It seems odd Apple would go with Sapphire to cover the whole phone as opposed to just parts like the finger print sensor. Sapphire is harder than Gorilla Glass and thereby more scratch resistant, but it is also general thought to be way more expensive to produce and is heavier, less transparent, more breakable from impact, and extolls a higher environmental impact to produce.
In regards to the pricing, Apple is probably going to lock up all production for the next 2 years just like they did with the iPad. When the iPad came out, nobody could touch their price until 2 years later because Apple scooped up all production supplies in one massive purchase. As for the negatives of Sapphire glass you mention, that was from a report made by Corning (maker of Gorilla Glass) where they didn't allow independent 3rd party testing or confirmation. It could be true or it could be all BS to promote their Gorilla Glass.
It seems odd Apple would go with Sapphire to cover the whole phone as opposed to just parts like the finger print sensor. Sapphire is harder than Gorilla Glass and thereby more scratch resistant, but it is also general thought to be way more expensive to produce and is heavier, less transparent, more breakable from impact, and extolls a higher environmental impact to produce.
Hmmm... do you seriously think that Apple will put out something that did not address such basic issues!?
In regards to the pricing, Apple is probably going to lock up all production for the next 2 years just like they did with the iPad. When the iPad came out, nobody could touch their price until 2 years later because Apple scooped up all production supplies in one massive purchase. As for the negatives of Sapphire glass you mention, that was from a report made by Corning (maker of Gorilla Glass) where they didn't allow independent 3rd party testing or confirmation. It could be true or it could be all BS to promote their Gorilla Glass.
I don't think it's BS, and I don't think Corning did the report. The properties of Saphire have been known for a while. It was just too expensive and difficult to manufacture previously.
``Despite the low number of assembled units, the test reportedly marks a major milestone for Foxconn. Working with sapphire, rather than Corning's softer Gorilla Glass, is said to markedly increase the complexity of the devices' manufacturing process.''
Not to mention increase the brittle qualities of the surface area material and thus I don't see this as an either or, but a composite material bonding the Gorilla Glass with the Sapphire Glass.
If Apple uses Sapphire glass in its screens there has to be more functionality than just 'scratch Resistant' Good chance entire screen might be touch ID or that lower bezel might be disappearing or something we don't know yet
``Despite the low number of assembled units, the test reportedly marks a major milestone for Foxconn. Working with sapphire, rather than Corning's softer Gorilla Glass, is said to markedly increase the complexity of the devices' manufacturing process.''
Not to mention increase the brittle qualities of the surface area material and thus I don't see this as an either or, but a composite material bonding the Gorilla Glass with the Sapphire Glass.
Actually, that's something I don't see happening. If they do sapphire glass on the display they'll go all-out. This is Apple were talking about. They won't be shipping a new iPhone with a glorified screen protector. Yes, I know there's that hair-thin sapphire glass that was in the works, but I just don't see Apple going for that myself.
If Apple uses Sapphire glass in its screens there has to be more functionality than just 'scratch Resistant' Good chance entire screen might be touch ID or that lower bezel might be disappearing or something we don't know yet
You say that, but every person I know who has an iPhone has a screen protector on it because the screen isn't hard enough. I.E. to negate a minor but fundemental weakness in the product's design. Using sapphire glass fixes that minor but fundemental weakness. In the end it's worth it. And that's why Apple is so great; they build whole factories to fix issues other companies would avoid bringing up in meetings. No, Touch ID is staying on the home button. It really is simpler than you're making it.
You say that, but every person I know who has an iPhone has a screen protector on it because the screen isn't hard enough. I.E. to negate a minor but fundemental weakness in the product's design. Using sapphire glass fixes that minor but fundemental weakness. In the end it's worth it. And that's why Apple is so great; they build whole factories to fix issues other companies would avoid bringing up in meetings. No, Touch ID is staying on the home button. It really is simpler than you're making it.
Sapphire glass scratches and cracks also. We don't know if gorilla glass 3 or willow is as good
Very odd, that polished stainless steel. So soft. Their only alternative would be to do a matte finish on it, but then you get into cookware aesthetics. Since there's no effect on function, we just had to live with scratches that appeared no matter how careful you were.
Very odd, that polished stainless steel. So soft. Their only alternative would be to do a matte finish on it, but then you get into cookware aesthetics. Since there's no effect on function, we just had to live with scratches that appeared no matter how careful you were.
That's not the only alternative. What's the iPhone, a saucepan?
The two biggest risks to the screen are scratches and breakage, and sapphire definitely provides scratch resistance that no glass variant will approach. As for breakage, sapphire is stronger (higher compressive, tensile and shear moduli and higher yield strength), but has lower strain to failure than GG, so it won't tolerate bending as well. However, since the iPhone is a fairly rigid structure, that should not be a huge problem.
That's not the only alternative. What's the iPhone, a saucepan?
First, a little nuance, please. My experience with the iPod touch "classic" is what i'm talking about. At the time it came out, they hadn't worked out their aluminium processes, nor would they just for the touch. It would take a strategic investment across the iPhone and iPad lines to justify the kind of effort they put into it.
But once they had the processes down for the earlier touch, with its smaller screen, they still aren't going to retool for it, now are they. No, they're going to sell it cheap. Same would apply to the iPod Classic I would think.
Second, if you're trying to equate matte aluminium with brushed stainless with regard to their kitchen-look quotient, you're missing the essential nature of the metal. Stainless is cold qnd it feels bad. Aluminium is warmer and tactile-friendly.
