If Apple's 'iPhone 6' uses sapphire display, it will be limited to new, more expensive premium model
Less than a month before its expected debut, Apple is apparently "considering" the use of synthetic sapphire displays on its next-generation iPhone, but the costs and difficulties associated with the material would limit it solely to a new range of higher-end and more expensive models that the company might make available, a new rumor claims.
The details on Apple's alleged plans were reported on Thursday by The Wall Street Journal, which cited its usual unnamed "people familiar with the matter." Those sources suggested that the sapphire screens might appear on variants of both the 4.7- and 5.5-inch versions of the "iPhone 6," but sapphire-covered models will be more expensive and rare.
If true, that would be a significant change for Apple, which has offered some variety in terms of color and internal capacity on previous iPhones, but has not gone as far as to charge a premium for new materials in the same model.
Author Daisuke Wakabayashi hedged his bets, however, adding that the plans would only take place if Apple "can get enough of the material." Such qualifiers seem suspect with a media event to unveil the "iPhone 6" expected to take place on Sept. 9.
The report estimates that a sapphire iPhone screen would cost $16 to produce, compared with a cost of just around $3 for the Corning Gorilla Glass the company currently uses on its entire iPhone lineup.
Apple is said to be considering all-sapphire front panels for the iPhone because of the material's resistance to scratches and cracks. Detractors, such as Corning, contest that sapphire in larger quantities is prone to shattering, and also makes displays harder to view in sunlight.
Apple-GT Advanced sapphire manufacturing plant in Arizona.
Apple currently uses sapphire in limited quantities: It protects the Touch ID fingerprint sensor found beneath the iPhone 5s home button, and it is also used to prevent scratches atop the camera lens found in its iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c lineups. But costs associated with producing it in larger quantities, such as for a full iPhone display, have led some to speculate that a sapphire screen may not be in the cards for this year's iPhone lineup.
More consistently, it has been rumored that Apple is planning to introduce two new iPhone models this year with screen sizes of 4.7 inches and 5.5 inches. Both are expected to be a complete redesign from the current iPhone 5s.
Speculation about sapphire in the next iPhone has persisted thanks to a $578 million deal Apple struck with furnace maker GT Advanced Technologies. The deal allows the companies to finance and jointly operate a Phoenix facility that will produce sapphire crystal material.
Apple fans hoping for a sapphire front panel should consider the company's exclusive arrangement with Liquidmetal, which has existed since 2010, but has yet to appear in any of the company's products in a significant way. To date, the only known use of Liquidmetal was in a SIM ejector tool that shipped with the iPhone 3GS.
The details on Apple's alleged plans were reported on Thursday by The Wall Street Journal, which cited its usual unnamed "people familiar with the matter." Those sources suggested that the sapphire screens might appear on variants of both the 4.7- and 5.5-inch versions of the "iPhone 6," but sapphire-covered models will be more expensive and rare.
If true, that would be a significant change for Apple, which has offered some variety in terms of color and internal capacity on previous iPhones, but has not gone as far as to charge a premium for new materials in the same model.
Author Daisuke Wakabayashi hedged his bets, however, adding that the plans would only take place if Apple "can get enough of the material." Such qualifiers seem suspect with a media event to unveil the "iPhone 6" expected to take place on Sept. 9.
The report estimates that a sapphire iPhone screen would cost $16 to produce, compared with a cost of just around $3 for the Corning Gorilla Glass the company currently uses on its entire iPhone lineup.
Apple is said to be considering all-sapphire front panels for the iPhone because of the material's resistance to scratches and cracks. Detractors, such as Corning, contest that sapphire in larger quantities is prone to shattering, and also makes displays harder to view in sunlight.
Apple-GT Advanced sapphire manufacturing plant in Arizona.
Apple currently uses sapphire in limited quantities: It protects the Touch ID fingerprint sensor found beneath the iPhone 5s home button, and it is also used to prevent scratches atop the camera lens found in its iPhone 5s and iPhone 5c lineups. But costs associated with producing it in larger quantities, such as for a full iPhone display, have led some to speculate that a sapphire screen may not be in the cards for this year's iPhone lineup.
