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

Smartphone Manufacturers 'Lukewarm' on Sapphire, Call Material Impractical Due to Cost and Supply

LordVic said:
Because they use technologies that are more expensive for marketing, sales and "image" rather than what is actually best for the consumer and the device?

Unless GT AT and Apple have some secret manufacturing technique they're not sharing with anyone else in the world, the concerns that people are raising against sapphire screen for the iPhone aren't unjust.
Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like the original iPhone which used more expensive parts, but changed the entire mobile phone industry? This could end up being no different than the people laughing at the original iPhone screen and how it would be unusable because of fingerprints and cracks. In the long run I say Apple definitely won that battle despite all the opponents and arguments that weren't "unjust" against it.
 
bushman4 said:
Why didn't Apple use gorilla glass for its Touch ID ??? If gorilla Glass is so strong and flexible and has all the qualities. Of Sapphire
Possible that Apple needs the clarity that Sapphire offers
Click to expand...

No, Gorilla Glass has better "clarity", i.e. it is less opaque. However, scratches on a finger print scanner could render said scanner useless, so sapphire absolutely makes sense there. As it does as a protective front element on a camera lens assembly.
 
mrkowalski said:
One big drawback I see is that WHEN a sapphire screen cracks, it will be a lot more expensive to replace than the Gorilla Glass versions.

That said, I have purchased 9 iPhones so far, and none have cracked, but all have scratched. Even at the higher cost, I look forward to a scratch-proof screen.
Click to expand...

I think most of the cost in replacing the screen would be the labor and not the materials. ~$10 for a sapphire cover vs. $3 for a GG cover.
 
drewu said:
Just my 2 pennies: But I am far more likely to drop the phone, than put 161lbs on it.

I think (for me at least) it comes down to which performs better for accidental drops and scratch resistance. Which is a bit of catch 22, as the Gorilla Glass is better for drops, and sapphire is better for scratches :/
Click to expand...

It's even more weight when folks realize this test of PSI is 166 pounds force per square inch. This test is really sad.

When the iPhone becomes capable of high pressure water depths, I'll wait for someone to sink it below 150 meters and complain it's weak.
 
Konrad9 said:
...what? Your comment makes no sense in this context.
Click to expand...

If Apple is able and willing to spend dollars on new tech that other companies find impractical due to cost and supply, that does give them an advantage... Not sure why you think their comment makes no sense.
 
Well of course the competition is not going to fawn over something they can't have and Apple does lol. Like 64 bit being a marketing gimmick...
they are not going to be spokesmen for Apple and say how their screens suck now in comparison lol
 
LordVic said:
most current uses of Sapphire aren't even as big as a cell phone.

The current gen of phones basically only uses it for the lense of the camera and the touchID on the 5s.

Watches tend to be the biggest consumer product using Sapphire glass, and most watches aren't much bigger than 1-2" diamater of the face.

We're talknig about moving here to 4-6" worth of glass, while being only a few Milimeters thin
Click to expand...

Few millimeters? More like 100 microns or less.
 
mdelvecchio said:
er, how does a blogger publishing a stress test of a leaked part represent a commercial agenda of the sort Corning has?

it doesnt.
Click to expand...

If subtlety was a trait of yours, you'd realize that I meant that they were both to be taken with a grain of salt.
 
are people finally realizing here that the video of the "ultra-bendy" iPhone 6 glass part is most likely not sapphire but Gorilla Glass 3? Remember that one can't BEND a sapphire crystal. It's like saying that you can bend a diamond without it shattering o_O
 
Actual Trick

I would think that the trick corning used here ist the thickness of the panels.

1mm seems quite a lot for a sapphire glass and probably comes with the needed disadvantage of a crystalline material in comparison to an amorph material like glass when it comes to beeing pressed with huge force. The thicker the layer the more the crystalline elements can be moved, until the panel bursts.

Considering the small difference shown despite the fact of the unrealistic thickness of the panels, a real world sample might not have any disadvantages in comparison to Corning's ware, if not even being much more stable.
 
Just what would you expect that group to say?

