Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Sapphire Glass

Dave245

Dave245

macrumors G4
Original poster
Sep 15, 2013
10,301
8,453
Ok so with Apple reportedly installing 1,500 furnaces, and being able to produce sapphire glass in the millions. Do you guys think that they are going to be using it for the iPhone 6's bigger display? What are your opinions?

There are conflicting reports on this, some reports say no because it would cost too much to produce, while others are saying the iPhone 6 will have a display made from sapphire glass. Do you think the cost outweighs the benefits?
 
The main benefit is more scratch resistance. It will shatter from a drop just about as easy as Gorilla Glass (even a diamond screen would shatter).

I am having a hard time imagining it as an iPhone screen. Sapphire should just about always cost more than sand (glass), so I don't think it can ever offer a cost benefit vs. the latter. On the consumer benefit, if we can't see a difference or notice a difference in daily use, will we care enough to pay more-to-as-lot-more for it or would it being there influence our buying decision? If the latter, why not make the case out of platinum or titanium instead of aluminum?

Why would they choose to own their own factory vs. outsource the creation of this part to someone else? So much of the rest is made via outsource partners, so why is it important to own this part? I suspect there's something else in play. Maybe it's got nothing to do with glass-like screens for anything. Besides more scratch resistant, what other benefit does sapphire offer vs. gorilla glass? Maybe the answer is in that other benefit?
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
The main benefit is more scratch resistance. It will shatter from a drop just about as easy as Gorilla Glass (even a diamond screen would shatter).

I am having a hard time imagining it as an iPhone screen. Sapphire should just about always cost more than sand (glass), so I don't think it can ever offer a cost benefit vs. the latter. On the consumer benefit, if we can't see a difference or notice a difference in daily use, will we care enough to pay more-to-as-lot-more for it or would it being there influence our buying decision? If the latter, why not make the case out of platinum or titanium instead of aluminum?

Why would they choose to own their own factory vs. outsource the creation of this part to someone else? So much of the rest is made via outsource partners, so why is it important to own this part? I suspect there's something else in play. Maybe it's got nothing to do with glass-like screens for anything. Besides more scratch resistant, what other benefit does sapphire offer vs. gorilla glass? Maybe the answer is in that other benefit?
Click to expand...

Good point, also would Apple want to bump up the cost by using Sapphire if there are hardly any benefits. The amount that is being rumoured to be made, 100-200 million Sapphire displays, is a lot so could it be the rumoured iWatch coming into play?
 
Dave245 said:
Ok so with Apple reportedly installing 1,500 furnaces, and being able to produce sapphire glass in the millions. Do you guys think that they are going to be using it for the iPhone 6's bigger display? What are your opinions?

There are conflicting reports on this, some reports say no because it would cost too much to produce, while others are saying the iPhone 6 will have a display made from sapphire glass. Do you think the cost outweighs the benefits?
Click to expand...

Be careful what you wish for as saphire glass is very resistant to scratching, it hardness make is very shatter prone if dropped or stressed.:(

I do not see it except as maybe the camera cover
 
Newtons Apple said:
Be careful what you wish for as saphire glass is very resistant to scratching, it hardness make is very shatter prone if dropped or stressed.:(

I do not see it except as maybe the camera cover
Click to expand...

I didn't know this, i thought it was more durable. Apple might not use it for the iPhone display then. Maybe the high amounts of sapphire glass thats reported to have begun being made (100-200 Million) is being used for the rumoured iWatch?
 
Can we really imagine that many iWatches being bought? I have to lean in that direction too but I'm also struggling with millions giving up the wide variety of watch (as jewelry) designs for a single design. I can't see the watch market like the phone market or the tablet market. Both of the latter seemed to be made mostly by Apple prior to there being much visual variety for either. Watches have been around forever and we've all been exposed to a ton of design variations for watches. Could one design fit all in a product category like that (even if it was an original Apple design)?

When I'm out, I see watches in silver, gold, gray and every color with face shapes in every shape and faces with every kind of visual design. Metal brackets, plastic brackets, leather bracelets, heavy & light duty, sized big & sized small, thick & thin, and on and on. It's hard to imagine even an Apple stepping in with just a single, Apple-chosen design that would quickly bite into 100-200M consumer purchases. Sure, the crowd that would buy anything new from Apple would jump on it but it would need the masses to do so too. Yes, the masses did jump on iPhone and iPad but they aren't traditionally jewelry or have a history of coming in a thousand shapes & colors, etc.

