make much sense for a touchscreen device, and it is more susceptible to shattering, yet not given any physical protection by the design of the AW. In practice I see no benefits of the sapphire over Ion-X.

Consumer Reports begs to differ. They couldn't scratch it.

 

[edlex]

I reiterate, the impact was sufficient to gouge the DLC coated case. DLC is supposed to greatly strengthen the metal it covers and in this case even with this additional protection the case was still damaged. So either the DLC coating is much weaker than advertised or the impact was pretty substantial.

In other words, this wasn't your run of the mill scratch.

 

[roddenshaw]

Actually, my Apple Watch does a much better job (i.e. it's a lot more accurate) than any watch I've ever owned.

Also, it's far more useful, of course.

You can't really compare a dedicated camera to a phone camera and use that as an analogy for the Apple Watch vs a "real" watch.

----------


Of course I can make that comparison, it's 'device dedicated to one function, or a very limited set thereof vs multifunction/convergence device'. It is entirely apt.

In the right circumstances the AW will keep very accurate time, but there are dedicated watches that are radio controlled, or that set themselves time via GPS. These should be just as accurate, if not more so, and as devices for telling the time they should be more robust and reliable. They certainly don't need to be charged every day or two.

Consumer Reports begs to differ. They couldn't scratch it.

When you say that Consumer Reports 'couldn't scratch it' are you referring to the sapphire glass, or the oleophobic coating, or both? Either way they both can be scratched, even if it is difficult. They also do not 'beg to differ' with the comment of mine that you quoted; I was arguing that potential benefit of the superior scratch resistance of the sapphire crystal was negated by other considerations.

I don't understand why Apple is being bashed. They've sold millions of Watches already and a few got scratched. That's about it. ANY sapphire watch can get scratched given the right circumstances.

I'm not really bashing Apple, just commenting on the suitability of coated sapphire glass for this particular application. Yes, any sapphire watch can get scratched, but it is easier to scratch the coating than the sapphire itself. I would also argue that scratches are more important on a touch-screen device.

 

[KojiH]

I reiterate, the impact was sufficient to gouge the DLC coated case. DLC is supposed to greatly strengthen the metal it covers and in this case even with this additional protection the case was still damaged. So either the DLC coating is much weaker than advertised or the impact was pretty substantial.

In other words, this wasn't your run of the mill scratch.

I tend to agree.

 

[WilliamG]

----------


Of course I can make that comparison, it's 'device dedicated to one function, or a very limited set thereof vs multifunction/convergence device'. It is entirely apt.

In the right circumstances the AW will keep very accurate time, but there are dedicated watches that are radio controlled, or that set themselves time via GPS. These should be just as accurate, if not more so, and as devices for telling the time they should be more robust and reliable. They certainly don't need to be charged every day or two.



When you say that Consumer Reports 'couldn't scratch it' are you referring to the sapphire glass, or the oleophobic coating, or both? Either way they both can be scratched, even if it is difficult. They also do not 'beg to differ' with the comment of mine that you quoted; I was arguing that potential benefit of the superior scratch resistance of the sapphire crystal was negated by other considerations.



I'm not really bashing Apple, just commenting on the suitability of coated sapphire glass for this particular application. Yes, any sapphire watch can get scratched, but it is easier to scratch the coating than the sapphire itself. I would also argue that scratches are more important on a touch-screen device.

I've not seen any evidence to suggest that the scratches caused to people's sapphire display on their Apple Watches would not have been the same on any sapphire watch. Consumer Reports couldn't scratch the Watch, period.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ehind-smartwatch-scratch-resistance/index.htm

I feel like if the coating had been scratched easily, they'd have pointed that out...

A scratch is NOT the same as smack into some object. i.e. if you dragged keys across the screen it wouldn't scratch, but if you dropped a key onto the sapphire screen it might scratch it. What I think we're seeing here is actual collision damage, not scratch damage.

Again, just my opinion, but I don't know why people are surprised that sapphire watches are getting damaged. Sapphire is VERY strong, but it's not immune to damage!

 

[Knightcastle]

You bumped it hard enough to get a scratch...... Guess a $6 screen protector would have been a wise purchase.

Sorry you're scratched.... I suspect you aren't the first and won't be the last.

If it was hard enough to scratch sapphire it likely would have gone right through a plastic screen protector

 

[roddenshaw]

I've not seen any evidence to suggest that the scratches caused to people's sapphire display on their Apple Watches would not have been the same on any sapphire watch. Consumer Reports couldn't scratch the Watch, period.

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/...ehind-smartwatch-scratch-resistance/index.htm

I feel like if the coating had been scratched easily, they'd have pointed that out...

