Already ordered my Zagg Invisible Shield. Ugh. Should have picked UPS delivery. Need to put it on some napkins everywhere I go now.
Me too haha.
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.
Scratches Appear on Early iPhone 4 Review Unit
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Me too haha.
What I can't believe is how much unnecessary angst and agitation people deal with worried about scratching up their cell phone. It really is unhealthy and extremely unproductive.
Personally, I have always put a case on my iphones as soon as I bought them. Beyond that never given them a second a thought. I certainly would not worry too much about not using a case at all, and I don't get people spending all this time and energy putting skins on the screen itself.
Here is a little tip from someone who has had two iphones, one from day 1 and one from year 2, never with any sort of skin or protection on the screen. It is 100% unnecessary. You are not protecting your screen, and I have to believe you are making the experience of using the phone sub-par.
I used Palm devices for years with out skins on much more fragile devices, but all the data is in, and they are wholly unnecessary on iPhones. Literally a waste of time, money and angst. I assume the same is with actual cases as well. I have used cases always, but I feel fairly confident I could get away from it.
That being said, a case does not intefere with the actual usability of the device, like a skin does on the screen. So again, stop buying these skins and putting them on your device. Paying money to make your device worse seems like a very bad idea.
Personally, I have always put a case on my iphones as soon as I bought them. Beyond that never given them a second a thought. I certainly would not worry too much about not using a case at all, and I don't get people spending all this time and energy putting skins on the screen itself.
Here is a little tip from someone who has had two iphones, one from day 1 and one from year 2, never with any sort of skin or protection on the screen. It is 100% unnecessary. You are not protecting your screen, and I have to believe you are making the experience of using the phone sub-par.
I used Palm devices for years with out skins on much more fragile devices, but all the data is in, and they are wholly unnecessary on iPhones. Literally a waste of time, money and angst. I assume the same is with actual cases as well. I have used cases always, but I feel fairly confident I could get away from it.
That being said, a case does not intefere with the actual usability of the device, like a skin does on the screen. So again, stop buying these skins and putting them on your device. Paying money to make your device worse seems like a very bad idea.
Rolex makes watches that cheap? Or did you really get your rollie in times square?
Anyway, apple always says the screens are scratch resistant.. i learned not to trust that.. besides, powersupport antiglare for the front anyway - you know.. to read it outside and whatnot.
The crystal is $500 by itself. Not the entire watch. Yes, "scratch resistant" doesn't mean "scratch proof." So you can trust that "scratch resistant" means it will be resistant, not impervious, to scratches. Same with "water resistant" versus "water proof." Example: A regular casio watch may say "water resistant 3ATM", meaning it supposedly can resist water to a depth of 3 atmospheres (44psi, or 100 feet)... But this designation merely means that if you get it wet accidentally in the shower, or in the sink, you're probably ok. It doesn't mean that it is water PROOF.
To contrast with that example, my wristwatch is certified pressure/water proof to 100 meters, or about 330 feet. But the official certification for diving watches, ISO 6425, stipulates that the watch be pressure tested to about 25% beyond that mark... so that there's no question whatsoever that the casing is completely pressure-proof to the stated depth.
Good thing this isn't made out of the same glass. Also nice to know you purposefully scratched your iPod Touch.
I had several Swiss watches with sapphire glass and never discovered any scratches at all. And the most expensive parts of a Rolex are the clockwork and the brand
Actually I'd say the most expensive part of this watch is the gold. Let's say there are 4 ounces of 18K in a steel & gold GMT Master II, at today's prices that's $3,250 in gold alone.
Sapphire is definitely scratch resistant but not scratch proof, but I've had my GMT for about 14 years. I chipped the edge (older model crystal with a very sharp edge prone to chipping; the factory replacements now have a polished bevel more resistant to chipping) and had a very, very faint scratch. Other than that, it held up really well.
P.S.: A little off-topic... I used to also think the brand was overpriced but it's wholly-owned by the Hans Wilsdorf Foundation which is an irrevocable trust that funds a variety of philanthropic causes.
Also, one has to consider that it's a mechanical movement, which isn't going to compare to battery-powered quartz movements but has a great deal of engineering genius at work.
To earn the title of Chronometer from the COSC, a timepiece has to be accurate to -4/+6 seconds per day. Rolex's Certified Superlative Chronometer movements are targeted to be -1/+2 when maintained and calibrated. That's astonishing for a mechanical movement, and you'd be hard pressed to find better without spending upwards of $20,000 for a leather-strap Vacheron Constantin, Patek Philippe or the like... which is inarguably excessive.
A girl wearing a ring would be sufficient to scratch the back of the device, even if the back glass is harder than sapphire...
Not exactly.
Plexiglass is a plastic. It is in gact poly methyl methacrylate. It is a flexible strong, shatter reistent product. It is in gact rather soft and scratches more than glass.
