[quote name="mstone" url="/t/162473/corning-exec-lets-slip-the-gorillas-of-war-calls-sapphire-expensive-heavy-environmentally-unfriendly#post_2481549"]I believe people tend to take much better care of their iPhones than Samsung users take care of their devices. I see people with cracked Samsung screens all the time. I've only seen one cracked iPhone and that was due to a horse stepping on it. If people do accidently crack their iPhone screens, they must get them replaced pretty quickly because I just don't ever see them. [/quote
I see people walking around with cracked screened iPhones all the time, but very few Samsung's in a similar state myself.
Obviously, since Apple uses Sapphire to protect the iPhone's camera lens, it lets light through JUST FINE.
Obviously, since Apple is heavily investing in Sapphire production, Sapphire will be just as cheap as Gorilla Glass, and just as quickly mass produced.
Corning better get on the Sapphire Bandwagon. But then it may not have enough money nor technology to do so. They are already complaining about the cost. Obviously, Apple can lower the cost immensely.
Explain how Apple can lower the cost of Sapphire immensely when it requires 4000% more energy to produce and requires diamond saws to cut and expensive machinery using diamond polishes to finish the cut pieces to a usable state? Did someone at Apple that i haven't heard of go to Hogwarts and can just wave their wand over a large pile of Aluminium Oxide and hey presto, produce a large pile of finished sheets at next to no cost?
Corning don't rely solely on Apple as a customer for Gorilla glass - Samsung is a big customer also. In fact, Samsung own 7.4% of Corning. Other phone makers like Nokia also use Gorilla glass.
Sapphire is brittle compared to glass, so it isn't 'stronger' and doesn't offer a way to make a screen thinner and lighter. Really hard substances tend to be brittle. Diamond may be extremely hard, but it is also brittle. The toughest mineral is jade (nephrite) so if you wanted to make a hammer, or a phone screen that would best resist breaking, you would use jade. Unfortunately nephrite isn't transparent.
Hey Corning, GG might make some really nice baking dishes.
Yep, maybe that would be better than Pyrex™, I had a massive one of those split in two heating a load of gravy one year, never trusted them since, always use Le Creuset now. The latter also double as a physical work out just lifting them!
With a market valuation of nearly $30 Billion, the cost is not a problem. More than likely, they don't have the IP.
I doubt it. Sapphire glass is not new, and Corning has been around a long time. I am sure it has manufactured it themselves. I suspect you have it in reverse. Anybody with money who can buy the needed resources probably can create Sapphire, whereas Corning holds the IP to Gorilla Glass. Nobody can compete with Corning on the glass front. Further, Corning most likely has a lot invested in Gorilla Glass, and from its statements thinks it is a better product.
I think what Apple is doing is what it did when it started making aluminum products. Namely, buy up most of the manufacturing capacity to make such products, which made it very hard for its competitors. I still don't think you can get a notebook from anybody else that is made from a single block of aluminum. Right now Corning sells to everybody. Apple wants to distinguish its products. It is buying up all the resources necessary to make Sapphire in significant quantities. Whether it is a better alternative than Gorilla Glass probably depends on what criteria Apple is applying.
It does, however, seem like Apple is investing a ton of money into producing the material. Apple engineers are pretty smart. I doubt they are sinking the money into manufacturing the material on a grand scale if they do not think it offers some benefit over Gorilla Glass.
Explain how Apple can lower the cost of Sapphire immensely when it requires 4000% more energy to produce and requires diamond saws to cut and expensive machinery using diamond polishes to finish the cut pieces to a usable state? Did someone at Apple that i haven't heard of go to Hogwarts and can just wave their wand over a large pile of Aluminium Oxide and hey presto, produce a large pile of finished sheets at next to no cost?
Corning don't rely solely on Apple as a customer for Gorilla glass - Samsung is a big customer also. In fact, Samsung own 7.4% of Corning. Other phone makers like Nokia also use Gorilla glass.
Sapphire is brittle compared to glass, so it isn't 'stronger' and doesn't offer a way to make a screen thinner and lighter. Really hard substances tend to be brittle. Diamond may be extremely hard, but it is also brittle. The toughest mineral is jade (nephrite) so if you wanted to make a hammer, or a phone screen that would best resist breaking, you would use jade. Unfortunately nephrite isn't transparent.
I suspect you are not far off the mark with Hogwarts. Apple's R&D team probably really do know some magic we are not aware of in all this.
Yep, maybe that would be better than Pyrex™, I had a massive one of those split in two heating a load of gravy one year, never trusted them since, always use Le Creuset now. The latter also double as a physical work out just lifting them!
That would have sucked. I would second that the Le Creuset cast iron stuff is great especially the stuff actually made in France. I always joke that you could stop a bullet with that stuff, but it really isn't a joke.