While just wild speculation, I'm thinking those furnaces are for some other use of Sapphire- not iDevice screens and not iWatch. Why? If it still shatters like gorilla glass and scratching is not really a rampant problem with gorilla glass, why up the cost of a glass-like part that yields an almost invisible benefit to customers? So I think there must be something else going on here… something where Apple felt it was so important they needed to own the manufacturing process rather than take the more typical approach to outsourcing it. Maybe some kind of patentable shape that doesn't replicate well in glass? Maybe some other benefit of Sapphire over glass that will be exploited (and patented)? Why is it important to own this vs. all of the other parts of the stuff that Apple makes?
 
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl said:
Can we really imagine that many iWatches being bought? I have to lean in that direction too but I'm also struggling with millions giving up the wide variety of watch (as jewelry) designs for a single design. I can't see the watch market like the phone market or the tablet market. Both of the latter seemed to be made mostly by Apple prior to there being much visual variety for either. Watches have been around forever and we've all been exposed to a ton of design variations for watches. Could one design fit all in a product category like that (even if it was an original Apple design)?

When I'm out, I see watches in silver, gold, gray and every color with face shapes in every shape and faces with every kind of visual design. Metal brackets, plastic brackets, leather bracelets, heavy & light duty, sized big & sized small, thick & thin, and on and on. It's hard to imagine even an Apple stepping in with just a single, Apple-chosen design that would quickly bite into 100-200M consumer purchases. Sure, the crowd that would buy anything new from Apple would jump on it but it would need the masses to do so too. Yes, the masses did jump on iPhone and iPad but they aren't traditionally jewelry or have a history of coming in a thousand shapes & colors, etc.
Click to expand...

I think its a very difficult area for any company to get involved with. What features do people want? what features will people use? is it going to be aimed at a specific group of people? these are all questions when thinking about the iWatch. With all the rumours and leaks at the moment, it seems that Apple are going in the area of fitness, the new rumoured "HealthBook" app seems to focus on fitness and overall health.

Also over the past year Apple have hired people from the world of fitness and experts in the world of sensors. But is this for the rumoured iWatch or simply new features that will be included in IOS8?
 
You ever see that thing on TV you wear around your neck, "I've fallen and can't get up", push a button and help is on the way? I think it's about $30/month for that health service and it claims to save a life every 10 minutes. They've been selling that for 10+ years. Do you think they've got 100M customers?

I took a shot at answering my own question. They formed in 1987. Answers.com says they have 5M subscribers which may or may not be true. They run that commercial like crazy and the fundamental health benefit is to save a life. Could an iWatch that provides monitoring services get 100M customers fast?

Nike gave something in this direction a good try in partnership with Apple and has since bailed back out of making hardware. Maybe they know Apple's next big thing would wipe out their product mix? But still, if there's good demand for that sort of thing, why would Nike bail for the most part?

Conceptually, any kind to tech that would be helpful to good health has value. But how much do we spend on such stuff now? Even those with more serious issues tend to lean on insurance or medicare to pay. Which makes me wonder…

What really drives unit sales of iPhone? The subsidy (somebody else paying Apple now and getting repaid over the term of a contract). What if this health product/iWatch is another spin of the same idea? What if Apple has found a medicare/insurance angle to replicate the subsidy much like those free* scooters or catheters etc. I wonder if there was a piece of tech built to do a specific group of health monitoring chores, would a medicare/insurance subsidize up to all of the cost of it?

Occasionally, I've seen doctors prescribe a piece of technology to wear to track heart rhythms. When they do, the wearer doesn't pay for it- their insurance company pays. It's not cheap. Insurance/medicare pays for a variety of monitoring equipment if prescribed by a Doctor (but sometimes seeming without a prescription too). So what if Apple has assembled an iPhone of health monitoring that is either paid for up to entirely by medicare/insurance or requires an ongoing monitoring service so that they can give away the hardware and their monitoring partner (who pays the subsidy to give it away) makes the money back on the ongoing (contract) service?

