The original question was which color would be the least noticeable when it wears off or scratches off. That is, which of the colors is closest to the uncolored alloy. And there I would assume that it’s the lightest/silver color.
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.
iPhone 15 Pro and Grade 5 Titanium: A Detailed Overview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't know what grade the titanium is in watches/watch bands that I own, but while the reduction of weight is nice -- they do seem to scratch more easily than my stainless steel ones.
That being said, I am interested in seeing and holding one of those phones to compare it against my 13 Pro Max. Any reduction of weight would be welcomed for me.
That being said, I am interested in seeing and holding one of those phones to compare it against my 13 Pro Max. Any reduction of weight would be welcomed for me.
No, I discovered that I have a fear of heights on day one of tackling the Pennines 😉
I take it climbing gear is hideously expensive?
Heavier and more expensive, though more scratch-resistant.
Isn't this all just marketing? Yes, titanium is more scratch-resistant than aluminum. But if you keep your iPhone in a case, aluminum is a higher-performance frame material than titanium since, for the same frame stiffness, aluminum is lighter.
It's not the whole chassis though, its just the external bands, the interior is aluminium. Also, pics of the blue finish show that it is a fingerprint magnet, just like the blue airs. Also, lets move away from leather to more plastic stuff, its partly recycled but still plastics. They use net zero to justify moving from a more expensive material to a cheaper one, gotta make the 40-60% margins the shareholders demand 
Last edited:
This grade Titanium alloy is strong but can dent more easily than stainless I think which is not great on the corners of the phone. PR hype "look Titanium" well kind of...
And VERY brittle. Scratch resistance is great but impact resistance is almost non existent
No, it is a different titanium alloy material, not just marketing. Sheesh. Plus your statement that "aluminum is a higher-performance frame material than titanium" is just nonsensical. Different alloys of different metals have different performance characteristics; titanium alloys tend to outperform but cost more.
And my expectation is that Apple designs iPhones to be used without burying them in a case. Some folks (not me) choose to bury them in cases, in which case the materials used for the phone exterior matter less.
Last edited:
Do you own one? Or are you just blathering? The titanium alloy seems to be an excellent material for this usage - - says someone actually using one who has used all manner of cell phones since the very first, which were huge briefcase-type devices.
You say "And there I would assume that it’s the lightest/silver color" which sounds like you might mean what Apple (IMO logically) calls Natural Titanium. The color of my Apple Watch Ultra and my 15PM. However you do say lightest and there is a lighter color available.
Sorry but I will not intentionally deep-scratch my iPhone just to see if the color is the same underneath the surface. Maybe you could convince one of the UTube vidiots to buy and test scratch a bunch of phones.
Last edited:
This is the problem with deliberate ignorance. It should have been obvious and implicit that when I was referring to titanium and aluminum I was referring to the type of alloys of those metals that would actually be used (likely ASTM Grade 5 titanium, aka Ti-6Al-4V, and one of the variants of 7000-series aluminum). But instead of asking me, you go right for the attempted insult, calling my statement "nonsensical." Nice trolling there, Wentz. How about behaving better next time?
And no, I didn't say "aluminum is a higher-performance frame material than titanium". I said: "if you keep your iPhone in a case, aluminum is a higher-performance frame material than titanium since, for the same frame stiffness, aluminum is lighter." Excerpting a small piece of someone's quote and presenting just that is a classic disinformation technique. I'd say you should apply for a job with Kellyanne Conway. You seem like you'd be a perfect fit.
I would explain to you why 7000-series aluminum has a higher stiffness:weight ratio than Ti-6Al-4V, but why waste my time?
Last edited:
I certainly did not intend to misquote. Your entire comment was:
"Isn't this all just marketing? Yes, titanium is more scratch-resistant than aluminum. But if you keep your iPhone in a case, aluminum is a higher-performance frame material than titanium since, for the same frame stiffness, aluminum is lighter."
Sorry but your comment remains nonsensical to me. After using the AWUltra for a year and the 15 PM for weeks now I consider the titanium alloy to be an excellent performance choice. Your suggestion that it is "all just marketing" and that Apple should have used aluminum alloy to improve one single performance characteristic (of many) because some users put their own cases on the phones makes no sense to me.
Then tell me what performance advantages Grade 5 Ti offers over 7000-series Al for an iPhone kept in a case (which rules out scratch-resistance and dent-resistance), and explain why those outweight stiffness:weight. If you can't, then clearly my comment is not nonsensical, which is simply your attempt at an insult.
Do you have any actual substance to back up your insult?
A watch is an entirely different application, since nearly no one puts a watch in a case, yet the overwhelming majority of smartphone owners do. It's not just "some". Here's the most recent poll I could find, from 2017, saying 79% of US smartphone owners use cases.:
Protective case usage US smartphone owners 2017| Statista
This statistic shows protective case usage among smartphone owners in the United States in 2017.
www.statista.com
Last edited:
No insult is intended. I agree that if one designed phones to be in cases the design considerations would change. But phones are not designed to always be in cases, they are designed to stand alone without cases. So whatever the % is of phones put in cases does not really matter; they are designed, sold, tested and evaluated without cases. And some buyers (me) would not dream of obfuscating an uber-tough beautifully designed product with a case.Then tell me what performance advantages Grade 5 Ti offers over 7000-series Al for an iPhone kept in a case (which rules out scratch-resistance and dent-resistance), and explain why those outweight stiffness:weight. If you can't, then clearly my comment is not nonsensical, which is simply your attempt at an insult.
Do you have any actual substance to back up your insult?
A watch is an entirely different application, since nearly no one puts a watch in a case, yet the overwhelming majority of smartphone owners do. It's not just "some". Here's the most recent poll I could find, from 2017, saying 79% of US smartphone owners use cases.:
Protective case usage US smartphone owners 2017| Statista
This statistic shows protective case usage among smartphone owners in the United States in 2017.
Unlike early iPhones, modern iPhones do not need to be cased to survive a fairly rigorous existence. Especially the latest iPhones with their great performing titanium alloy exoskeletons do not require cases. And IMO they also look good, but TBH the looks do not matter much to me personally.
Last edited: