Sapphire has a slightly lower transparency. You need more for backlight.
Add to that the larger screen.
I think this largely going to be a wash.
Sorry, but if that were true, Apple wouldn't be using Sapphire in their camera optics, and those optics are very fast and let TONS of light thru, so I call complete BS on your comment.
Sorry, but if that were true, Apple wouldn't be using Sapphire in their camera optics, and those optics are very fast and let TONS of light thru, so I call complete BS on your comment.
Refractive index of sapphire: 1.76
Refractive index of Gorilla Glass: 1.5
That doesn't mean that sapphire is opaque. Just that it absorbs light a few percent more than gorilla glass. I'm sure the trade off with durability is worthwhile for Apple and that's why they use it on the camera lens cover and hopefully (as a GTAT long) on the screen cover glass.
So, yes, with the higher refractive index, and the larger display, I do think this will be a wash. What's your (science based) evidence to the contrary?
That doesn't mean that sapphire is opaque. Just that it absorbs light a few percent more than gorilla glass. I'm sure the trade off with durability is worthwhile for Apple and that's why they use it on the camera lens cover and hopefully (as a GTAT long) on the screen cover glass.
So, yes, with the higher refractive index, and the larger display, I do think this will be a wash. What's your (science based) evidence to the contrary?
Your information is quite irrelevant for a few reasons;
1) The Sapphire used by Apple for the screens is synthetic, and as far as I remember, they haven't published specs for what the final product will be in terms of reflectivity, strength, etc.
2) As the iPhone 6 only exists in fake mock-ups and speculated specs, your verdict of it being a wash is a huge assumption with no basis in reality
Save your presumptuous comments until after the iPhone 6 is announced and put thru its paces.
Your information is quite irrelevant for a few reasons;
1) The Sapphire used by Apple for the screens is synthetic, and as far as I remember, they haven't published specs for what the final product will be in terms of reflectivity, strength, etc.
2) As the iPhone 6 only exists in fake mock-ups and speculated specs, your verdict of it being a wash is a huge assumption with no basis in reality
Save your presumptuous comments until after the iPhone 6 is announced and put thru its paces.
Have no idea what it is about these forums that bring out the most prickish tendencies in people.
1) Explain to me (hopefully using scientific logic) how synthetic sapphire will retain all the mechanical properties of sapphire, yet have a dramatically different refractive index. I'm sure my materials prof in my engineering undergrad explaining the characteristics of crystalline structure was all wrong. Would love to learn something new. So go on, teach me. BTW, everyone knows that it's synthetic sapphire being used. Nobody is foolish enough to think it's mined sapphire from some mine.
2) Isn't this obvious? Yes, it's only in mockups. And yes, if those mockups are correct, there is a larger screen with more pixels to power.
You can save your 'tude. It's an internet forum. Nobody cares for your pompous remarks. This article itself is as speculative as my comment. Are you going to suggest that AI absolutely stop posting stories about Apple until Apple releases products?
A great many people simply do not know how to spell properly. Everybody makes typos every once in a while, but many people do not even have a basic grasp of the English language.
I've seen people mixing up losing and loosing before, though it's not as common as they're and their, you're and your, etc.
And yes, I am definitely a grammar nazi. I will judge people and look down upon them if I notice that they do not know how to use simple words like they're and their. And I don't think that I am the only one to judge. A person's online appearance on a forum is their words, and if their words are ignorant and spelled incorrectly, then they are likely to be seen as being not too bright, and people are less likely to trust any facts or statements coming from people who type like they are in kindergarten. If people are not interested in coming across as smart or educated on the internet, then they can simply keep repeating their ignorant mistakes, while they refuse to learn anything.
Oh.. U R so wise and worldly.... Humbled at the site of your eloquent snobbery ....
.... Get a life ..
Have no idea what it is about these forums that bring out the most prickish tendencies in people.
1) Explain to me (hopefully using scientific logic) how synthetic sapphire will retain all the mechanical properties of sapphire, yet have a dramatically different refractive index. I'm sure my materials prof in my engineering undergrad explaining the characteristics of crystalline structure was all wrong. Would love to learn something new. So go on, teach me. BTW, everyone knows that it's synthetic sapphire being used. Nobody is foolish enough to think it's mined sapphire from some mine.
2) Isn't this obvious? Yes, it's only in mockups. And yes, if those mockups are correct, there is a larger screen with more pixels to power.
You can save your 'tude. It's an internet forum. Nobody cares for your pompous remarks. This article itself is as speculative as my comment. Are you going to suggest that AI absolutely stop posting stories about Apple until Apple releases products?
My attitude comes out because of people like you, who constantly make snide remarks about something that doesn't yet exist, and who have absolutely zero inside information on said product, yet strut around thinking like they're some big know-it-all.
Your points are completely irrelevant, because yet again, we don't know if the synthetic Sapphire Apple is using will have the same chemical properties as real Sapphire, or if they've done anything to enhance it, whether thru chemical alteration or the machining process, to somehow improve the refractive index. At least I don't go around calling anything a flop just because some 13 year old kid has made a 3D printed mock-up that, for all we know, is a complete fake, and then go proclaiming to everyone it's a wash, flop, failure, or whatever new noun you want to call it that week.
Do we know what new display technology Apple will use in the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know what the official battery rating will be in the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know the energy savings the new A8 SoC will bring to the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know what enhancements will be made to the motion co-processor in the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know what iPhone 6-specific energy management enhancements Apple will provide in iOS 8 for the iPhone 6? No.