Others have posted on this forum and elsewhere images of scuffs and scratches to the coating which did not damage the sapphire. Quite aside from that it seems unlikely that the coating will be as hard as the sapphire. If it is does that not negate the need to have sapphire underneath? Why not simply coat the Ion-X glass instead? (Other than marketing and margins of course).

A scratch is NOT the same as smack into some object. i.e. if you dragged keys across the screen it wouldn't scratch, but if you dropped a key onto the sapphire screen it might scratch it. What I think we're seeing here is actual collision damage, not scratch damage.

Again, just my opinion, but I don't know why people are surprised that sapphire watches are getting damaged. Sapphire is VERY strong, but it's not immune to damage!

One of the disbenefits of sapphire crystal that I mentioned was the relatively poorer shatter resistance. I am not surprised that AWs equipped with sapphire glass are being damaged, and I did not express such surprise.

 

[DynaFXD]

When you say that Consumer Reports 'couldn't scratch it' are you referring to the sapphire glass, or the oleophobic coating, or both? Either way they both can be scratched, even if it is difficult. ..[SNIP].. I was arguing that potential benefit of the superior scratch resistance of the sapphire crystal was negated by other considerations.

..[SNIP].. just commenting on the suitability of coated sapphire glass for this particular application. Yes, any sapphire watch can get scratched, but it is easier to scratch the coating than the sapphire itself..[SNIP]..

Sources for your assertions? I'd love to read them. So far, the only things we have that are reliable are controlled tests (e.g. Consumer Reports) that have tried to scratch the sapphire surface with objects of known hardness. They have failed. Beyond that, we have nothing. Apple hasn't said squat about just what this coating is. Is it a wax? A clear coat? Is it mallable or rigid? What is the thickness? Could we even see a scratch in it at all? Who knows. Until some bright bulb or Apple clarifies this, everything we have beyond that is conjecture. Does the coating scratch? Does it shear? Are what folks show a mar of ablated material from the struck surface? Outside of a testing and analysis lab we won't know anything. Regardless, what three? four? 10? examples of a abraded surface in these forums provides no insight into the durability of a surface. I make no effort to protect my 42 SS and it looks as good as it did the day it arrives three weeks ago. Go figure.

 

[WilliamG]

Sources for your assertions? I'd love to read them. So far, the only things we have that are reliable are controlled tests (e.g. Consumer Reports) that have tried to scratch the sapphire surface with objects of known hardness. They have failed. Beyond that, we have nothing. Apple hasn't said squat about just what this coating is. Is it a wax? A clear coat? Is it mallable or rigid? What is the thickness? Could we even see a scratch in it at all? Who knows. Until some bright bulb or Apple clarifies this, everything we have beyond that is conjecture. Does the coating scratch? Does it shear? Are what folks show a mar of ablated material from the struck surface? Outside of a testing and analysis lab we won't know anything. Regardless, what three? four? 10? examples of a abraded surface in these forums provides no insight into the durability of a surface. I make no effort to protect my 42 SS and it looks as good as it did the day it arrives three weeks ago. Go figure.

And that's basically what I'm saying, too.

It's like the iPhone 6 Plus is prone to bending. Is it? We had a flurry of some people with issues at launch, and since then - nothing? I guess that means the iPhone 6 Plus CAN bend given the right circumstances (that most will not encounter) in the same way the sapphire/coating/whatever on the Apple Watch CAN scratch, but most people will not scratch theirs.

 

[DynaFXD]

One of the disbenefits of sapphire crystal that I mentioned was the relatively poorer shatter resistance. I am not surprised that AWs equipped with sapphire glass are being damaged, and I did not express such surprise.

This is probably not due to sapphire per se. But (as you or someone else pointed out above) the design decision to have the sapphire protruding above the bezel surface where it is exposed to hard knocks. That is on Apple, but it seems necessary, to me, to provide the touch screen surface they desired. There's a definite trade off there. Sapphire is sapphire. As others note, it lasts many years without damage if it is properly protected and recessed. If this is your angle, then the discussion isn't the material properties of sapphire, but the watch face design.

 

[roddenshaw]

Sources for your assertions? I'd love to read them. So far, the only things we have that are reliable are controlled tests (e.g. Consumer Reports) that have tried to scratch the sapphire surface with objects of known hardness. They have failed. Beyond that, we have nothing. Apple hasn't said squat about just what this coating is. Is it a wax? A clear coat? Is it mallable or rigid? What is the thickness? Could we even see a scratch in it at all? Who knows. Until some bright bulb or Apple clarifies this, everything we have beyond that is conjecture. Does the coating scratch? Does it shear? Are what folks show a mar of ablated material from the struck surface? Outside of a testing and analysis lab we won't know anything. Regardless, what three? four? 10? examples of a abraded surface in these forums provides no insight into the durability of a surface. I make no effort to protect my 42 SS and it looks as good as it did the day it arrives three weeks ago. Go figure.

