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

DaveN

macrumors 6502a
May 1, 2010
909
763
I don't care. As I've posted elsewhere, the selling point for me buying the iPhone 5s versus competing products was the fingerprint sensor. I put a plastic cover on my phone so there are no scratches. If the plastic scratches, I'll get a new cover. I haven't dropped it in six months so that isn't an issue either. Nor have I dropped it in water. In short, I treat it like a phone. I don't treat it like a hammer, sander, etc.

The size of the iPhone 5s is also fine by me. It easily fits in most any of my front pockets. However, I am at the age where I need reading glasses so I may get an iPhone 7 or 8 or 9 depending on when my 5s is end of life. That said, at the rate that I replace my iDevices, I may be waiting for a 10, 11, or 12. I'm of the mindset that if it works, keep it. Something new won't necessarily make my life that much better so why spend the money which is hard to come by now that I'm retired.
 

HobeSoundDarryl

macrumors G5
I have a hard time believing that apple would dump this much money into a material that won't be better than the industry standard.

Third parties can sell replacement iPhone screens made of GG for cheap.
Only Apple will be the source of Sapphire replacement iPhone screens.

What's one of the most profitable parts of the automotive business? The parts business. Which parts? The one's that are pretty much ONLY available from the manufacturer because they have a patent or some unique element. Just had to pay more than $3K for a chip replacement part for the car that probably had a unit cost of near nothing. Why? Only available from the manufacturer. I'm certain it was a very profitable part sale.

Besides, "Sapphire" like "thinner" or "thinnest" will sound better in the marketing launch pitch.
 
Last edited:

joe-h2o

macrumors 6502a
Jun 24, 2012
997
445
This is a basic demonstration of material science - things that are very hard (diamond, sapphire) tend to be brittle. It's the reason they are hard. They don't "give" until they break completely. This is what makes them very scratch resistant and makes them useful as tools.

Softer materials scratch more easily, but they tend not to shatter because they're not brittle.

Finding a combination of non-brittle-but-hard is not an easy compromise.
 

Nevaborn

macrumors 65816
Aug 30, 2013
1,087
327
why is this post even here?

there was nothing new in these videos. Apple are very unlikely to use pure Sapphire anyway, instead favouring a laminated type design which will add support in absorbing impact.

the only problem being any negative impact on clarity, the primary reason for choosing Sapphire over Gorilla Glass as both offer excellent scratch resistance.
 

JGRE

macrumors 65816
Oct 10, 2011
1,012
664
Dutch Mountains
I think it is important to remember that there are many different types and implementations of sapphire. Just like glass. Gorilla Glass is far different from the type of glass used in other applications. I think until we get a real example of what GT will be producing for apple we won't know its true strengths/weaknesses.

I have a hard time believing that apple would dump this much money into a material that won't be better than the industry standard.

I have seen previous video in which it was claimed that apple is laminating the sapphire to make it more resistant to drops. I don't understand the bend-test; who is going to try and bend his/her iPhone? Useless test.
 

Mildredop

macrumors 68020
Oct 14, 2013
2,478
1,510
I agree 100% with you. It would be nice to be able to place the iphone in my pocket with car keys or a cigarette lighter, not having to worry about it being scratched.

I don't like having a large outter box on my phone while I'm in the office because it feels weird and doesn't go well with business clothes.

The screen might not scratch, but the rest of the phone would be a dented, scratched, chipped mess!
 

subjonas

macrumors 603
Feb 10, 2014
5,602
5,953
This is because the material used in watches is thicker and with a smaller surface area. Those can make a huge difference when it comes to actual performance.

He was arguing why the "iWatch" would be suited for a sapphire cover, not the iPhone.


A big rectangle of sapphire in a "thinnest" possible case gives up the "ton of metal around them", "smaller" and being "a lot thicker" in a phone. I have a watch with a Sapphire screen and it measures less than 1.5" across. That's a big hop from 1.5" to 4.7" and 5.5".

I think you guys were arguing the same thing: that sapphire is fine for watches but problematic for a phone.
 
Last edited:

busterbluth

macrumors 6502
Jun 14, 2008
309
1
Personally I'd rather have it be more scratch resistant than impact resistant. I'm also going to have a case on my phone, which should help in drops, but the screen will always be susceptible to scratches unless you throw on an annoying screen shield.

Couldn't disagree more. I have had my 5 without any case or screen protector for 2 years. I have no scratches, but a shattered screen is a costly problem.

I have dropped my phone countless times without no issue, so I don't see why we need a change. If they could make something that was resistant to drops on concrete, then I would be interested.
 

darkplanets

macrumors 6502a
Nov 6, 2009
853
1
I posted this before in an earlier thread, but I think it needs to be posted again since we keep getting this "chunk of solid sapphire" idea thrown around:

I think you miss the point -- if Apple is using sapphire, they won't just use a solid chunk as Corning wants you believe. Using thin layers allows some flexibility in most of the aforementioned materials, and doping of said material means the world (carbon in steel, for example). The better questions to ask: Is it pure alumina? Laminated or not? Bonded to silicates? Plastic? With what bonding agent(s)?