We actually know NOTHING about the new device, outside of the possible size, and potential general body design. The real meat and potatoes of the device haven't been leaked. Just those few variables alone could weigh in heavily on how the new device performs, and how long the battery lasts. Pegging the comment "it's a wash" based solely on imaginary factors and multiple missing pieces of information is downright trollish commenting.
Comments
Sapphire has a slightly lower transparency. You need more for backlight.
Add to that the larger screen.
I think this largely going to be a wash.
Sorry, but if that were true, Apple wouldn't be using Sapphire in their camera optics, and those optics are very fast and let TONS of light thru, so I call complete BS on your comment.
Sorry, but if that were true, Apple wouldn't be using Sapphire in their camera optics, and those optics are very fast and let TONS of light thru, so I call complete BS on your comment.
Refractive index of sapphire: 1.76
Refractive index of Gorilla Glass: 1.5
That doesn't mean that sapphire is opaque. Just that it absorbs light a few percent more than gorilla glass. I'm sure the trade off with durability is worthwhile for Apple and that's why they use it on the camera lens cover and hopefully (as a GTAT long) on the screen cover glass.
So, yes, with the higher refractive index, and the larger display, I do think this will be a wash. What's your (science based) evidence to the contrary?
Refractive index of sapphire: 1.76
Refractive index of Gorilla Glass: 1.5
That doesn't mean that sapphire is opaque. Just that it absorbs light a few percent more than gorilla glass. I'm sure the trade off with durability is worthwhile for Apple and that's why they use it on the camera lens cover and hopefully (as a GTAT long) on the screen cover glass.
So, yes, with the higher refractive index, and the larger display, I do think this will be a wash. What's your (science based) evidence to the contrary?
Your information is quite irrelevant for a few reasons;
1) The Sapphire used by Apple for the screens is synthetic, and as far as I remember, they haven't published specs for what the final product will be in terms of reflectivity, strength, etc.
2) As the iPhone 6 only exists in fake mock-ups and speculated specs, your verdict of it being a wash is a huge assumption with no basis in reality
Save your presumptuous comments until after the iPhone 6 is announced and put thru its paces.
Your information is quite irrelevant for a few reasons;
1) The Sapphire used by Apple for the screens is synthetic, and as far as I remember, they haven't published specs for what the final product will be in terms of reflectivity, strength, etc.
2) As the iPhone 6 only exists in fake mock-ups and speculated specs, your verdict of it being a wash is a huge assumption with no basis in reality
Save your presumptuous comments until after the iPhone 6 is announced and put thru its paces.
Have no idea what it is about these forums that bring out the most prickish tendencies in people.
1) Explain to me (hopefully using scientific logic) how synthetic sapphire will retain all the mechanical properties of sapphire, yet have a dramatically different refractive index. I'm sure my materials prof in my engineering undergrad explaining the characteristics of crystalline structure was all wrong. Would love to learn something new. So go on, teach me. BTW, everyone knows that it's synthetic sapphire being used. Nobody is foolish enough to think it's mined sapphire from some mine.
2) Isn't this obvious? Yes, it's only in mockups. And yes, if those mockups are correct, there is a larger screen with more pixels to power.
You can save your 'tude. It's an internet forum. Nobody cares for your pompous remarks. This article itself is as speculative as my comment. Are you going to suggest that AI absolutely stop posting stories about Apple until Apple releases products?
Oh.. U R so wise and worldly.... Humbled at the site of your eloquent snobbery ....
.... Get a life ..
Have no idea what it is about these forums that bring out the most prickish tendencies in people.
1) Explain to me (hopefully using scientific logic) how synthetic sapphire will retain all the mechanical properties of sapphire, yet have a dramatically different refractive index. I'm sure my materials prof in my engineering undergrad explaining the characteristics of crystalline structure was all wrong. Would love to learn something new. So go on, teach me. BTW, everyone knows that it's synthetic sapphire being used. Nobody is foolish enough to think it's mined sapphire from some mine.
2) Isn't this obvious? Yes, it's only in mockups. And yes, if those mockups are correct, there is a larger screen with more pixels to power.
You can save your 'tude. It's an internet forum. Nobody cares for your pompous remarks. This article itself is as speculative as my comment. Are you going to suggest that AI absolutely stop posting stories about Apple until Apple releases products?
My attitude comes out because of people like you, who constantly make snide remarks about something that doesn't yet exist, and who have absolutely zero inside information on said product, yet strut around thinking like they're some big know-it-all.
Your points are completely irrelevant, because yet again, we don't know if the synthetic Sapphire Apple is using will have the same chemical properties as real Sapphire, or if they've done anything to enhance it, whether thru chemical alteration or the machining process, to somehow improve the refractive index. At least I don't go around calling anything a flop just because some 13 year old kid has made a 3D printed mock-up that, for all we know, is a complete fake, and then go proclaiming to everyone it's a wash, flop, failure, or whatever new noun you want to call it that week.
Do we know what new display technology Apple will use in the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know what the official battery rating will be in the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know the energy savings the new A8 SoC will bring to the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know what enhancements will be made to the motion co-processor in the iPhone 6? No.
Do we know what iPhone 6-specific energy management enhancements Apple will provide in iOS 8 for the iPhone 6? No.
We actually know NOTHING about the new device, outside of the possible size, and potential general body design. The real meat and potatoes of the device haven't been leaked. Just those few variables alone could weigh in heavily on how the new device performs, and how long the battery lasts. Pegging the comment "it's a wash" based solely on imaginary factors and multiple missing pieces of information is downright trollish commenting.