The fact that they can be scratched is evidenced by scratches that people have acquired. I cannot verify that the oleophobic coating is more scratch prone than sapphire, and will happily accept evidence that it is as resistant, or more so.

Even if the coating is as scratch-resistant as the sapphire crystal, I would question the suitability and/or desirability of that material for this application, and for the particular design of the AW. Compared to the Ion-X glass it is less impact resistant (I believe that has been established, though I am happy to find some sources if you would like), and it is more reflective (I currently have a SS AW and have compared it to my own Sport, though of course more rigorous tests than that have been performed).

This back and forth started with my agreeing with another poster who was of the opinion that the AW Sport is a more sensible purchase, because of the Ion-X glass; I think that the argument to that end is strong. The scratch resistance of the Sport's screen is easily augmented with a screen protector, and other than scratch resistance I have read nothing to suggest that the Sport's screen is inferior (quite the opposite). Maybe more importantly the devices available with the sapphire screen are considerably more expensive than those without.

----------

This is probably not due to sapphire per se. But (as you or someone else pointed out above) the design decision to have the sapphire protruding above the bezel surface where it is exposed to hard knocks. That is on Apple, but it seems necessary, to me, to provide the touch screen surface they desired. There's a definite trade off there. Sapphire is sapphire. As others note, it lasts many years without damage if it is properly protected and recessed. If this is your angle, then the discussion isn't the material properties of sapphire, but the watch face design.

Everything I have read on the subject has specifically said that sapphire crystal, as a material, is more shatter-prone than Ion-X/Gorilla Glass.

I don't see why desired touch screen surface could not have been achieved with the glass either slightly recessed or, if necessary, flush with the lip of the case. I think it is more likely that the decision was an aesthetic one. To be fair, it does look very nice.

 

[iamasmith]

Just a thought, I had something similar and thought WTF? Never had that with a Sapphire crystal before.. Scratch across the marks with your thumbnail, mine was a deposit on the screen rather than a mark in the sapphire. Basically the screen hit something that was softer and when was left behind looked like a scratch and it just pinged right off it's completely clear again.

 

[Mac 128]

Everything I have read on the subject has specifically said that sapphire crystal, as a material, is more shatter-prone than Ion-X/Gorilla Glass.

I don't see why desired touch screen surface could not have been achieved with the glass either slightly recessed or, if necessary, flush with the lip of the case. I think it is more likely that the decision was an aesthetic one. To be fair, it does look very nice.

So far, all the real-world tests conducted with the Watch Sport have resulted in shattered screens, while none have shattered with the sapphire crystal. That and my own experience with "mineral hardened" watches versus sapphire crystals has proven this to me as well. iPhone screens shatter all the time when dropped, yet I have yet to see a cracked sapphire camera lens cover.

Apple chose to put the entire crystal perched on top of the case, unlike any other watch I have ever seen in my option to provide as much available space inside the case as possible. Apple's own measurements of the height of the watch seem to confirm this by only measuring the height of the metal case not including the crystal, or the sensor ceramics on the bottom.

There's a reason Apple chose to go with Ion-X glass crystal on the Sport and it has nothing to do with durability. Their own website touts the sole advantage as making the aluminum Sport even more light weight. Add to this the earlier reports of Apple's struggles with sapphire production and it becomes clear, not only was Ion-X glass cheaper, it also allowed them to deliver arguably the highest volume model of the watch without them constraining sapphire crystal supply for the higher end models.

 

[roddenshaw]

So far, all the real-world tests conducted with the Watch Sport have resulted in shattered screens, while none have shattered with the sapphire crystal. That and my own experience with "mineral hardened" watches versus sapphire crystals has proven this to me as well. iPhone screens shatter all the time when dropped, yet I have yet to see a cracked sapphire camera lens cover.

I have never managed to shatter a watch crystal either, but they have generally been quite thick compared to the screen on the AW, and compared to the glass in other watches I have owned.

The sapphire lens covers are quite a lot smaller than iPhone screens, so I'm not sure the respective shatter rates necessarily indicate which is more prone to shatter.

Incidentally, which tests are you referring to? I haven't seen the ones comparing the shatter resistance of the two screen types on the AW yet.

