I believe they will be using saphire in the new phones, but that the display will be a combination of gorrilla glass and saphire. GT Advanced Technologies has developed a process by which they can create extremely thin layers of saphire that can and may be used as a laminate on the gorrila glass, for extra strength and scratch resistance. I think there is a chance of liquid metal being used too, in the i6 or in future models, as it would add stability to the chasis, which would help prevent breakage if dropped.
From Seeking Alpha (so take it with a grain of salt)
"Hyperion is an ion implanter that has the ability to cut silicon, silicon carbide, sapphire, germanium and other crystalline material substrates to the thickness of 20 microns - traditional methods cut these materials at 200 microns. The biggest advantage of the process is the cost-efficiency - one of the biggest hurdles for the clean energy is the cost of the per watt energy generation. Hyperion can cut down that cost by about 50% for a vertically integrated company.
Also, last month, Apple was granted yet another patent called "Methods and systems for integrally trapping a glass insert in a metal bezel." This means that Apple can now flawlessly enclose sapphire inside of LiquidMetal bezels."
Apple and GTAT recently opened a second though smalled plant in Salem, Massachusetts. If they did not intend to expand their isage of saphire in i devices why would they continue to increase their investment in both Saphire and Liquidmetal.
I mostly agree with your assessment. My own thought is that Apple will use chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to lay down a layer of glass on top of a sapphire protective screen. The glass is needed because the oleophobic coating used to resist fingerprints will not adhere to sapphire. A layer of glass on top solves this issue but presents another; that being the glass doesn't have the scratch resistance of sapphire. However, an extremely thin layer of glass, which is what you could get with CVD means that any scratches in the glass, which would go only as deep as the glass is thick and would therefore stop at the sapphire, would be so shallow as to not be discernible to the human eye.
that isn't bias, it's a conclusion. AI doesn't have a horse in the race and cannot be biased.
frankly, unless one is a metallurgist, I don't know why anyone cares which metal is or is not used. other than to brag about it due to the name, which would be stupid. I just want good products that continue to offer value.
Liquid metal makes more sense for a watch body than for a phone body. People are accustomed to adding an external protective case to a phone, for fashion purposes, to provide a better/different grip, and to protect the phone from incidental scratches, and to protect the phone in the event of a fall, which could not only potentially crack or shatter the display surface but could also dent the body. But the idea of adding a protective case of some sort to a watch would seem to most people to be absurd. Since a watch also can be susceptible to incidental scratches and minor bumps, it would make sense to construct the watch's body from a more scratch resistant material, like liquid metal.
I find this article a bit biased on the side of "don't get your hopes up".
that isn't bias, it's a conclusion. AI doesn't have a horse in the race and cannot be biased.
frankly, unless one is a metallurgist, I don't know why anyone cares which metal is or is not used. other than to brag about it due to the name, which would be stupid. I just want good products that continue to offer value.
Not having a horse in the race DOES NOT lead to the conclusion "cannot be biased". Would not pass Logic 101.
Opinions not supported by any facts, are not even good opinions.
The article comes across, to me, as gussied up click bait.
The problem with using Liquidmetal as an example of a cautionary tale is that the inventors of the alloy said that they were still about 5 years out from being able to mass produce the stuff - that was in 2010 after they entered the agreement with Apple. Here we are four years out and a few things have happened this year alone that would signify that something is brewing.
1. All the manufacturing patents filed by Apple regarding the use of Liquidmetal (Even a patent that describes using both Liquidmetal and sapphire)
2. The renewal of the patent cross-licensing deal between Apple and Liquidmetal.
3. The modification of the agreement that gave Visser exclusive manufacturing rights to the material.
I don't know where people get the idea that amorphous metal is "stronger" or "scratch-resistant". For a given bond strength, an amorphous material is 6/7 (I think) as strong as a single crystal of the same material. I don't see how scratchability would be any different.
The reason to use amorphous metal for anything is that there is no such thing as metal fatigue. In a polycrystalline metal part, repeated stress causes crystal domains to gradually deform, with their boundaries migrating to follow lines of stress. Get a line across a whole part that's all boundary, the strength goes to essentially zero, and...snap! Amorphous metals don't exhibit this behavior—don't stress them past their breaking point and they won't break. Ever.
I don't know of any Apple products where metal fatigue has been an important problem since the TiBook the article mentioned. (I could be wrong—anybody else have any ideas?) By contrast, the SIM ejector tool is just exactly the kind of thing that would benefit from this technology. Bend a paper clip a few times and you'll see metal fatigue in action. Avoiding that would be worth it for such a small part that could cause serious annoyance if it breaks.