First, a little nuance, please. My experience with the iPod touch "classic" is what i'm talking about. At the time it came out, they hadn't worked out their aluminium processes, nor would they just for the touch. It would take a strategic investment across the iPhone and iPad lines to justify the kind of effort they put into it.
But once they had the processes down for the earlier touch, with its smaller screen, they still aren't going to retool for it, now are they. No, they're going to sell it cheap. Same would apply to the iPod Classic I would think.
Second, if you're trying to equate matte aluminium with brushed stainless with regard to their kitchen-look quotient, you're missing the essential nature of the metal. Stainless is cold qnd it feels bad. Aluminium is warmer and tactile-friendly.
Nuance? It feels like you are responding to someone else.
I'm pretty sure the syntehic sapphire Apple is using is far more scratch and crack resistant.
How are you pretty sure it's more crack resistant? You do know there 10 or more types of material mechanics, right? Such as yield strength, compressive strength, tensile strength, fatigue strength, impact strength, deformation, strain, deflection, elasticity and plasticity? Although you would be given that you are pretty sure about something you most likely have no information on. Please, just because it's Apple don't claim something like this. It's embarrassing.
Comments
The home button isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
It seems odd Apple would go with Sapphire to cover the whole phone as opposed to just parts like the finger print sensor. Sapphire is harder than Gorilla Glass and thereby more scratch resistant, but it is also general thought to be way more expensive to produce and is heavier, less transparent, more breakable from impact, and extolls a higher environmental impact to produce.
In regards to the pricing, Apple is probably going to lock up all production for the next 2 years just like they did with the iPad. When the iPad came out, nobody could touch their price until 2 years later because Apple scooped up all production supplies in one massive purchase. As for the negatives of Sapphire glass you mention, that was from a report made by Corning (maker of Gorilla Glass) where they didn't allow independent 3rd party testing or confirmation. It could be true or it could be all BS to promote their Gorilla Glass.
It seems odd Apple would go with Sapphire to cover the whole phone as opposed to just parts like the finger print sensor. Sapphire is harder than Gorilla Glass and thereby more scratch resistant, but it is also general thought to be way more expensive to produce and is heavier, less transparent, more breakable from impact, and extolls a higher environmental impact to produce.
Hmmm... do you seriously think that Apple will put out something that did not address such basic issues!?
I don't think it's BS, and I don't think Corning did the report. The properties of Saphire have been known for a while. It was just too expensive and difficult to manufacture previously.
Exactly, they would never make iPods that scratch easily ;-)
Not to mention increase the brittle qualities of the surface area material and thus I don't see this as an either or, but a composite material bonding the Gorilla Glass with the Sapphire Glass.
Hmmm... do you seriously think that Apple will put out something that did not address such basic issues!?
Exactly, they would never make iPods that scratch easily ;-)
Hmmm.... how many years ago was that? ;-)
Actually, they are still making the iPod classic:
http://www.apple.com/ipodclassic/gallery/#image2
The back of it scratches if you look at it wrong.
Actually, that's something I don't see happening. If they do sapphire glass on the display they'll go all-out. This is Apple were talking about. They won't be shipping a new iPhone with a glorified screen protector. Yes, I know there's that hair-thin sapphire glass that was in the works, but I just don't see Apple going for that myself.
You say that, but every person I know who has an iPhone has a screen protector on it because the screen isn't hard enough. I.E. to negate a minor but fundemental weakness in the product's design. Using sapphire glass fixes that minor but fundemental weakness. In the end it's worth it. And that's why Apple is so great; they build whole factories to fix issues other companies would avoid bringing up in meetings. No, Touch ID is staying on the home button. It really is simpler than you're making it.
Very odd, that polished stainless steel. So soft. Their only alternative would be to do a matte finish on it, but then you get into cookware aesthetics. Since there's no effect on function, we just had to live with scratches that appeared no matter how careful you were.
That's not the only alternative. What's the iPhone, a saucepan?
Sapphire is far less likely to scratch then the current gen glass products. The future is uncertain at this point.
The two biggest risks to the screen are scratches and breakage, and sapphire definitely provides scratch resistance that no glass variant will approach. As for breakage, sapphire is stronger (higher compressive, tensile and shear moduli and higher yield strength), but has lower strain to failure than GG, so it won't tolerate bending as well. However, since the iPhone is a fairly rigid structure, that should not be a huge problem.
First, a little nuance, please. My experience with the iPod touch "classic" is what i'm talking about. At the time it came out, they hadn't worked out their aluminium processes, nor would they just for the touch. It would take a strategic investment across the iPhone and iPad lines to justify the kind of effort they put into it.
But once they had the processes down for the earlier touch, with its smaller screen, they still aren't going to retool for it, now are they. No, they're going to sell it cheap. Same would apply to the iPod Classic I would think.
Second, if you're trying to equate matte aluminium with brushed stainless with regard to their kitchen-look quotient, you're missing the essential nature of the metal. Stainless is cold qnd it feels bad. Aluminium is warmer and tactile-friendly.
The extra cost is probably more than worth it when it comes to reducing the number of repairs.
Apple will have a a real advantage here since these will go on high end phones where they command the market in volume.
Nuance? It feels like you are responding to someone else.
How are you pretty sure it's more crack resistant? You do know there 10 or more types of material mechanics, right? Such as yield strength, compressive strength, tensile strength, fatigue strength, impact strength, deformation, strain, deflection, elasticity and plasticity? Although you would be given that you are pretty sure about something you most likely have no information on. Please, just because it's Apple don't claim something like this. It's embarrassing.