Slashdot Mirror
Sapphire Glass Didn't Pass iPhone Drop Test According to Reports
SternisheFan notes reports about why Apple didn't use sapphire glass screens in the latest iPhones as many expected. Sapphire screens were part of the iPhone 6 design until the glass repeatedly cracked during standard drop tests conducted by Apple suppliers. So Apple abandoned its sapphire plans before the iPhone 6 product launch September 9. VentureBeat has learned that recent supplier channel checks by an IDC analyst yielded several reports of the sapphire failures and Apple's decision against using the glass material. As we heard on Tuesday in Cupertino, both the iPhone 6 and the larger iPhone 6 Plus will ship with screens made of "ion-strengthened" glass. This was apparently Apple's second choice. IDC analyst Danielle Levitas says it isn't clear when exactly the drop-test failures took place, or when Apple abandoned plans for sapphire-screened iPhones. She says the poor drop-test results, combined with the relative high cost of sapphire glass, could have made plans to ship sapphire glass phones too risky. One researcher who covers GT Advanced Technologies, the company that was to produce the glass for the iPhone 6, wrote in a research note earlier this week that plans for the sapphire screens were cancelled in August, just weeks before the September 9 launch. The new Apple Watches (except the "Sport" version) do use sapphire for their screens. Levitas believes that the glass for the smaller 1.5-inch and 1.7-inch watch screens was less likely to break in drop tests.
..might simply have been not appreciably better than glass alternatives.
if true (this sounds like speculation) kudos apple for not releasing something just because they could.
Isn't that what standard hardened glass is?
Why call it "sapphire glass" when it's not a "glass"?
Company tries two things, chooses the one that is better. News at 11.
Sure, Apple is all about marketing, and they loved to give that "2nd hardest material after diamond" pitch when introducing their watch and would have loved to have it on the iPhone as well. Just for the hype. But since they found out it did not actually work, why not go to the best actual material out there that many other top devices are using instead of going back to hardened glass? When people at work pull out their cellphones, if you look at those without any screen protectors/cases, devices like the Samsung Galaxy S series have immaculate screens, while the iPhones are full of scratches...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Levitas believes that the glass for the smaller 1.5-inch and 1.7-inch watch screens was less likely to break in drop tests.
Watches are less likely to be dropped than phones, making scratch resistance a higher priority.
Why would they use that? Other than snob appeal.
I swear by sapphire glass for watches (which have been using it even for midtier models for ages) as it's incredibly scratch resistant, but I didn't think that necessarily translates to shatter resistant. I am curious though in terms of scratch resistance how sapphire crystal compares to gorilla glass (and similar products).
Sadly, PS/2 was yet another victim of USB, which doesn't care what you plug into it, the electrical slut.
It's actually standard fare to use sapphire for watches ever since it became economically viable to synthesize them.
They would probably have to go back to the 3.5" iPhone/iPod model to use it and survive the drop test. The principle problem with saphire is that its "too hard", so it's actually breaking from lack of flexibility rather than from fragility. If Apple switched to a "Dual Screen" (eg like the 3DS) where the screen had half the surface area, that may also solve the problem. I'm not sure off hand how large it would have to be before it stops surviving the drop test, but logically, the 4"+ models wouldn't because they have more potential energy in a drop test than a smaller model.
Sapphire didn't pass the drop test, or Sapphire didn't pass the profit test? It seems good enough for everybody else to use in their high end phones.
I've kept a number of different iPhones in pockets with keys for years, zero scratches. I've not seen an iPhone screen witch scratches (cracks if it's dropped, yes, but not scratches).
Also, they HAVE used Gorilla Glass. In fact I'd imagine the newer ones ALSO use Gorilla Glass, they just aren't saying that (which they did not in the past also).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Anecdotal or not, almost everyone I come into contact with who has an iPhone is either living with a smashed screen or had to take it back to Apple to get the screen replaced after smashing it.
I do not see as many, if any, of non-Apple phones that are smashed as easily.
Personally, maybe I'm just not as clumsy, but I've dropped my phone any number of times and even kicked it accidentally as I dropped it and smashed it into a wall... and it wasn't even scratched. I don't think I've ever managed to break a phone like that, and I've had some spectacular drops in the past (plastic covers and batteries flying all over the room, but just put it back together and it worked).
Really ?
Really !
Really ?
Really ??
Really !!
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
Further drop tests revealed that the sapphire glass screen was not likely to break when embedded in a liquid metal casing.
