Simple. They will not take it into production (to market) unless it offers advantages over the current method. Apple doesn't aim for "specs" they aim for "results". Of course it will also support profit margins.
Not hard for customer to justify paying a premium on a product that has a scratch proof screen (Sapphire can only be scratched by Diamond the next hardest substance) and it highly crack resistant. Remember, this is synthetic Sapphire probably bonded to the LCD.
Ok, facts help too...
May Be Made of Sapphire
"Manufactured sapphire is incredibly strong and scratch resistant. Now falling costs and technology improvements could make it competitive with glass....Sapphire is harder than any other natural material except diamond; by some measures, it’s three times stronger than Gorilla Glass, and it is also about three times more scratch resistant."
By those standard keys in your pocket will not scratch it and common drops won't shatter it. So after that it comes down to abuse and negligence by the users - not Apple fault or responsibility... customer satisfaction soars into 99% from 80%.
Simple. They will not take it into production (to market) unless it offers advantages over the current method. Apple doesn't aim for "specs" they aim for "results". Of course it will also support profit margins.
Not hard for customer to justify paying a premium on a product that has a scratch proof screen (Sapphire can only be scratched by Diamond the next hardest substance) and it highly crack resistant. Remember, this is synthetic Sapphire probably bonded to the LCD.
Ok, facts help too...
May Be Made of Sapphire
"Manufactured sapphire is incredibly strong and scratch resistant. Now falling costs and technology improvements could make it competitive with glass....Sapphire is harder than any other natural material except diamond; by some measures, it’s three times stronger than Gorilla Glass, and it is also about three times more scratch resistant." http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512411/your-next-smartphone-screen-may-be-made-of-sapphire/
By those standard keys in your pocket will not scratch it and common drops won't shatter it. So after that it comes down to abuse and negligence by the users - not Apple fault or responsibility... customer satisfaction soars into 99% from 80%.
Just as I presumed, you have no idea what you are talking about. No doubt you think scratch-resistance makes it three times more resilient in all other ways. It does not. Your thinking that if it isn't better in all ways Apple wouldn't do it is just about as scientific as someone's thinking could get. Next time before making claims like that ask yourself if you actually know what you're talking about. It's OK to resist the temptation to post and take a breath.
I was once a rock collector. Sapphire is 9 on the hardness table and only diamond which is a 10 can scratch it; Sapphire is cut with a "diamond coated wire saw."
"Along with zirconia and aluminium oxynitride, synthetic sapphire is used for shatter resistant windows in armored vehicles and various military body armor suits, in association with composites."
I just quoted you and article. Where is your proof? Oh yeah, more proof. You must be one of those people who think the world is 6000 years old.
So where's your proof on that claim? You going to quote me another article? Eventually you'll come to same conclusion as everyone else (including myself) and admit you actually know very little indeed. If scratching is the biggest issue out there with these screens and dropping such devices directly onto their screens breaks them anyway, then perhaps sapphire becomes the logical choice for advancement at this juncture. Given how many iPhone owners use screen protectors I'd bet it's safe to say Apple may have a similar viewpoint. I'm not arguing against the use of sapphire as an iPhone display cover. In fact, I was one of the members around here to suggest that their large initial known investment into sapphire glass was too big an amount to justify only covering watch faces, and therefore a sapphire iPhone is one logical conclusion.
Just because something is hard on that specific hardness scale you pointed to doesn't mean it breaks less easily than another material in every given circumstance. Regular glass smashes easier than rubber of a similar thickness. Now, I ask you Mr. rock collector, which is harder?
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.
This.
Some were questioning those latest Apple patents relating to Sapphire glass enclosures. Taken with previous patents covering advanced layering and composite bonding techniques, I would hazard a guess that Apple has most of those problems covered.
Sapphire is already known to be more scratch resistant and shatter resistant than glass. What's to know? It's common knowledge. The point is that costs have come down and Apple is seizing that opportunity to bring it to their premium products. Won't see it on a plastic premium phone from Samsung, well, until Apple does it. Oh wait, the finger print sensor hasn't been copied yet and it's covered in Sapphire already.
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.
This.
Some were questioning those latest Apple patents relating to Sapphire glass enclosures. Taken with previous patents covering advanced layering and composite bonding techniques, I would hazard a guess that Apple has most of those problems covered.
I suspect that you are correct. The two downsides to using sapphire are its high density and (presumed) additional cost. If Apple have perfected a thin laminate at reasonable cost then that will be a significant breakthrough.
So where's your proof on that claim? You going to quote me another article? Eventually you'll come to same conclusion as everyone else (including myself) and admit you actually know very little indeed. If scratching is the biggest issue out there with these screens and dropping such devices directly onto their screens breaks them anyway, then perhaps sapphire becomes the logical choice for advancement at this juncture. Given how many iPhone owners use screen protectors I'd bet it's safe to say Apple may have a similar viewpoint. I'm not arguing against the use of sapphire as an iPhone display cover. In fact, I was one of the members around here to suggest that their large initial known investment into sapphire glass was too big an amount to justify only covering watch faces, and therefore a sapphire iPhone is one logical conclusion.