It does not contain aluminum or silicate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plexiglass
Aluminum Silicate is a material used in making glass. It has a mohs hardness of 1-2. A diamond is a 10. So standard materials made with aluminum silicate would be soft relatively speaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_silicate
The glass used in the iPhone4 is Gorilla glass by Corning. It is suspected of having a mohs of between 4 and 7 depending an a varoety of factors, thickness, etc. So the iPhone is considerably better than plexiglass.
Plexiglass is a plastic. It is in gact poly methyl methacrylate. It is a flexible strong, shatter reistent product. It is in gact rather soft and scratches more than glass.
It does not contain aluminum or silicate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plexiglass
Aluminum Silicate is a material used in making glass. It has a mohs hardness of 1-2. A diamond is a 10. So standard materials made with aluminum silicate would be soft relatively speaking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum_silicate
The glass used in the iPhone4 is Gorilla glass by Corning. It is suspected of having a mohs of between 4 and 7 depending an a varoety of factors, thickness, etc. So the iPhone is considerably better than plexiglass.
I'm not as concerned about the back of the unit as I am about the face of the unit. I've had every iPhone iteration since the first and only one of them (iPhone 3G) ever had any front scratches during normal use, but all iPhones have been pretty scratched up (except the first) at the end of their lifespan.
I had several Swiss watches with sapphire glass and never discovered any scratches at all. And the most expensive parts of a Rolex are the clockwork and the brand
My iPhone 3G front didn't get any scratches wile I was in the army.. So I expect the same quality for the iPhone 4
I have a Bertolucci Pulchra Maris that's a decade old and a Rolex and a Tag Heuer that are a few years old with no scratches on the glass (watch, something will happen now lol).
Can anyone fully explain different glass types, strengths and pros and cons?
Dimensions inferred and implied.
Not sure what point is being made here. So now we accept the iPhone as a brick and that is now good, whereas the Evo is now a cinder block which is bad?
Do you know what isn't a brick? A phone. iPhone is not a phone. It is a smart phone. It has a large rectangular screen for interaction and showing movies. Evo is also a smart phone. It has a bigger screen more suited for watching movies and tv on. On the other hand, iPhone might fit in your pants pocket better.
Will take a look right away!
The kickstand is flaunted as an obvious need on a device that is for viewing media on. Unfortunately while HTC gets props for thinking that people might care to rest their arm over the course of a movie, they added the kickstand that gives only 'just so' stability to the phone. It frequently falls over. Why not make it extend full body???
The rest of it is meaningless -- doesn't matter that the processor speed is if it give you the right user XP. Why would you care? Here is the meaningful break between the two devices. Apple walls the garden and says we can't promise you this will work unless you agree not to do this this this this and this. Evo/Android says - your call. Don't do it if you want the rock solid XP but if you want the option we will let you make the call. iPhone is a dumb fire missile. Evo is a smart bomb.
All hail the grammar master!!!
This is actually a common misconception. While the Apollo missions were run on systems that are less powerful than today, they were considerably more powerful than the 'pocket calculator' canard implies. BTW you do know that there were about 10 yrs intervening between Apollo landing and Space Shuttle right? There were significant differences in the two systems. BTW in both cases, more powerful than calculators!
I think your point here is : iPhone underpowered = good because you like iOS. Evo overpowered = bad because you don't like Android?
Dammit! FedEx just dropped my iPhone 4 off and now I will just have to put it in a glass display case and look at it.
Dammit! FedEx just dropped my iPhone 4 off and now I will just have to put it in a glass display case and look at it.
You could get some long silk gloves sewn into the inside of the glass so you could operate the device in the glass case.
Just check with one of the Mac Rumors material experts here to see if silk gloves will potentially harm the iPhone 4 in any way shape or form.
is it just me, or does that look more like a very dusty iPhone 4 with scratches in the dust? GG
Well glass isn't scratch proof, and putting it on a glass or metal surface will scratch it no matter what. You'd think stainless steel is tougher than glass but even the back of my iPod Touch got scratched the instant I put it on a WOODEN table. I think people should get Apple's "bumper case" and use it. They only make accessories like this when they think it's necessary (iPad case, etc...). The case will prevent the surface from touching the phone, unless you put it on rocks or something. And if you drop it, well it's totally normal if it gets scratched. I don't think people should use these hard plastic shell cases because they constantly make the device look ugly, much worse than if it were scratched. Just make sure the screen doesn't come in contact with anything but your pocket and your finger, and you should be fine.
I'm waiting for iPhone 23, which will use anti-gravity technology to safely float the device above the table surface - or your sweaty, filthy palm.
Oh who am I kidding, FedEx just dropped off my new iPhone 4 and I'm gazing at the plastic-wrapped box right now, not quite ready for "the moment." I feel like a fat girl in a donut shop right now.
Engadget has totally backpedalled on this one, saying the scratch is "incredibly minor" and not visible at all looking at it dead on, just at the right angle under bright light. I assume they're regretting putting out such an inflammatory story without inspecting the unit in person first.
I have kept my phone in my pocket ever since I got it unprotected and still have no scartches on the glass. I have some on the plastic, but not the glass. We shall see I guess.