I mean, as an investor, an opponent or as an analyst, I'd be pretty interested in knowing whether or not Apple (or others) can pull off a full-sapphire screen, have an idea of the costs involved, as well as the trade-offs.
Let's assume Apple would source enough crystal for a low enough price, then a logical marketing tactic for Samsung or HTC could be to market how much better their screens look, due to using Corning's Gorilla Glass 9 (or whatever). Starting the spin as early as possible helps making it "a truth".
I hope I now explained better what i was trying to say...
Of course not. As this analysis states, the difference is less than 10%. Your eye isn't going to notice that. It's like the difference between 100 Watt bulbs and 90 Watt ones. Soneira never said the issue was a deal breaker.
so, would it be fair to say that the difference doesn't:
Quote:
"significantly affect the optical performance" of the OLED display
Thank you for the article. Still unsure about whether to get the first gen but this just made me certain that if I get one, it will be the Sport This documents manager leaves something to be desired. http://j.mp/My-Office
Thank you for the article. Still unsure about whether to get the first gen but this just made me certain that if I get one, it will be the Sport This documents manager leaves something to be desired. http://j.mp/My-Office
so, would it be fair to say that the difference doesn't:
Yup. I'd much rather have the sapphire crystal that is not only proven scratch resistant, but has been proven to survive an accidental drop from the wrist, unlike the Sport which not only scratches easily, shatters upon impact. So much for theory that Apple made a conscious choice not to use the sapphire crystal to make the Sport more durable considering its intended use. I've never seen a watch over $350 that didn't have a sapphire crystal. This was strictly a cost cutting and supply chain move. The people I see complaining about it the most are those who are also contemplating putting a stainless milanese loop onto their aluminum sport, saving $150 over getting the proper matching stainless watch. You get what you pay for. Sapphire is better. But if this article helps those cheap Sport owners who overpaid for their soft aluminum cased, glass covered watch, prone to scratches, and shattering, then more power to them.
Yup. I'd much rather have the sapphire crystal that is not only proven scratch resistant, but has been proven to survive an accidental drop from the wrist, unlike the Sport which not only scratches easily, shatters upon impact. So much for theory that Apple made a conscious choice not to use the sapphire crystal to make the Sport more durable considering its intended use. I've never seen a watch over $350 that didn't have a sapphire crystal. This was strictly a cost cutting and supply chain move. The people I see complaining about it the most are those who are also contemplating putting a stainless milanese loop onto their aluminum sport, saving $150 over getting the proper matching one. You get what you pay for. Sapphire is better. But if this article helps those cheap Sport owners who overpaid for their soft aluminum cased, glass covered watch, prone to scratches, and shattering, then more power to them.
Wow, there are people who actually think the milanese is not "proper"? I like mine (appearance wise, at least).
Comments
"7S"? We're not there yet.
"7S"? We're not there yet.
Yes, that's my point.
I mean, as an investor, an opponent or as an analyst, I'd be pretty interested in knowing whether or not Apple (or others) can pull off a full-sapphire screen, have an idea of the costs involved, as well as the trade-offs.
Let's assume Apple would source enough crystal for a low enough price, then a logical marketing tactic for Samsung or HTC could be to market how much better their screens look, due to using Corning's Gorilla Glass 9 (or whatever). Starting the spin as early as possible helps making it "a truth".
I hope I now explained better what i was trying to say...
Of course not. As this analysis states, the difference is less than 10%. Your eye isn't going to notice that. It's like the difference between 100 Watt bulbs and 90 Watt ones. Soneira never said the issue was a deal breaker.
so, would it be fair to say that the difference doesn't:
gen but this just made me certain that if I get one, it will be the Sport
This documents manager leaves something to be desired. http://j.mp/My-Office
gen but this just made me certain that if I get one, it will be the Sport
This documents manager leaves something to be desired. http://j.mp/My-Office
Thank you for the article. Still unsure about whether to get the first
gen but this just made me certain that if I get one, it will be the Sport
This documents manager leaves something to be desired. http://j.mp/My-Office
Yup. I'd much rather have the sapphire crystal that is not only proven scratch resistant, but has been proven to survive an accidental drop from the wrist, unlike the Sport which not only scratches easily, shatters upon impact. So much for theory that Apple made a conscious choice not to use the sapphire crystal to make the Sport more durable considering its intended use. I've never seen a watch over $350 that didn't have a sapphire crystal. This was strictly a cost cutting and supply chain move. The people I see complaining about it the most are those who are also contemplating putting a stainless milanese loop onto their aluminum sport, saving $150 over getting the proper matching one. You get what you pay for. Sapphire is better. But if this article helps those cheap Sport owners who overpaid for their soft aluminum cased, glass covered watch, prone to scratches, and shattering, then more power to them.
Wow, there are people who actually think the milanese is not "proper"? I like mine (appearance wise, at least).
Wow, there are people who actually think the milanese is not "proper"? I like mine (appearance wise, at least).
He's saying it's not a proper match with the aluminum case.
He's saying it's not a proper match with the aluminum case.
Oh, I guess it makes sense... Thanks for explaining