I, for one, am tired of the Apple rumor sites continually referring to the 'years and millions of dollars' necessary to make Liquid Metal useful, as some kind of immovable object. First of all, those 'years' have already passed, and as for investing millions of dollars, uhhh, well, we're talking about Apple here. They would not hesitate to invest a BILLION dollars to make a product special. It's time to retire this boring and irrelevant quote. If Apple wants to use liquid metal to make a unique product, they have the resources and talent to do so.
This is one of the most depressing articles I've read in a while. lol
I don't see why. AppleInsider starts off by saying how reality is far less exciting than Apple fans' wildest speculations then goes on to give example of why. Why would coming back to reality be depressing? This isn't Willy Wonka's Sapphire Factory.
It's good to keep the conversation realistic. So even though I'm invested a decent amount in GTAT I welcome the opinions in this article. Of course, they are only opinions, and based on the few scraps of facts available. That also needs to be kept in mind. The interesting thing about GTAT as an investment, though, is that it has other aspects to its business which appear to be turning around at about this same time. GTAT got walloped by the Chinese dumping in the solar cell market, along with a lot of solar enterprises. That appears to be changing, and GTAT is still standing. It's not surprising that there should be a huge resurgence in its stock price based on this consideration alone, since it had been sold down to very low levels.
Bottom line: there's a good chance GTAT is a sound investment even at today's prices, and there's a real chance that it's going to end up being a great investment a few years out. For a long term investor like me, that's worth the short term gamble.
Apple certainly likes to keep its competition -- and fans --?guessing about its next moves, and one of the company's best head-fakes in recent years was an exclusive arrangement for a unique metal alloy dubbed Liquidmetal. News of that deal sparked fantasies of mythical Liquidmetal products built by Apple -- wishful thinking that may now be repeating once again with the company's latest investment in sapphire.
The "liquidmetal fantasies" were essentially created out of thin air by media/bloggers with baseless speculation and oh look, here we go again with Sapphire.
Damn right! People could be expecting this to go into an iOS device and NOBODY would ever expect something like this. I doubt this would ever happen in a million years, but it would be cool to see Apple release something like this and totally throw everyone off.
Assuming the cost-reducing measures described in the article can actually be realized in real life, which at this point is predicted but not yet proven, without unexpected issues that render them ineffective:
The ion "saw" would reduce PART of the cost, and lamination may reduce it further, but the question then is will it reduce it ENOUGH to make sapphire viable? At this point the difference is an order of magnitude over glass. Even a 50% reduction overall, not just in the cost of slicing, would still leave the cost at more than three times as much as glass.
That extra coin isn't without benefit if it really can make screens thinner, but that has to be weighed against how much more buyers would be willing to pay for a thinner, lighter phone.
Liquidmetal is not a fantasy. Apple is playing the long game. When they signed the contract back in 2010, they knew it would take years for it to bear fruits. The media and analysts were the one that created this fantasy that it would happen at any moment! Just because it isn't happening as fast as you would like, it doesn't mean it's a fairytale. They are steadily pumping out patents on how to manufacture this metal alloy. Since we are in 2014, we are getting close to the timeline that the creator said it would take to mass produce it. I think it will definitely happen within 2 yrs - for sure by the time iPhone 7 comes out.
I don't see why. AppleInsider starts off by saying how reality is far less exciting than Apple fans' wildest speculations then goes on to give example of why. Why would coming back to reality be depressing? This isn't Willy Wonka's Sapphire Factory.
This isn't Willy Wonka's Sapphire Factory?!! All this time! Dammit! Shoot, thanks for clearing that up... As a psychologist, I suppose I can offer You some wisdom. Expectation vs. Reality - When positive expectations are not met, or run the risk of falling short, the first emotional response is Disappointment. It's not crazy, just psychology. Incidentally, it's not absurd or childish to be disappointed when and if hopes for a new apple product are not fulfilled...
I don't know where people get the idea that amorphous metal is "stronger" or "scratch-resistant". For a given bond strength, an amorphous material is 6/7 (I think) as strong as a single crystal of the same material. I don't see how scratchability would be any different.
The reason to use amorphous metal for anything is that there is no such thing as metal fatigue. In a polycrystalline metal part, repeated stress causes crystal domains to gradually deform, with their boundaries migrating to follow lines of stress. Get a line across a whole part that's all boundary, the strength goes to essentially zero, and...snap! Amorphous metals don't exhibit this behavior—don't stress them past their breaking point and they won't break. Ever.