Those answers will more thoroughly determine its flexibility as they have profound differences on the various force moduli.

[SNIP]

As I mentioned before, doping means quite a bit. I'm med chem, so I don't know materials science very well, but a lot of materials considered "inflexible" do have a fair amount of elastic give. You can start to alter Young's modulus with small % changes in composition, as shown here for base glass. Unsurprisingly, bulk sapphire has a much higher Young's modulus (345 GPa according to here, but again it comes back to composition and bonding to substrate -- are they even using pure alumina?

I would love for someone with a materials chemistry background to clarify all this.

EDIT: For reference, I also looked up Corning's Willow Glass, which is marketed as flexible substrate glass. It has a nominal E of 70-80Gpa, though it is borosilicate glass so its more shatter prone. Unsurprisingly, Corning recommends using Gorilla glass as its bonded cover glass, which clearly doesn't impact the flexibility too much.
 

solamar

macrumors regular
Dec 30, 2008
179
72
Most top end watches are made from saphire and they almost never smash

----------

I thought they tested the earlier leaks of the screens and found it not to be pure saphire so had best of both worlds

Exactly.. watches are not just 'pure' sapphire.. nor would an iPhone be pure sapphire..

This is such a media grab and BS test.. RAW Sapphire against highly modified GLASS? Exactly how does that prove anything? RAW glass would shatter just as easily.

Apple is laminating and layering Sapphire changing it's makeup JUST LIKE GG does for normal glass.. Normal glass would shatter too.. such a dumb test.. literally proves nothing but their incompetence and/or bias trying to prop up GG..

All you need to do is look at the patents rolling by from Apple on how they will apply strengthening and applying durability techniques to Sapphire to realize they are very serious .. lol
 

nick_elt

macrumors 68000
Oct 28, 2011
1,578
0
Yes, as they have a ton of metal around them, the Glass is often below the surface of the surround, it's a far far smaller piece of glass, and the glass it probably a lot thicker than the thinness of a phone screen.

The guy was talking about the iwatch not the iphone
 

Zxxv

macrumors 68040
Nov 13, 2011
3,558
1,104
UK
All that complex test equipment when all thats needed is to drop it and throw it. If it breaks or scratches it isn't good enough yet, so keep working on it.

There saved them loads of money
 

JGRE

macrumors 65816
Oct 10, 2011
1,012
664
Dutch Mountains
Couldn't disagree more. I have had my 5 without any case or screen protector for 2 years. I have no scratches, but a shattered screen is a costly problem.

I have dropped my phone countless times without no issue, so I don't see why we need a change. If they could make something that was resistant to drops on concrete, then I would be interested.

I have more issues with the case of the iPhone than its glass. Any drop on a hard surface will damage the metal case of the iPhone. This part is more vulnerable than the glass actually, yes it will not shatter, but your iPhone gets rough edges and looks like ****. I am careful with my iPhone (its a company phone btw) but it is impossible to avoid dropping it over a long period of time as this will happen with any stuff you carry in your pocket.
 

Tinmania

macrumors 68040
Aug 8, 2011
3,528
1,016
Aridzona
Personally I'd rather have it be more scratch resistant than impact resistant. I'm also going to have a case on my phone, which should help in drops, but the screen will always be susceptible to scratches unless you throw on an annoying screen shield.
I'd much rather it being impact resistant. While I have not used a screen protector on my last 2 iphones one would be barely noticeable if I did have a problem with scratches. On the other hand a case that will protect against glass breakage is going to be very noticeable--for me.



Mike
 

nick_elt

macrumors 68000
Oct 28, 2011
1,578
0
As watches have much thicker crystals than smartphones' glass that point is meaningless.

Even so, I have broken several sapphire crystals on watches.




Michael

Meaningless? If you read what i was talking about i never mentioned any smartphone at all, your reply was meaningless.
 

carves

macrumors member
Jun 26, 2014
43
0
Apple has patents on tempering sapphire, chemically and with lasers, which would make it much more impact resistant and less brittle. They are testing with regular sapphire. That would be a fair test if they compared it with regular glass instead of GG.

Tempering would make it MORE brittle and prone to shattering, but a bit stronger. That's the opposite of what's needed. I certainly hope Apple has a raised bezel, but I sincerely doubt it.
 

Jovian9

macrumors 68000
Feb 19, 2003
1,968
110
Planet Zebes
Hopefully when they end up using it shattering won't be a big issue. I'm fine with getting tiny scratches on my phone as it sits in my pocket when I'm not using it and I expect things to happen (not major scratches of course). However, I hate when I get scratches on my watches. I'd really love the iWatch to be a lot more scratch resistant than the iPhones are now.
 

jlabute

macrumors regular
Jan 26, 2014
143
12
watch crystal is thicker

Interesting - sapphire shattering from a 3 foot drop.

How will the rumoured iWatch face hold up if I'm wearing it during sports and it takes a knock?

Typically a watch sapphire is much thicker and smaller surface area. It will hold up much better to be dropped. I wouldn't want to wear an expensive watch if I were doing watch hazardous things.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.