Corning sounds like Carriage manufacturer in the early 1900's when the automobile was in its infancy. How many of the carriage manufacturers survived the industrial revolution?
Sapphire is brittle compared to glass, so it isn't 'stronger' and doesn't offer a way to make a screen thinner and lighter. Really hard substances tend to be brittle. Diamond may be extremely hard, but it is also brittle. The toughest mineral is jade (nephrite) so if you wanted to make a hammer, or a phone screen that would best resist breaking, you would use jade. Unfortunately nephrite isn't transparent.
This post epitomizes the confusion that arises every time material science issues are raised. Brittleness and strength are entirely different and relatively independent properties. Strength, itself, refers to multiple properties depending on the stress state in question. Toughness - usually referring to fracture toughness, is just one parameter that falls under the umbrella of "strength". You simply cannot conflate all these terms and then make blanket statements about the material response.
I think a major part of this is the support structure Apple provides through their retail stores. If you have a broken iPhone, make an appointment, walk in, they fix it, many times free, you go home. Where do you go with your cracked Samsung?
The same places that the vast majority of people that don't live near a Apple store go to get their iPhones fixed.
Corning sounds like Carriage manufacturer in the early 1900's when the automobile was in its infancy. How many of the carriage manufacturers survived the industrial revolution?
You do understand that Sapphire Glass was invented in 1902 right? Corning invented Gorilla Glass in the 1960's and created a brand new type in the last couple of years that it is just bringing to market called Gorilla Glass 3. Corning hardly sounds like a carriage manufacturer. It, however, sounds like a company defending its product, which it views as superior. At least Corning is not doing a Steve Ballmer where he just laughs at the iPhone. Corning actually brings up flaws about Sapphire. I will be interested to learn how Apple handles the flaws.
If your sapphire plant is solar powered, the amount of energy required isn't that much of an issue.
I disagree. The energy is still being used, and it's coming from somewhere. The solar field being used to power a sapphire plant could alternatively power a gorilla glass facility with many times the output, or an equivalent gorilla glass facility with surplus power to provide to the grid, offsetting fossil fuel production elsewhere.
This post epitomizes the confusion that arises every time material science issues are raised. Brittleness and strength are entirely different and relatively independent properties. Strength, itself, refers to multiple properties depending on the stress state in question. Toughness - usually referring to fracture toughness, is just one parameter that falls under the umbrella of "strength". You simply cannot conflate all these terms and then make blanket statements about the material response.
Quote:
Corning tests have shown Gorilla Glass to be able to withstand 2.5 times more pressure
You have gone to great lengths to give the impression that I am wrong without actually stating whether or not it would be easier or harder to break a very thin Sapphire screen vs a Gorilla glass one of the same thickness.
"When we look at it, we see a lot of disadvantages of Sapphire versus Gorilla Glass," Tripeny said. "It's about 10 times more expensive. It's about 1.6 times heavier. It's environmentally unfriendly. It takes about 100 times more energy to generate a Sapphire crystal than it does glass. It transmits less light which...means either dimmer devices or shorter battery life. It continues to break."
None of that could be true if Apple decides to use Sapphire for their screens. Corning is just jealous.
Gorilla Glass is extremely flawed. The reason is GG is covered by a thin layer of material that keeps the glass relatively stronger than regular glass. But that thin layer material is not very scratch resistant. And once that thin layer is scratched the entire plate is severely weakened. On the other hand sapphire is not a layered product. The entire crystal is strong and resists scratches much better.
Gorilla Glass = man wearing a bullet proof suit. Once the suit is compromised the glass easily cracks
Sapphire = block of iron
Where do these bizarre interpretations come from? Scratch resistance correlates purely with surface hardness, not any bulk property. The surface properties of GG just represent a modern version of thermal toughening, using ion exchange instead of thermal expansion to set the outer layer into a permanent state of compressive stress that offsets any externally imposed tensile (crack-opening) stresses. As a secondary effect, increased, not decreased, scratch resistance results from that process, though it's still not as hard as sapphire.
This post epitomizes the confusion that arises every time material science issues are raised. Brittleness and strength are entirely different and relatively independent properties. Strength, itself, refers to multiple properties depending on the stress state in question. Toughness - usually referring to fracture toughness, is just one parameter that falls under the umbrella of "strength". You simply cannot conflate all these terms and then make blanket statements about the material response.
Quote:
Corning tests have shown Gorilla Glass to be able to withstand 2.5 times more pressure
You have gone to great lengths to give the impression that I am wrong without actually stating whether or not it would be easier or harder to break a very thin Sapphire screen vs a Gorilla glass one of the same thickness.
On the specific (and undefined) property of "breakability", you completely failed to define how you are trying to break it (bending, impact, penetration etc.), and what you are considering it to be mechanically attached to. My point was that you appear unaware that each of those responses is controlled by different properties. GG is weaker in every measure of strength, by which we mean that it has lower elastic moduli (bulk compressive, tensile, shear), lower ultimate strength (tensile, shear), and lower hardness.