If so, then I would say the plants are for the iWatch/iHealth device with Apple intending to roll something out at an amazing price of as little as free because it is paid for by the taxpayer or by insurance. A free "gee whiz" new product from Apple would move in huge quantities and the expense of the components would matter less to consumers if someone else was paying for it. However, for Apple, more expensive units would yield a higher subsidy payment for greater revenues. Hmmmm (but that's only wild speculation trying to guess why Sapphire and why iWatch)
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
You ever see that thing on TV you wear around your neck, "I've fallen and can't get up", push a button and help is on the way? I think it's about $30/month for that health service and it claims to save a life every 10 minutes. They've been selling that for 10+ years. Do you think they've got 100M customers?

I took a shot at answering my own question. They formed in 1987. Answers.com says they have 5M subscribers which may or may not be true. They run that commercial like crazy and the fundamental health benefit is to save a life. Could an iWatch that provides monitoring services get 100M customers fast?

Nike gave something in this direction a good try in partnership with Apple and has since bailed back out of making hardware. Maybe they know Apple's next big thing would wipe out their product mix? But still, if there's good demand for that sort of thing, why would Nike bail for the most part?

Conceptually, any kind to tech that would be helpful to good health has value. But how much do we spend on such stuff now? Even those with more serious issues tend to lean on insurance or medicare to pay. Which makes me wonder…

What really drives unit sales of iPhone? The subsidy (somebody else paying Apple now and getting repaid over the term of a contract). What if this health product/iWatch is another spin of the same idea? What if Apple has found a medicare/insurance angle to replicate the subsidy much like those free* scooters or catheters etc. I wonder if there was a piece of tech built to do a specific group of health monitoring chores, would a medicare/insurance subsidize up to all of the cost of it?

Occasionally, I've seen doctors prescribe a piece of technology to wear to track heart rhythms. When they do, the wearer doesn't pay for it- their insurance company pays. It's not cheap. Insurance/medicare pays for a variety of monitoring equipment if prescribed by a Doctor (but sometimes seeming without a prescription too). So what if Apple has assembled an iPhone of health monitoring that is either paid for up to entirely by medicare/insurance or requires an ongoing monitoring service so that they can give away the hardware and their monitoring partner (who pays the subsidy to give it away) makes the money back on the ongoing (contract) service?

If so, then I would say the plants are for the iWatch/iHealth device with Apple intending to roll something out at an amazing price of as little as free because it is paid for by the taxpayer or by insurance. A free "gee whiz" new product from Apple would move in huge quantities and the expense of the components would matter less to consumers if someone else was paying for it. However, for Apple, more expensive units would yield a higher subsidy payment for greater revenues. Hmmmm (but that's only wild speculation trying to guess why Sapphire and why iWatch)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I haven't seen that advert, I'm from the UK we don't have health insurance our healthcare is free on the NHS (National Health Service). Which brings me to my point, how would Apple work this 'subsidy' in country's like my own? We don't have subsidy's of or health over here. So does that mean Apple would expect us to pay thousands of pounds for the iWatch? I don't think that would be very popular here since we already pay a high price for the iPhone and iPad's.
 
I don't know. I'm wildly speculating to try to make sense of why they chose to own a Sapphire plant instead of outsourcing that production (for a part that would almost have an invisible benefit for consumers) AND why iWatch?

Relative to that subsidy idea and your "free*" healthcare, it probably would apply. That's the point. If it was subsidized here via our healthcare system, somebody else would pay Apple to give it to us. That could be our (not free) health insurance or medicare program or perhaps the companies that might need to be involved to actually process one or more parts of the monitored data. Your "free*" healthcare is paid for by your tax system, so it's no more free than our medicare program which is also paid for by a tax. Maybe your country has health benefits for monitoring tools too and your healthcare system would be the one to pay for this new device. Thus, you could get it for free or near free much like you might buy a subsidized or get a free iPhone now with a contract.

I don't have anything to back this up. I'm just guessing based on trying to reconcile why it would be important to own the Sapphire production and how to move a ton of units of a new category of Apple products at Apple pricing with Apple margins. If you might recall, originally Apple tried to sell the iPhone without the subsidy model and that didn't work well after the loyalists piled in. I wonder if Apple is simply trying to replicate the subsidy model with another kind of product in which the "somebody else pays" subsidy model is already well in place???
 
HobeSoundDarryl said:
I don't know. I'm wildly speculating to try to make sense of why they chose to own a Sapphire plant instead of outsourcing that production (for a part that would almost have an invisible benefit for consumers) AND why iWatch?