I don't know of any Apple products where metal fatigue has been an important problem since the TiBook the article mentioned. (I could be wrong—anybody else have any ideas?) By contrast, the SIM ejector tool is just exactly the kind of thing that would benefit from this technology. Bend a paper clip a few times and you'll see metal fatigue in action. Avoiding that would be worth it for such a small part that could cause serious annoyance if it breaks.
Do you know this to be true, or is this "I think that's what the guy meant?" If the former, thank you VERY much for the useful information! That kind of description goes a long way to helping stoopid people like me understand. I just wanna make sure it's accurate before I go repeating it to others!
Comments
I believe they will be using saphire in the new phones, but that the display will be a combination of gorrilla glass and saphire. GT Advanced Technologies has developed a process by which they can create extremely thin layers of saphire that can and may be used as a laminate on the gorrila glass, for extra strength and scratch resistance. I think there is a chance of liquid metal being used too, in the i6 or in future models, as it would add stability to the chasis, which would help prevent breakage if dropped.
From Seeking Alpha (so take it with a grain of salt)
"Hyperion is an ion implanter that has the ability to cut silicon, silicon carbide, sapphire, germanium and other crystalline material substrates to the thickness of 20 microns - traditional methods cut these materials at 200 microns. The biggest advantage of the process is the cost-efficiency - one of the biggest hurdles for the clean energy is the cost of the per watt energy generation. Hyperion can cut down that cost by about 50% for a vertically integrated company.
Also, last month, Apple was granted yet another patent called "Methods and systems for integrally trapping a glass insert in a metal bezel." This means that Apple can now flawlessly enclose sapphire inside of LiquidMetal bezels."
Apple and GTAT recently opened a second though smalled plant in Salem, Massachusetts. If they did not intend to expand their isage of saphire in i devices why would they continue to increase their investment in both Saphire and Liquidmetal.
I mostly agree with your assessment. My own thought is that Apple will use chemical vapor deposition (CVD) to lay down a layer of glass on top of a sapphire protective screen. The glass is needed because the oleophobic coating used to resist fingerprints will not adhere to sapphire. A layer of glass on top solves this issue but presents another; that being the glass doesn't have the scratch resistance of sapphire. However, an extremely thin layer of glass, which is what you could get with CVD means that any scratches in the glass, which would go only as deep as the glass is thick and would therefore stop at the sapphire, would be so shallow as to not be discernible to the human eye.
that isn't bias, it's a conclusion. AI doesn't have a horse in the race and cannot be biased.
frankly, unless one is a metallurgist, I don't know why anyone cares which metal is or is not used. other than to brag about it due to the name, which would be stupid. I just want good products that continue to offer value.
Liquid metal makes more sense for a watch body than for a phone body. People are accustomed to adding an external protective case to a phone, for fashion purposes, to provide a better/different grip, and to protect the phone from incidental scratches, and to protect the phone in the event of a fall, which could not only potentially crack or shatter the display surface but could also dent the body. But the idea of adding a protective case of some sort to a watch would seem to most people to be absurd. Since a watch also can be susceptible to incidental scratches and minor bumps, it would make sense to construct the watch's body from a more scratch resistant material, like liquid metal.
I find this article a bit biased on the side of "don't get your hopes up".
that isn't bias, it's a conclusion. AI doesn't have a horse in the race and cannot be biased.
frankly, unless one is a metallurgist, I don't know why anyone cares which metal is or is not used. other than to brag about it due to the name, which would be stupid. I just want good products that continue to offer value.
Not having a horse in the race DOES NOT lead to the conclusion "cannot be biased". Would not pass Logic 101.
Opinions not supported by any facts, are not even good opinions.
The article comes across, to me, as gussied up click bait.
The problem with using Liquidmetal as an example of a cautionary tale is that the inventors of the alloy said that they were still about 5 years out from being able to mass produce the stuff - that was in 2010 after they entered the agreement with Apple. Here we are four years out and a few things have happened this year alone that would signify that something is brewing.
1. All the manufacturing patents filed by Apple regarding the use of Liquidmetal (Even a patent that describes using both Liquidmetal and sapphire)
2. The renewal of the patent cross-licensing deal between Apple and Liquidmetal.
3. The modification of the agreement that gave Visser exclusive manufacturing rights to the material.
The reason to use amorphous metal for anything is that there is no such thing as metal fatigue. In a polycrystalline metal part, repeated stress causes crystal domains to gradually deform, with their boundaries migrating to follow lines of stress. Get a line across a whole part that's all boundary, the strength goes to essentially zero, and...snap! Amorphous metals don't exhibit this behavior—don't stress them past their breaking point and they won't break. Ever.