Just because something is hard on that specific hardness scale you pointed to doesn't mean it breaks less easily than another material in every given circumstance. Regular glass smashes easier than rubber of a similar thickness. Now, I ask you Mr. rock collector, which is harder?
You're confused. Hardness is related scratch resistance not breakage. Breakage can be dealt with through composites.
Comments
Simple. They will not take it into production (to market) unless it offers advantages over the current method. Apple doesn't aim for "specs" they aim for "results". Of course it will also support profit margins.
Not hard for customer to justify paying a premium on a product that has a scratch proof screen (Sapphire can only be scratched by Diamond the next hardest substance) and it highly crack resistant. Remember, this is synthetic Sapphire probably bonded to the LCD.
Ok, facts help too...
May Be Made of Sapphire
"Manufactured sapphire is incredibly strong and scratch resistant. Now falling costs and technology improvements could make it competitive with glass....Sapphire is harder than any other natural material except diamond; by some measures, it’s three times stronger than Gorilla Glass, and it is also about three times more scratch resistant."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512411/your-next-smartphone-screen-may-be-made-of-sapphire/
By those standard keys in your pocket will not scratch it and common drops won't shatter it. So after that it comes down to abuse and negligence by the users - not Apple fault or responsibility... customer satisfaction soars into 99% from 80%.
Just as I presumed, you have no idea what you are talking about. No doubt you think scratch-resistance makes it three times more resilient in all other ways. It does not. Your thinking that if it isn't better in all ways Apple wouldn't do it is just about as scientific as someone's thinking could get. Next time before making claims like that ask yourself if you actually know what you're talking about. It's OK to resist the temptation to post and take a breath.
I was once a rock collector. Sapphire is 9 on the hardness table and only diamond which is a 10 can scratch it; Sapphire is cut with a "diamond coated wire saw."
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512411/your-next-smartphone-screen-may-be-made-of-sapphire/
I just quoted you and article. Where is your proof? Oh yeah, more proof. You must be one of those people who think the world is 6000 years old.
Sapphire
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapphire
"Along with zirconia and aluminium oxynitride, synthetic sapphire is used for shatter resistant windows in armored vehicles and various military body armor suits, in association with composites."
So where's your proof on that claim? You going to quote me another article? Eventually you'll come to same conclusion as everyone else (including myself) and admit you actually know very little indeed. If scratching is the biggest issue out there with these screens and dropping such devices directly onto their screens breaks them anyway, then perhaps sapphire becomes the logical choice for advancement at this juncture. Given how many iPhone owners use screen protectors I'd bet it's safe to say Apple may have a similar viewpoint. I'm not arguing against the use of sapphire as an iPhone display cover. In fact, I was one of the members around here to suggest that their large initial known investment into sapphire glass was too big an amount to justify only covering watch faces, and therefore a sapphire iPhone is one logical conclusion.
Just because something is hard on that specific hardness scale you pointed to doesn't mean it breaks less easily than another material in every given circumstance. Regular glass smashes easier than rubber of a similar thickness. Now, I ask you Mr. rock collector, which is harder?
This.
Some were questioning those latest Apple patents relating to Sapphire glass enclosures. Taken with previous patents covering advanced layering and composite bonding techniques, I would hazard a guess that Apple has most of those problems covered.
Sapphire is already known to be more scratch resistant and shatter resistant than glass. What's to know? It's common knowledge. The point is that costs have come down and Apple is seizing that opportunity to bring it to their premium products. Won't see it on a plastic premium phone from Samsung, well, until Apple does it. Oh wait, the finger print sensor hasn't been copied yet and it's covered in Sapphire already.
Guess Samesung has a lot to catch up to.
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.
This.
Some were questioning those latest Apple patents relating to Sapphire glass enclosures. Taken with previous patents covering advanced layering and composite bonding techniques, I would hazard a guess that Apple has most of those problems covered.
I suspect that you are correct. The two downsides to using sapphire are its high density and (presumed) additional cost. If Apple have perfected a thin laminate at reasonable cost then that will be a significant breakthrough.
So where's your proof on that claim? You going to quote me another article? Eventually you'll come to same conclusion as everyone else (including myself) and admit you actually know very little indeed. If scratching is the biggest issue out there with these screens and dropping such devices directly onto their screens breaks them anyway, then perhaps sapphire becomes the logical choice for advancement at this juncture. Given how many iPhone owners use screen protectors I'd bet it's safe to say Apple may have a similar viewpoint. I'm not arguing against the use of sapphire as an iPhone display cover. In fact, I was one of the members around here to suggest that their large initial known investment into sapphire glass was too big an amount to justify only covering watch faces, and therefore a sapphire iPhone is one logical conclusion.
Just because something is hard on that specific hardness scale you pointed to doesn't mean it breaks less easily than another material in every given circumstance. Regular glass smashes easier than rubber of a similar thickness. Now, I ask you Mr. rock collector, which is harder?
You're confused. Hardness is related scratch resistance not breakage. Breakage can be dealt with through composites.
I'm not confused at all. You're calling me confused but you are agreeing with my point.
Shut up and go away.
That’s for trolls. If they’re just being wrong, prove ‘em so.
You REALLY need to practice what you preach.
You're silly.