What GG does have is much higher strain to failure in tension and shear (this is what brittleness refers to), meaning that while it takes less force, you can bend a thin sheet of GG much further than a similar sheet of sapphire. That may make it better or worse, depending on the application. If you want a bendy phone, or the phone is simply not very rigid, then it may be preferable, but if the phone structure is stiff (like an iPhone) then the screen may never see significant bending and so the other properties of sapphire easily win.
I disagree. The energy is still being used, and it's coming from somewhere. The solar field being used to power a sapphire plant could alternatively power a gorilla glass facility with many times the output, or an equivalent gorilla glass facility with surplus power to provide to the grid, offsetting fossil fuel production elsewhere.
I disagree. If they are manufacturing a product that is energy neutral because it is solar powered, then it doesn't matter how much more efficient production of another material is. The impact would be the same for either, 0. The the energy being used is irrelevant because it is relatively infinite. The reason it matters to Corning is because their plants are not energy neutral. So in reality, Apple's Safire plant if used to replace GG would off set fossil fuel production by eliminating their GG production orders. And if they were building a solar farm for a plant that requires less energy, it would be smaller anyway.
Comments
[/quote
I see people walking around with cracked screened iPhones all the time, but very few Samsung's in a similar state myself.
Obviously, since Apple uses Sapphire to protect the iPhone's camera lens, it lets light through JUST FINE.
Obviously, since Apple is heavily investing in Sapphire production, Sapphire will be just as cheap as Gorilla Glass, and just as quickly mass produced.
Corning better get on the Sapphire Bandwagon. But then it may not have enough money nor technology to do so. They are already complaining about the cost. Obviously, Apple can lower the cost immensely.
Explain how Apple can lower the cost of Sapphire immensely when it requires 4000% more energy to produce and requires diamond saws to cut and expensive machinery using diamond polishes to finish the cut pieces to a usable state? Did someone at Apple that i haven't heard of go to Hogwarts and can just wave their wand over a large pile of Aluminium Oxide and hey presto, produce a large pile of finished sheets at next to no cost?
Corning don't rely solely on Apple as a customer for Gorilla glass - Samsung is a big customer also. In fact, Samsung own 7.4% of Corning. Other phone makers like Nokia also use Gorilla glass.
Sapphire is brittle compared to glass, so it isn't 'stronger' and doesn't offer a way to make a screen thinner and lighter. Really hard substances tend to be brittle. Diamond may be extremely hard, but it is also brittle. The toughest mineral is jade (nephrite) so if you wanted to make a hammer, or a phone screen that would best resist breaking, you would use jade. Unfortunately nephrite isn't transparent.
Yep, maybe that would be better than Pyrex™, I had a massive one of those split in two heating a load of gravy one year, never trusted them since, always use Le Creuset now. The latter also double as a physical work out just lifting them!
With a market valuation of nearly $30 Billion, the cost is not a problem. More than likely, they don't have the IP.
I doubt it. Sapphire glass is not new, and Corning has been around a long time. I am sure it has manufactured it themselves. I suspect you have it in reverse. Anybody with money who can buy the needed resources probably can create Sapphire, whereas Corning holds the IP to Gorilla Glass. Nobody can compete with Corning on the glass front. Further, Corning most likely has a lot invested in Gorilla Glass, and from its statements thinks it is a better product.
I think what Apple is doing is what it did when it started making aluminum products. Namely, buy up most of the manufacturing capacity to make such products, which made it very hard for its competitors. I still don't think you can get a notebook from anybody else that is made from a single block of aluminum. Right now Corning sells to everybody. Apple wants to distinguish its products. It is buying up all the resources necessary to make Sapphire in significant quantities. Whether it is a better alternative than Gorilla Glass probably depends on what criteria Apple is applying.
It does, however, seem like Apple is investing a ton of money into producing the material. Apple engineers are pretty smart. I doubt they are sinking the money into manufacturing the material on a grand scale if they do not think it offers some benefit over Gorilla Glass.
I suspect you are not far off the mark with Hogwarts. Apple's R&D team probably really do know some magic we are not aware of in all this.
Yep, maybe that would be better than Pyrex™, I had a massive one of those split in two heating a load of gravy one year, never trusted them since, always use Le Creuset now. The latter also double as a physical work out just lifting them!
That would have sucked. I would second that the Le Creuset cast iron stuff is great especially the stuff actually made in France. I always joke that you could stop a bullet with that stuff, but it really isn't a joke.
Corning sounds like Carriage manufacturer in the early 1900's when the automobile was in its infancy. How many of the carriage manufacturers survived the industrial revolution?
