So anybody else have the attention span to remember, back in the rounded-plastic-back days of the iPhone 3G and 3GS, how everybody was all hot and bothered about the sintered alumina they were going to replace that with? Now it's crystalline alumina. I think alumina is the new unicorn fur.
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.
I never even remotely suggested that WSJ sources are traditionally accurate. In fact, if you read a few posts later, I very clearly stated that I think the WSJ report is highly suspect.
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. "
Quote:
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy
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.
I believe @nhughes was referring to the WSJ's source, when he said @Rogifan was wrong about the source being analysts. The WSJ was not attributing their information to analysts (although they were rather vague about what type of source was used for their article).
I do t think this indicates much. Sapphire is used in bullet proof vests and armor. It's also used in bullet proof Windows for millitary vehicles, as an inner liner.
It will be available in time for the Thanksgiving football games in 55" only size. /s
DAMMIT! I am so tired of waiting for Apple to finally be rumored to be making a BIG television screen! Year after year, the rumors are only 55" when it's so obvious the market is moving towards rumors of bigger units.
If Apple isn't going to be rumored to be building at least an 80" TV, I'm gonna have to consider buying into rumors about another brand.
I've never met so done who has ever scratched their screen, this will result in lowered costs for Apple.
youve never seen a scratched screen? thats remarkable.
Actually, I don't think I have either. I've seen cracked and shattered screens, but never scratched. That's not to say it doesn't happen, I just don't remember ever seeing one.
If that means anything (which it may not), it might suggest that smashed screens are a more common problem than scratched ones. *IF* that's true (and it may not be), then Gorilla Glass is probably better than sapphire for iPhone screens since GG has better shatter resistance than sapphire.
My wife has scratched the screen of her iPhone 5 with her rings. Not a normal thing I guess but I have a Zagg protector on it now. I have never scratched a screen so did not think of rings being a problem.
Scratched screens lead to shattered and cracked screens.
The cracked and shattered screens I've seen (including mine) were not the result of scratches. They were caused by impact from dropping the phone or sitting on it. Your post is the first time I've ever heard of scratching leading to cracking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Gorilla Glass is regular glass that is wrapped in a scratch resistant film.
No it isn't. It's created through a chemical process that replaces one molecule with another, resulting in a dense surface "layer" that permeates deep into the glass. I say "layer" only because the density is higher at the surface than in the middle, but it's really more like a single layer with progressive density.
I think people are misunderstanding what "hardness" means.
If you had a 1mm thick sheet of diamond and stuck it in this ring on ring machine, it would break at even less than the 1mm thick sapphire sheet.
Hardness is measured by scratch resistance, it is not a measure of structural strength.
Adding elasticity to an object can make it stronger but less hard.
Gorilla glass will scratch before sapphire glass will but sapphire glass will structurally fail before Gorilla glass because GG is less hard but has a higher structural strength. I don't believe that sapphire will be seen in the 4.7" iPhone released this year but if it makes it to next year's iPhone, it won't be a 100% sapphire sheet, it'll almost certainly be a laminate of either polycarbonate or Gorilla glass as sapphire that size really does need a flexible, strong back to support the hard sapphire front.
Scratched screens lead to shattered and cracked screens.
Gorilla Glass is regular glass that is wrapped in a scratch resistant film.
When that film is scratched/torn the overall strength of the glass is decreased significantly.
What happens next is shattered and cracked screens.
As far as I know, that not true. Gorilla glass is a special glass.
Most covers crack because the device lands on a corner. That stress on the corner propagates cracks throughout the entire piece. There's also the difference between a scratch, and a gouge, which is much deeper, and more serious.
I think people are misunderstanding what "hardness" means.
If you had a 1mm thick sheet of diamond and stuck it in this ring on ring machine, it would break at even less than the 1mm thick sapphire sheet.
Hardness is measured by scratch resistance, it is not a measure of structural strength.
Adding elasticity to an object can make it stronger but less hard.
Gorilla glass will scratch before sapphire glass will but sapphire glass will structurally fail before Gorilla glass because GG is less hard but has a higher structural strength. I don't believe that sapphire will be seen in the 4.7" iPhone released this year but if it makes it to next year's iPhone, it won't be a 100% sapphire sheet, it'll almost certainly be a laminate of either polycarbonate or Gorilla glass as sapphire that size really does need a flexible, strong back to support the hard sapphire front.
There are some myths here. When strength is talked about, what kind? Compressive, tension, sheer, point impact, bending? These are all different.
Hardness doesn't necessarily mean lower strength. You mention diamond. Diamond is very strong, but will shatter if hit hard enough. But, it's used in anvils where extremely high pressure is needed. Diamond resists that pressure better than any other material, up to millions of atmospheres.
As I mentioned earlier, sapphire is used in bullet proof military vests. It's used as a backing plate for windshields in military vehicles, in some instances. It's used for watches. I have two watches with sapphire covers. Despite my knocking them around in my shop, they've never scratched, or cracked. But another watch with a special mineral glass that's tempered, has scratched and broken more than once.
The tests that Corning does to show off gorilla glass, and now sapphire, doesn't duplicate what happens in real world cracked screens. Those are not slowly bent, but are rapidly brought against a hard surface, usually at a corner. I haven't seen Corning do a test like that. I imagine that Apple has tested this to the point that they are satisfied. Why else would they have invested $578 million with GT, plus taken out patents on its manufacture and use?
The tests that Corning does to show off gorilla glass, and now sapphire, doesn't duplicate what happens in real world cracked screens. Those are not slowly bent, but are rapidly brought against a hard surface, usually at a corner. I haven't seen Corning do a test like that. I imagine that Apple has tested this to the point that they are satisfied. Why else would they have invested $578 million with GT, plus taken out patents on its manufacture and use?
