Sport Model no laminated display?

[Lennyvalentin]

But 3 minutes of YouTube searches and a few minutes more watching some videos that show lamination, would reveal that the process works better on large surfaces, requires UV light hardening of the adhesive and vacuum treatment.

We're not privvy to the specific manufacturing process used by Apple's contract manufacturer. We don't know if it involves vacuum at all, or UV light (maybe the glue is hardened by heat in an oven, or using a catalyst like epoxy for example.)

Since you cannot cut the rounded displays easily after doing so, I would assume that doing so for very small displays and sheets of glass is not cost effective.

I fail to see your line of reasoning. Cost effectiveness is a relative measure. If it works on sapphire it will work equally well on gorilla glass. If Apple's bothering to de-burr the inside edges of the speaker housing of the aluminium case (a place you can't even see or reach without busting the watch open) using lasers - tech pretty much unheard of in consumer gear mass production - I doubt they'll balk at laminating the display either. The sport Watch is a cheaper watch, but it isn't cheap. And it's not made cheaply either. So yea, it'll have a laminated display.

Since the hardware is identical, and the price difference between stainless steel and aluminum is not really that large (considering that the milling is identical), I would think that the difference is caused by the yield of the sapphire display and the extra steps for laminating.

Well, there's the cold forging, and the zirconia back with its inlaid sapphire windows, all polished to a few microns-level smoothness. But yeah, let's assume the display isn't laminated, because that would necessitate a second, radically different method of construction which would be thicker and less performant...

 

[Brian Y]

Sorry but while I agree on the sapphire being more prone to breaking, I have worn sapphire faced Rolexes most of my life and never have one break. I would much prefer the sapphire over the ion-x as it will scratch with ease compared to the sapphire. My current Rolex looks like new when the case and band is buffed out by the dealer.

And have you ever hit the rolex against a wall when running?

What you *prefer* isn't the point. It's known (google it) that Sapphire is more liable to break/crack upon impact than.

 

[Newtons Apple]

And have you ever hit the rolex against a wall when running?

What you *prefer* isn't the point. It's known (google it) that Sapphire is more liable to break/crack upon impact than.

Yes, hit on many door casings and worst. I will take sapphire anyday as most would here when applied to Apple's watch. But the chances of breakage is very slight and the chances or scratching the ion-x glass is great!

No need to argue here as it will all play out in this forum soon!

 

[iamMacPerson]

Of course it is or else Force Touch would not work! Plus the internals would have to be different and perhaps the body of the watch thicker.

That has nothing to do with wether or not the display is laminated. The glass, digitizer and LCD panel are all three separate components. The digitizer is what registers your taps (and in this case, the intensity of your touch), the LCD panel just displays the picture. Lamination just brings the glass, digitizer and LCD panel closer together so the screen isn't recessed into the body which creates a gap.

On the thickness part I agree though. I think the Apple Watch is going to be cramped already as it is. Not laminating the display will just create more problems. Plus, in the video we would have seen screw holes where the LCD would be tightened into the chassis. To add to it, why would Apple go out of its way to incorporate an OLED display to not laminate it?