Here's a phone with Sapphire glass :
http://www.kyoceramobile.com/brigadier/
Apple probably did not want to risk competing with a materials company in the sapphire screen space.
Didn't Tag Heuer have some phone models with saphire displays?
Agree on this, sapphire crystal (crystal rather than glass) is something I've always seen on mid and above range watches. I have it on one of mine (an Eternal which I bought in the 90s which were briefly affordable) I suspect the sapphire works better at smaller size whereas the engineered glass products like Corning Gorilla glass work better at larger size where risk of shattering from bending or pressure outweighs the risk of sharps scraping the surface.
Have gnu, will travel.
This is iOn strengthened
I've not over years of use, I guess it's that weak-ass Gorilla Glass 2 the original post was wishing for. Hopefully Apple ditched them if you can simply scratch it with keys.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
But at least they weren't scratched!
The glass consists of a thin sheet of alkali-aluminosilicate. Gorilla Glass is strengthened using an ion-exchange process which forces large ions into the spaces between molecules on the glass surface. Specifically, glass is placed in a 400C molten potassium salt bath, which forces potassium ions to replace the sodium ions originally in the glass. The larger potassium ions take up more space between the other atoms in the glass. As the glass cools, the crunched-together atoms produce a high level of compressive stress in the glass that helps protect the surface from mechanical damage.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/...
How Sapphire Glass is made...
http://www.businessinsider.com...
shouldn't Apple be drop testing these?
i'm sure Apple does it's own testing, but if suppliers regularly have to do stuff like this it really makes me wonder what factors they test for
reminds me of this story about xbox one controller R&D
in the middle of the article, you see the actual R&D testing of the new controller designs, all in grey
now, for anyone who has ever played video games, **especially gamers**...the idea of designing a new controller is **awesome**
it's the kind thing that inspires a kid to go into game design...
now, look at the ***factors*** they are testing...look at what changes they are thinking of making
1mm
that's it
they're testing a difference of 1 millimeter....full testing battery....complex A/B testing with gamers, focus groups, the whole gamut!
for an experimental variable of 1 millimeter difference from the old to new design
a real experiment would test, oh, say a design similar to the N64's controller vs the current design...or a new button layout
my point is, we can see from TFA that "innovative tech R&D" is not very innovative...for many companies
Thank you Dave Raggett
made the glass thick enough. They never do.
Everybody who gets an iPhone immediately puts it into a rugged, generally rubberized, case. All smartphones tend to be fragile, and the naked iPhone is slippery. Cases not only protect against damage, but prevent most drops from happening in the first place. An iPhone in a rubbery OtterBox is not going to slip out of your shirt pocket into the toilet.
Sapphire is scratch resistant but more brittle than regular mineral glass. Everyone knows that.
Back in the 1920s-1940s as cars became more popular, more people started dying in car crashes. In response, the auto manufacturers did the obvious thing and started making the cars stronger and stronger. And people kept dying.
It wasn't until the 1950s when the first controlled crash tests were done, that they discovered that the stronger car bodies were the worst possible thing you could do. They did nothing to reduce the kinetic energy of the occupants before impact. The car would hit, the strong body would stop moving almost instantly, and the occupants would keep flying forward at full speed until they hit the front of the car. This is what led to the crumple zones we have today - where the car body deliberately flexes and deforms to absorb crash energy, lessening the impact forces on the occupants.
I think phones are going to go the same way. Rather than build the bodies and faces stronger and stronger to try to make them survive drops, they're going to be replaced with flexible screens once those come down in price and become commonplace. Bend and flex to absorb the impact energy, not try to stiffly resist it until something shatters. Scratches can be handled by a disposable plastic protector (I go through about one a year, so it's not at all inconvenient).
Everybody who gets an iPhone immediately puts it into a rugged, generally rubberized, case.
That's pathetic. All that effort to make a super-thin device, and you have to put it another case to protect it. Nokia would laugh.
Get a non-toy phone.
It's amusing that Apple can't get sapphire-coated glass to work. Sapphire glass for checkout scanners is a standard product. Every Home Depot checkout scanner has sapphire-coated glass. People slide metal tools across those for years without damage.
“All irregularities will be handled by the forces controlling each dimension. Transuranic, heavy elements may not be used where there is life. Medium atomic weights are available: Gold, Lead, Copper, Jet, Diamond, Radium, Sapphire, Silver and Steel.
Sapphire and Steel have been assigned”.
It's the exact opposite. "Shattering" is a catastrophic structural failure, where object could no longer bend sufficiently and didn't have enough strength to withstand the force applied to it.