It's hard to trust tests, because they may say more about the manufacturing process than they do about the material.
Certain characteristics should be quite easily predicted on paper through basic chemistry. If you know the molecular structure, and how certain molecules behave, you can predict with reasonable accuracy how the material will be affected by various influences. If the tests don't bear out the predictions, it's probably a sign that they're "not using it right."
Comments
I've never met so done who has ever scratched their screen, this will result in lowered costs for Apple.
youve never seen a scratched screen? thats remarkable.
I never even remotely suggested that WSJ sources are traditionally accurate. In fact, if you read a few posts later, I very clearly stated that I think the WSJ report is highly suspect.
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.
I believe @nhughes was referring to the WSJ's source, when he said @Rogifan was wrong about the source being analysts. The WSJ was not attributing their information to analysts (although they were rather vague about what type of source was used for their article).
Not once. And I haven't read of it anywhere either, including reviews where they try to scratch it in any realistic way.
I do t think this indicates much. Sapphire is used in bullet proof vests and armor. It's also used in bullet proof Windows for millitary vehicles, as an inner liner.
It will be available in time for the Thanksgiving football games in 55" only size. /s
DAMMIT! I am so tired of waiting for Apple to finally be rumored to be making a BIG television screen! Year after year, the rumors are only 55" when it's so obvious the market is moving towards rumors of bigger units.
If Apple isn't going to be rumored to be building at least an 80" TV, I'm gonna have to consider buying into rumors about another brand.
I've never met so done who has ever scratched their screen, this will result in lowered costs for Apple.
youve never seen a scratched screen? thats remarkable.
Actually, I don't think I have either. I've seen cracked and shattered screens, but never scratched. That's not to say it doesn't happen, I just don't remember ever seeing one.
If that means anything (which it may not), it might suggest that smashed screens are a more common problem than scratched ones. *IF* that's true (and it may not be), then Gorilla Glass is probably better than sapphire for iPhone screens since GG has better shatter resistance than sapphire.
5.5 will have sapphire and cost $750-$950
so obvious
There you go again. Just saying there will be a 5.5 inch does not mean there will be one -- how about even a fresh rumor?
I have PURPOSELY run my keys over my iPhone’s screen. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
Scratched screens lead to shattered and cracked screens.
The cracked and shattered screens I've seen (including mine) were not the result of scratches. They were caused by impact from dropping the phone or sitting on it. Your post is the first time I've ever heard of scratching leading to cracking.
Gorilla Glass is regular glass that is wrapped in a scratch resistant film.
No it isn't. It's created through a chemical process that replaces one molecule with another, resulting in a dense surface "layer" that permeates deep into the glass. I say "layer" only because the density is higher at the surface than in the middle, but it's really more like a single layer with progressive density.
I think people are misunderstanding what "hardness" means.
If you had a 1mm thick sheet of diamond and stuck it in this ring on ring machine, it would break at even less than the 1mm thick sapphire sheet.
Hardness is measured by scratch resistance, it is not a measure of structural strength.
Adding elasticity to an object can make it stronger but less hard.
Gorilla glass will scratch before sapphire glass will but sapphire glass will structurally fail before Gorilla glass because GG is less hard but has a higher structural strength. I don't believe that sapphire will be seen in the 4.7" iPhone released this year but if it makes it to next year's iPhone, it won't be a 100% sapphire sheet, it'll almost certainly be a laminate of either polycarbonate or Gorilla glass as sapphire that size really does need a flexible, strong back to support the hard sapphire front.
As far as I know, that not true. Gorilla glass is a special glass.
Most covers crack because the device lands on a corner. That stress on the corner propagates cracks throughout the entire piece. There's also the difference between a scratch, and a gouge, which is much deeper, and more serious.
There are some myths here. When strength is talked about, what kind? Compressive, tension, sheer, point impact, bending? These are all different.
Hardness doesn't necessarily mean lower strength. You mention diamond. Diamond is very strong, but will shatter if hit hard enough. But, it's used in anvils where extremely high pressure is needed. Diamond resists that pressure better than any other material, up to millions of atmospheres.
As I mentioned earlier, sapphire is used in bullet proof military vests. It's used as a backing plate for windshields in military vehicles, in some instances. It's used for watches. I have two watches with sapphire covers. Despite my knocking them around in my shop, they've never scratched, or cracked. But another watch with a special mineral glass that's tempered, has scratched and broken more than once.
The tests that Corning does to show off gorilla glass, and now sapphire, doesn't duplicate what happens in real world cracked screens. Those are not slowly bent, but are rapidly brought against a hard surface, usually at a corner. I haven't seen Corning do a test like that. I imagine that Apple has tested this to the point that they are satisfied. Why else would they have invested $578 million with GT, plus taken out patents on its manufacture and use?
The tests that Corning does to show off gorilla glass, and now sapphire, doesn't duplicate what happens in real world cracked screens. Those are not slowly bent, but are rapidly brought against a hard surface, usually at a corner. I haven't seen Corning do a test like that. I imagine that Apple has tested this to the point that they are satisfied. Why else would they have invested $578 million with GT, plus taken out patents on its manufacture and use?
It's hard to trust tests, because they may say more about the manufacturing process than they do about the material.
Certain characteristics should be quite easily predicted on paper through basic chemistry. If you know the molecular structure, and how certain molecules behave, you can predict with reasonable accuracy how the material will be affected by various influences. If the tests don't bear out the predictions, it's probably a sign that they're "not using it right."