This post epitomizes the confusion that arises every time material science issues are raised. Brittleness and strength are entirely different and relatively independent properties. Strength, itself, refers to multiple properties depending on the stress state in question. Toughness - usually referring to fracture toughness, is just one parameter that falls under the umbrella of "strength". You simply cannot conflate all these terms and then make blanket statements about the material response.
The same places that the vast majority of people that don't live near a Apple store go to get their iPhones fixed.
Corning sounds like Carriage manufacturer in the early 1900's when the automobile was in its infancy. How many of the carriage manufacturers survived the industrial revolution?
You do understand that Sapphire Glass was invented in 1902 right? Corning invented Gorilla Glass in the 1960's and created a brand new type in the last couple of years that it is just bringing to market called Gorilla Glass 3. Corning hardly sounds like a carriage manufacturer. It, however, sounds like a company defending its product, which it views as superior. At least Corning is not doing a Steve Ballmer where he just laughs at the iPhone. Corning actually brings up flaws about Sapphire. I will be interested to learn how Apple handles the flaws.
If your sapphire plant is solar powered, the amount of energy required isn't that much of an issue.
I disagree. The energy is still being used, and it's coming from somewhere. The solar field being used to power a sapphire plant could alternatively power a gorilla glass facility with many times the output, or an equivalent gorilla glass facility with surplus power to provide to the grid, offsetting fossil fuel production elsewhere.
Sapphire isn't just used for screens, it's also used in some LEDs. Maybe Apple is preparing for the mass manufacture of an LED-based product?
http://www.compoundsemiconductor.net/csc/indepth-details/19736669/Sapphire-substrates-to-lead-future-LED-market.html
This post epitomizes the confusion that arises every time material science issues are raised. Brittleness and strength are entirely different and relatively independent properties. Strength, itself, refers to multiple properties depending on the stress state in question. Toughness - usually referring to fracture toughness, is just one parameter that falls under the umbrella of "strength". You simply cannot conflate all these terms and then make blanket statements about the material response.
Corning tests have shown Gorilla Glass to be able to withstand 2.5 times more pressure
You have gone to great lengths to give the impression that I am wrong without actually stating whether or not it would be easier or harder to break a very thin Sapphire screen vs a Gorilla glass one of the same thickness.
None of that could be true if Apple decides to use Sapphire for their screens. Corning is just jealous.
Maybe Corning should thank Apple for making them relevant again, instead of coming across like some whiny b!tch?
Save your breath. Corning is biting the hand that feeds it, exactly like every whiny beotch on the planet.
Corning should be THANKING Apple, and not whining about Apple. They have no gratitude whatsoever.
Gorilla Glass is extremely flawed. The reason is GG is covered by a thin layer of material that keeps the glass relatively stronger than regular glass. But that thin layer material is not very scratch resistant. And once that thin layer is scratched the entire plate is severely weakened. On the other hand sapphire is not a layered product. The entire crystal is strong and resists scratches much better.
Gorilla Glass = man wearing a bullet proof suit. Once the suit is compromised the glass easily cracks
Sapphire = block of iron
Where do these bizarre interpretations come from? Scratch resistance correlates purely with surface hardness, not any bulk property. The surface properties of GG just represent a modern version of thermal toughening, using ion exchange instead of thermal expansion to set the outer layer into a permanent state of compressive stress that offsets any externally imposed tensile (crack-opening) stresses. As a secondary effect, increased, not decreased, scratch resistance results from that process, though it's still not as hard as sapphire.
This post epitomizes the confusion that arises every time material science issues are raised. Brittleness and strength are entirely different and relatively independent properties. Strength, itself, refers to multiple properties depending on the stress state in question. Toughness - usually referring to fracture toughness, is just one parameter that falls under the umbrella of "strength". You simply cannot conflate all these terms and then make blanket statements about the material response.
Corning tests have shown Gorilla Glass to be able to withstand 2.5 times more pressure
You have gone to great lengths to give the impression that I am wrong without actually stating whether or not it would be easier or harder to break a very thin Sapphire screen vs a Gorilla glass one of the same thickness.
On the specific (and undefined) property of "breakability", you completely failed to define how you are trying to break it (bending, impact, penetration etc.), and what you are considering it to be mechanically attached to. My point was that you appear unaware that each of those responses is controlled by different properties. GG is weaker in every measure of strength, by which we mean that it has lower elastic moduli (bulk compressive, tensile, shear), lower ultimate strength (tensile, shear), and lower hardness.
What GG does have is much higher strain to failure in tension and shear (this is what brittleness refers to), meaning that while it takes less force, you can bend a thin sheet of GG much further than a similar sheet of sapphire. That may make it better or worse, depending on the application. If you want a bendy phone, or the phone is simply not very rigid, then it may be preferable, but if the phone structure is stiff (like an iPhone) then the screen may never see significant bending and so the other properties of sapphire easily win.