Relative to that subsidy idea and your "free*" healthcare, it probably would apply. That's the point. If it was subsidized here via our healthcare system, somebody else would pay Apple to give it to us. That could be our (not free) health insurance or medicare program or perhaps the companies that might need to be involved to actually process one or more parts of the monitored data. Your "free*" healthcare is paid for by your tax system, so it's no more free than our medicare program which is also paid for by a tax. Maybe your country has health benefits for monitoring tools too and your healthcare system would be the one to pay for this new device. Thus, you could get it for free or near free much like you might buy a subsidized or get a free iPhone now with a contract.

I don't have anything to back this up. I'm just guessing based on trying to reconcile why it would be important to own the Sapphire production and how to move a ton of units of a new category of Apple products at Apple pricing with Apple margins. If you might recall, originally Apple tried to sell the iPhone without the subsidy model and that didn't work well after the loyalists piled in. I wonder if Apple is simply trying to replicate the subsidy model with another kind of product in which the "somebody else pays" subsidy model is already well in place???
Click to expand...

I should of worded that better, by 'free' I meant we pay with our taxes from work. But what I meant was we don't pay actual hospital bills or pay to see a doctor. It would be interesting to see what Apple will do in other countries. If indeed the iwatch will be based around health and fitness. Nike getting out if the fitness devices market is very interesting, Time Cook himself wore a Nike Fuleband. I think they know what's coming from Apple. I'm excited to also see what they produce, I just hope its something great and innovative, and not like the wearable a we currently see such as Samsungs Galaxy Gear. Health book app continues to intrigue me as part of IOS 8.
 
Dave245 said:
I didn't know this, i thought it was more durable. Apple might not use it for the iPhone display then. Maybe the high amounts of sapphire glass thats reported to have begun being made (100-200 Million) is being used for the rumoured iWatch?
Click to expand...

Yep, the problem with making things that are very scratch resistant or very hard makes them brittle. Make things softer so that they could scratch and it will also bend and be able to absorb shock with out breaking. It is all about physics
 
Newtons Apple said:
Yep, the problem with making things that are very scratch resistant or very hard makes them brittle. Make things softer so that they could scratch and it will also bend and be able to absorb shock with out breaking. It is all about physics
Click to expand...

Ok fair point, i wonder how the amount of Sapphire glass will impact tho, the reports are saying Apple furnaces are making 100-200 million Sapphire, that's a lot just for camera and Touch ID covers.
 
Dave245 said:
Ok fair point, i wonder how the amount of Sapphire glass will impact tho, the reports are saying Apple furnaces are making 100-200 million Sapphire, that's a lot just for camera and Touch ID covers.
Click to expand...

Please understand that I am not saying that Apple will not be using this sapphire glass as a screen cover, I am just pointing out that it can be a problem. Maybe Apple has a secret we do not know about!
 
Newtons Apple said:
Please understand that I am not saying that Apple will not be using this sapphire glass as a screen cover, I am just pointing out that it can be a problem. Maybe Apple has a secret we do not know about!
Click to expand...

That's true they are :apple: after all, maybe they have something we don't know about :D but on the other side, i think the cost of the iPhone 6 will go up if Sapphire glass is used. Plus with a screen bump i think the price will go up anyway.
 
Dave245 said:
That's true they are :apple: after all, maybe they have something we don't know about :D but on the other side, i think the cost of the iPhone 6 will go up if Sapphire glass is used. Plus with a screen bump i think the price will go up anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have owned every Apple phone from day one and have never scratched a screen or used a screen protector and do not really care either way. My camera has a sapphire screen covering the LCD but prior to this I have never had a screen get scratched so not sure if it is worth it to me.
 
Newtons Apple said:
I agree. I have owned every Apple phone from day one and have never scratched a screen or used a screen protector and do not really care either way. My camera has a sapphire screen covering the LCD but prior to this I have never had a screen get scratched so not sure if it is worth it to me.
Click to expand...

I'm the same, i had the 3GS, the 4S and now I've got the 5S, i'm planning on getting the 6 regardless, because i have never scratched the screen of my phone. I do use a cover on the back of my 5S because i fear scratching the aluminium. I'm looking forward to seeing what :apple: has in store for us with the iPhone 6 :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back