More consistently, it has been rumored that Apple is planning to introduce two new iPhone models this year with screen sizes of 4.7 inches and 5.5 inches. Both are expected to be a complete redesign from the current iPhone 5s.
Speculation about sapphire in the next iPhone has persisted thanks to a $578 million deal Apple struck with furnace maker GT Advanced Technologies. The deal allows the companies to finance and jointly operate a Phoenix facility that will produce sapphire crystal material.
Apple fans hoping for a sapphire front panel should consider the company's exclusive arrangement with Liquidmetal, which has existed since 2010, but has yet to appear in any of the company's products in a significant way. To date, the only known use of Liquidmetal was in a SIM ejector tool that shipped with the iPhone 3GS.
Comments
These aren’t the kind of ideas that should make it out of discussion.
I assume that there’s some sort of think-tank going on at whatever rumor such and such where the analysts get together, read everything that has been given them, and then ignore it all and make up their own crap. That’s all well and good, but in the process of making up their own crap, they don’t seem to have given any thought to filtering out what ideas are substantial enough to be worth an article and what ideas exist for the sole purpose of being the spark for other ideas.
They seem to think that it’s acceptable to pose any idea as an endgame for any situation, and then write about it as though it’s fact.
For example, the original thought was that sapphire would be used as screening for the entire iPhone lineup (back when we thought there was a bigger iPhone). Next we heard that yield was low (which we always hear), and that statement in and of itself is in no way an endgame. It’s not article-worthy, but serves the next idea: “maybe sapphire will only be on the high-end model”. The one we now figure doesn’t exist. Therefore this article is also just an extension of the original yield spark idea: if yields are low and there’s no large iPhone, Apple could possibly be splitting up their line and making “premium” phones that are sapphire and “regular” phones that aren’t.
Which, of course, leads us to the conclusion that this is idiotic because the only thing even remotely like this* that Apple has ever done is the third generation iPod shuffle which got a higher-priced stainless steel model (that I always thought was really pretty). But since Apple is doing its best to forget that the third generation iPod shuffle ever existed, does it really make sense to do this 1. at all 2. simply because of yield issues? Apple tends to WAIT until yields are better before releasing a product rather than splitting a line, yeah?
*You could maybe consider the U2 iPod, too.
I thought I heard of this rumor....last month, WSJ. This's why I cancelled WSJ subsription.
IF sapphire is coming to iPhones and IF supply is limited as Apple ramps up I could see them adding it to the most expensive model. But I don't think they'd be so dumb as to only offer it on one screen size. They did away with that nonsense with iPads. Adding it back to iPhones, well you'd have to question Cook's sanity.
The first is that we don't know what the cost will be. That $16 is just a guess. What that guess is based upon, I don't know. But remember that both GT and Apple have stated that both the new design, very large sapphire boule ovens GT designed , as well as new manufacturing that both Apple and GT have come up with, some of which have been patented by Apple, and some possibly by GT, will dramatically lower the cost of both growing the crystals and the manufacturing of the covers.
How much will the costs be reduced by? We don't know, we just know that it's been claimed to be significant.
So what will the cost of a sapphire cover cost Apple? We don't know! $16? $12? $8? $5?
The limits to certain models may have everything to do with availability than price. GT just announced that they were beginning major production ramp-up. This isn't a full ramp up, but a big beginning to that. So initial startup costs will be higher than long term running costs. Normal!
It would make sense for Apple to use these on higher priced models at first. They make bigger profits on models with more storage, so that would be a good place to begin.
God AI is as bad as MacRumors. NO WHERE in the article does it say Apple is thinking of charging more for sapphire display. It's WALL STREET ANALYSTS who are quoted as saying Apple COULD charge more if sapphire is more expensive to manufacture.
IF sapphire is coming to iPhones and IF supply is limited as Apple ramps up I could see them adding it to the most expensive model. But I don't think they'd be so dumb as to only offer it on one screen size. They did away with that nonsense with iPads. Adding it back to iPhones, well you'd have to question Cook's sanity.
You're wrong. WSJ is attributing this rumor to their own sources, not analysts. Direct quote from the article:
"Apple is considering using sapphire screens in more-expensive models of the two new, larger iPhones it plans to debut this fall, if it can get enough of the material, people familiar with the matter say. "
Some things to consider.