Apple chose to put the entire crystal perched on top of the case, unlike any other watch I have ever seen in my option to provide as much available space inside the case as possible. Apple's own measurements of the height of the watch seem to confirm this by only measuring the height of the metal case not including the crystal, or the sensor ceramics on the bottom.

Surely the sides of the case could have been raised to the same height as the surface of the glass without reducing space inside of the case?

There's a reason Apple chose to go with Ion-X glass crystal on the Sport and it has nothing to do with durability. Their own website touts the sole advantage as making the aluminum Sport even more light weight. Add to this the earlier reports of Apple's struggles with sapphire production and it becomes clear, not only was Ion-X glass cheaper, it also allowed them to deliver arguably the highest volume model of the watch without them constraining sapphire crystal supply for the higher end models.

I wasn't arguing that Apple chose to use Ion-X glass on the sport because it was more durable overall. I would be surprised if 'lightness' was really a significant factor, though; the weight difference is very small. The economics and production volumes are much better explanations.

 

[qliu34]

Glass above frame

 

[qliu34]

spotless sapphire glass.

 

[roddenshaw]

Glass above frame

Interesting. Bodes well for you with the AW.

 

[Docsteel]

Everything I have read on the subject has specifically said that sapphire crystal, as a material, is more shatter-prone than Ion-X/Gorilla Glass.

;

The problem is, even if it is more shatter-prone, that doesn't mean it's inferior to Ion-X glass over all. Sapphire glass is generally stronger and certainly more scratch resistant; Ion-X on the other hand overall is simply not as durable but it is less shatter-prone. The key is under generally what condition in materials is "shatter" a circumstance. Ion-X glass effectively "gives" more and thus scratches easier but then is less likely to shatter with sufficient trauma; the Sapphire on the other hand is stronger but trades being "flexible" for being "strong", thus it is a bit more shatter prone. It is a gross misrepresentation comparing the two materials to hinge it all on the aspect of "shatter" as a characteristic.

 

[roddenshaw]

;

The problem is, even if it is more shatter-prone, that doesn't mean it's inferior to Ion-X glass over all. Sapphire glass is generally stronger and certainly more scratch resistant; Ion-X on the other hand overall is simply not as durable but it is less shatter-prone. The key is under generally what condition in materials is "shatter" a circumstance. Ion-X glass effectively "gives" more and thus scratches easier but then is less likely to shatter with sufficient trauma; the Sapphire on the other hand is stronger but trades being "flexible" for being "strong", thus it is a bit more shatter prone. It is a gross misrepresentation comparing the two materials to hinge it all on the aspect of "shatter" as a characteristic.

It would indeed be so. I was taking other factors into account when arguing that the Ion-X is preferable for this particular application.

 

[Docsteel]

It would indeed be so. I was taking other factors into account when arguing that the Ion-X is preferable for this particular application.

I've yet to personally see how the application on the Apple Watch makes Ion-X inherently superior in any significant way; the circumstance of scratching which weakens the glass is less of an issue with Sapphire glass, and off-angle hits don't seem to make a significant difference in shattering circumstances which has been the only argument any one has been able to make for Ion-X glass. Given the glass allows more light and a brighter picture and is cheaper, it would be nonsensical to use it in a more premium item (and no, I don't buy the idea it is just a way to jack costs) unless it actually does translate to less likelihood of scratching and overall damage. I know there is testing showing the sapphire breaking sooner than Ion-X but that doesn't seem to translate to the real world where we are seeing far more chips, etc with Ion-X over Sapphire and that's with people using them in a sports lifestyle role, not the "fashion item" role often quoted.

 

[J4B3]

So far, all the real-world tests conducted with the Watch Sport have resulted in shattered screens, while none have shattered with the sapphire crystal. That and my own experience with "mineral hardened" watches versus sapphire crystals has proven this to me as well. iPhone screens shatter all the time when dropped, yet I have yet to see a cracked sapphire camera lens cover.

Apple chose to put the entire crystal perched on top of the case, unlike any other watch I have ever seen in my option to provide as much available space inside the case as possible. Apple's own measurements of the height of the watch seem to confirm this by only measuring the height of the metal case not including the crystal, or the sensor ceramics on the bottom.

There's a reason Apple chose to go with Ion-X glass crystal on the Sport and it has nothing to do with durability. Their own website touts the sole advantage as making the aluminum Sport even more light weight. Add to this the earlier reports of Apple's struggles with sapphire production and it becomes clear, not only was Ion-X glass cheaper, it also allowed them to deliver arguably the highest volume model of the watch without them constraining sapphire crystal supply for the higher end models.

This isn't necessarily true.

Here is demonstration showing the Sapphire watch shattering while the Ion-X did not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwGtotCd_IA