Most of you have seen the video, if it's anything close to as good as that these companies just got hammered. As for cost, who cares.?..what you care about is what you pay.
 
t.gillespie said:
Also; the comment in the article about Sapphire not being as clear? umm.. Sapphire is noted as being one of the purest substances on earth when it comes to allowing pure color and well known for it's near 0 opacity. Which is WHY they use it for the finger print scanner and camera lens cover! duh..
Click to expand...
Depends on the definition of "clear". It seems to me, that the main factor is not the actual "impurity" of the material, but rather reflexions on the screen.

Sapphire has a significantly higher refraction index than most glasses (1.76, most glasses have something like ~1.5). If we approximate that glass and sapphire absorb no visible light whatsoever (which is plausible), the amount of reflexions is determined by the refraction index only (the famous fresnel equations).

The relations are somewhat complicated, but just to present some numbers: If light is hitting orthogonally on the surface, the fresnel equations for the reflected light of both polarisations going from air to a material with the refraction index n are just R = ((1-n)/(1+n))^2. So we get something like R = 4% for typical glasses and R = 7.6% for sapphire. Sapphire reflects almost twice as much light in this (special) case. That's the idea.
 
cgc said:
I gotta call BS on both counts. Obviously, the screen would be marginally more clear without the screen protector but the screen protectors of today are VERY clear. Apple was successful because of Steve Jobs...they are going off of the inertia he started along with some good things Tim Cook implemented but you are insane to say Steve Jobs couldn't have done what Tim Cook has done. Ludicrous.
Click to expand...
LOL. How easy it is to open one's pie whole when you don't need to worry about evidence. Got any proof that screen protectors are indistinguishable from a sapphire display? Of course not. As for Steve Jobs, he was working on designs like this at the time of his death:
podcast_app_2.jpg

Not to mention Apple Maps and Find My Friends. Steve Jobs would never have fired his pet Forestall who was holding the company back, and his ill-advised lawsuits, illegal price price fixing, and backroom wage deals with Google were only the tip of the iceberg of the kind of crap he was getting into. He obstructed any attempt to respond to competitive pressures such as larger screen sizes, and he had no major products anywhere near release at the time of his death. Don't get me wrong, Jobs was great, but Apple's current success is far beyond what would have happened under Jobs.
 
SgtPepper12 said:
Depends on the definition of "clear". It seems to me, that the main factor is not the actual "impurity" of the material, but rather reflexions on the screen.

Sapphire has a significantly higher refraction index than most glasses (1.76, most glasses have something like ~1.5). If we approximate that glass and sapphire absorb no visible light whatsoever (which is plausible), the amount of reflexions is determined by the refraction index only (the famous fresnel equations).

The relations are somewhat complicated, but just to present some numbers: If light is hitting orthogonally on the surface, the fresnel equations for the reflected light of both polarisations going from air to a material with the refraction index n are just R = ((1-n)/(1+n))^2. So we get something like R = 4% for typical glasses and R = 7.6% for sapphire. Sapphire reflects almost twice as much light in this (special) case. That's the idea.
Click to expand...

You should note that this is for raw material and not treated materials. I am sure Apple will have various treatments (like museum glass uses but not nearly as good) that will significantly impact that.
 
69Mustang said:
A brand new phone when dropped will crack just as easily as a phone with scratches on the screen. Scoring glass to cut it is not analogous to dropping a phone.
Click to expand...

This is 100% false. Scratches significantly weaken the glass by releasing the internal/external stresses.
 
zipa said:
LOL, that's a load of bull right there. No, they did not patent "flexible sapphire" (because there is no such thing), they patented a "hollowed out" sapphire sheet with a flexible display panel that wraps around the inside of it.

Look, sapphire does not bend, nor will it be made less prone to shattering. It is a physical property of the material. What they might try to do is to use a super thin layer and laminate that onto something else, such as gorilla glass to try to get the best of both worlds. Still, calling that laminate "sapphire" is another load of bull.
Click to expand...

Of course sappire bends. Steel bends, aluminum bends. Glass bends.

Only a fool's would state sappire does not bend.
 
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