The first is that we don't know what the cost will be. That $16 is just a guess. What that guess is based upon, I don't know. But remember that both GT and Apple have stated that both the new design, very large sapphire boule ovens GT designed , as well as new manufacturing that both Apple and GT have come up with, some of which have been patented by Apple, and some possibly by GT, will dramatically lower the cost of both growing the crystals and the manufacturing of the covers.
How much will the costs be reduced by? We don't know, we just know that it's been claimed to be significant.
So what will the cost of a sapphire cover cost Apple? We don't know! $16? $12? $8? $5?
The limits to certain models may have everything to do with availability than price. GT just announced that they were beginning major production ramp-up. This isn't a full ramp up, but a big beginning to that. So initial startup costs will be higher than long term running costs. Normal!
It would make sense for Apple to use these on higher priced models at first. They make bigger profits on models with more storage, so that would be a good place to begin.
Well 12 dollar was GT's own goal. At that time that statement was regarded as pretty radical, unrealistic. GT Advanced has been able to reduce costs significantly. So I think it is a good target point.
This is just analysts building up speculation prior to release so they can carry on like henny penny after the real product is eventually released.
I just can't see Apple raising iPhone prices. That would be essentially replacing the one advantage Android had (screen size) with another (price). Is anybody else out there raising smartphone prices right now?
But does that mean limiting sapphire to the most expensive model (e.g. 64GB or 128GB) or actually raising prices (like the Wall Street analysts are speculating)?
I just can't see Apple raising iPhone prices. That would be essentially replacing the one advantage Android had (screen size) with another (price). Is anybody else out there raising smartphone prices right now?
The way it's worded makes it sound, to me, like the sapphire display would be an optional "upgrade." Kind of like the $50 matte display option Apple used to offer on MacBooks.
Frankly I think most of this info sounds bogus, as evidenced by the tone of my report. But I don't have any inside scoop saying the WSJ is definitively wrong, that's just my instinct.
For the rest, pretend it's like three weeks before Xmas, and there's something big under the Xmas tree....
2 complete models and price points to account for a $12 component delta?
I think it would cost them more in managing double the sku's, dealing with inventory, etc, etc.
Does not compute.
2 complete models and price points to account for a $12 component delta?
I think it would cost them more in managing double the sku's, dealing with inventory, etc, etc.
Does not compute.
Not necessarily only the raw costs of product, but also the supply since it's a material that is tough to produce - multiplied by millions of units on a very tight time table.
The sapphire is not for the screens of iPhones. It is being prepared for a prismatic overlay of the OLED screen of the Apple TV giving a glasses free 3D image. It will be available in time for the Thanksgiving football games in 55" only size. /s
Even that was just a guess. Once actual manufacturing begins they will be able to judge.
But like so many other things in manufacturing g and product sales and support, that's just one aspect to the cost.
If these screens break less often, and get scratched less often, though I've never met so done who has ever scratched their screen, this will result in lowered costs for Apple.
So far, not a single writer has mentioned that. All of those screens Apple needs to replace cost more than just the cover. I believe Apple bonds the covers to the screens in their phones, but not yet in the iPad.
So when a cover cracks, Apple must replace the entire screen. That costs far more than the cover alone. And there are the costs of the technician replacing the screen.
So if the screen does cost that $12, vs $3 for Gorilla Glass, it might actually lower Apple's costs. Why no one has said this anywhere, I don't know.
The "source" says Apple is "considering"....so when it never happens, they were still right. Apple only considered it.
Shameful that publications like this are considered by anyone to be reputable at all.
This article is BS, if a new iPhone is to be announced in September the 'considering' stage of its' design and build was over long ago.
"If Apple's 'iPhone 6' uses sapphire display, it will be limited to new, more expensive premium…"
Aside from the "c's" (and maybe even them, to some budgets)
I wasn't aware Apple made anything but "more expensive premium…"
You're wrong. WSJ is attributing this rumor to their own sources, not analysts. Direct quote from the article:
"Apple is considering using sapphire screens in more-expensive models of the two new, larger iPhones it plans to debut this fall, if it can get enough of the material, people familiar with the matter say. "
hmm so rumors cited to that generic phrase have never been in the past? or even often wrong? they have. many times. this quote is more reliable than your own ideas.