I don't know of any Apple products where metal fatigue has been an important problem since the TiBook the article mentioned. (I could be wrong—anybody else have any ideas?) By contrast, the SIM ejector tool is just exactly the kind of thing that would benefit from this technology. Bend a paper clip a few times and you'll see metal fatigue in action. Avoiding that would be worth it for such a small part that could cause serious annoyance if it breaks.
I don't see why. AppleInsider starts off by saying how reality is far less exciting than Apple fans' wildest speculations then goes on to give example of why. Why would coming back to reality be depressing? This isn't Willy Wonka's Sapphire Factory.
That's the spirit. Keep hope alive!
Bottom line: there's a good chance GTAT is a sound investment even at today's prices, and there's a real chance that it's going to end up being a great investment a few years out. For a long term investor like me, that's worth the short term gamble.
Apple certainly likes to keep its competition -- and fans --?guessing about its next moves, and one of the company's best head-fakes in recent years was an exclusive arrangement for a unique metal alloy dubbed Liquidmetal. News of that deal sparked fantasies of mythical Liquidmetal products built by Apple -- wishful thinking that may now be repeating once again with the company's latest investment in sapphire.
The "liquidmetal fantasies" were essentially created out of thin air by media/bloggers with baseless speculation and oh look, here we go again with Sapphire.
-kpluck
That's the spirit. Keep hope alive!
Damn right! People could be expecting this to go into an iOS device and NOBODY would ever expect something like this. I doubt this would ever happen in a million years, but it would be cool to see Apple release something like this and totally throw everyone off.
Interesting. Remember this? http://techcrunch.com/2013/11/11/apple-fires-its-ion-cannons/
Assuming the cost-reducing measures described in the article can actually be realized in real life, which at this point is predicted but not yet proven, without unexpected issues that render them ineffective:
The ion "saw" would reduce PART of the cost, and lamination may reduce it further, but the question then is will it reduce it ENOUGH to make sapphire viable? At this point the difference is an order of magnitude over glass. Even a 50% reduction overall, not just in the cost of slicing, would still leave the cost at more than three times as much as glass.
That extra coin isn't without benefit if it really can make screens thinner, but that has to be weighed against how much more buyers would be willing to pay for a thinner, lighter phone.
Liquidmetal is not a fantasy. Apple is playing the long game. When they signed the contract back in 2010, they knew it would take years for it to bear fruits. The media and analysts were the one that created this fantasy that it would happen at any moment! Just because it isn't happening as fast as you would like, it doesn't mean it's a fairytale. They are steadily pumping out patents on how to manufacture this metal alloy. Since we are in 2014, we are getting close to the timeline that the creator said it would take to mass produce it. I think it will definitely happen within 2 yrs - for sure by the time iPhone 7 comes out.
I don't see why. AppleInsider starts off by saying how reality is far less exciting than Apple fans' wildest speculations then goes on to give example of why. Why would coming back to reality be depressing? This isn't Willy Wonka's Sapphire Factory.
This isn't Willy Wonka's Sapphire Factory?!! All this time! Dammit! Shoot, thanks for clearing that up... As a psychologist, I suppose I can offer You some wisdom. Expectation vs. Reality - When positive expectations are not met, or run the risk of falling short, the first emotional response is Disappointment. It's not crazy, just psychology. Incidentally, it's not absurd or childish to be disappointed when and if hopes for a new apple product are not fulfilled...
I don't know where people get the idea that amorphous metal is "stronger" or "scratch-resistant". For a given bond strength, an amorphous material is 6/7 (I think) as strong as a single crystal of the same material. I don't see how scratchability would be any different.
The reason to use amorphous metal for anything is that there is no such thing as metal fatigue. In a polycrystalline metal part, repeated stress causes crystal domains to gradually deform, with their boundaries migrating to follow lines of stress. Get a line across a whole part that's all boundary, the strength goes to essentially zero, and...snap! Amorphous metals don't exhibit this behavior—don't stress them past their breaking point and they won't break. Ever.
I don't know of any Apple products where metal fatigue has been an important problem since the TiBook the article mentioned. (I could be wrong—anybody else have any ideas?) By contrast, the SIM ejector tool is just exactly the kind of thing that would benefit from this technology. Bend a paper clip a few times and you'll see metal fatigue in action. Avoiding that would be worth it for such a small part that could cause serious annoyance if it breaks.
Do you know this to be true, or is this "I think that's what the guy meant?" If the former, thank you VERY much for the useful information! That kind of description goes a long way to helping stoopid people like me understand. I just wanna make sure it's accurate before I go repeating it to others!
Agreed. Best thing that I've read on AI in ages. Thanks for putting the effort into writing it!