As a result, typically being "hard" results in being "fragile", whereas being "soft" results in being "hard to shatter". Hardened plastic used on older phones for example would scratch up easily but was very difficult to shatter, whereas modern gorilla glass is very hard to scratch, but shatters easily.
Sapphire, being even harder is even more fragile and shatters even more easily. Considering how many shattered phones there are that I've seen, I would suggest that we hit a point where phones should prioritise "shatter resistance" over "scratch resistance".
The new Apple Watches (except the "Sport" version) do use sapphire for their screens.
Presumably that's because athletes are more willing than other market segments to pay to repair or replace broken items.
My wife's wedding ring is moissanite. I know all about its hardness, heat resistance, brilliance, rarity in nature (mainly from meteorites) etc. That's my whole point, their Sapphire pitch was all marketing and when it didn't pan out they should have at least given something good to their customers...
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
That's why the real original moon watch doesn't have any kind of glass or even crystal, but simply plastic. Remains from something scattered wouldn't be very useful in a spacecraft.
Kudos to Apple for not releasing a defective product? Thanks for not sucking, Apple!
Remains of a hard, sharp material like glass in a spacecraft would be life threatening. No gravity means they would hover around until someone drew them into their lungs, where they may cause all sorts of damage.
Apple has to start making all their stuff super cheap now, (keep them shareholders happy) weld the RAM jn their macbooks, back to plastic cases because they can't have NF without, and maybe start to pay attention to security.
A parade of failures.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
A larger surface will be more prone to flex, leading to cracks. So a small surface like a watch face won't be subjected to much flexing stress, and the sapphire glass will hold up. A tablet, not so much. Pricing too. On a watch with a square inch of glass, spending ten times more for the sapphire glass isn't a big deal. On a tablet with about 30 square inches, well, do the math.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
I read you are here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and seeing you keep a TomHudson sockpuppet account http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... and this other of your many sockpuppets on slashdot too http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... also makes me believe you may be. Are you?
You mean Apple doesn't have dropping as one of their test cases?
There goes Apple, innovating, er, I mean copying Samsung again. Two or three years ago Samsung reportedly had run similar tests with sapphire screens and found large sapphire panels to be too brittle.
Incidentally, I purchased the iPhone 6 last year, when it was known as the Samsung Galaxy S4. ;)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
As someone who is into watches, one of the things I have learned is:
Watch glass is either mineral crystal or sapphire crystal.
Mineral crystal is prone to scratching (as compared to Sapphire), but handles a direct impact relatively well. Sapphire crystal is much harder and is extremely resistant to scratching, but is much more shatter-prone than mineral.
The shiny new magic Sapphire glass was an assumed gotta have, an urban myth that it was the one-true-best-thing.
That myth (like so many others) was proved false, and Apple went for something better, or if not then with the same performance only cheaper.
There's little doubt that Apple's biggest fanboys like The Verge had already written long articles on how Apple's sapphire is so much better than whatever else others use. Was all that work for nothing?
...their Sapphire pitch...
*Whose* "sapphire pitch"?
Umm... The suppliers do this testing because it's part of what they're *paid* to do.
If I contract with you to provide a part, I will provide acceptance criteria (structural strength, tolerances, etc.), and you will design and test the parts you provide against those criteria. Apple almost certainly duplicates the testing process against a random selection of those provided parts, failing (and returning) entire batches when the samples fail the test.
video game controllers...
specifically in overall 'width' or 'thickness' if you will...it's just not a salient gradient
example problem: users with large hands report cramping and mistakes, want a bigger controller. so, M$ tests a larger option. this task is much more than just making it 1mm wider...first, make the controller 20% larger, and space out the buttons, maybe raise their height...and do an ergonomic analysis of the angles of joints for button pushing and consider fatigue...**THATS REAL DESIGN TESTING**
what M$ did in that video is just a waste and an example of very poor product design and testing
Thank you Dave Raggett
"His only "legend in his own mind" was that he claimed that "his" hosts file could completely secure a windows computer. " - by tomhudson (43916) on Saturday February 12, @11:19AM (#35186644) Homepage Journal FROM -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in the YEAR 2011 years ago no less
I never claimed a HOSTS file can secure you completely... show me where I have? I want a quote, big talker... you'll never get it, because I never, EVER said that: HOSTS files are, however, a valuable layer of defense for the concept of "layered security".
* You couldn't produce proof THEN, & you certainly can't now (vainly *trying* to put words in my mouth I NEVER ONCE SAID!)
APK
P.S.=> Still @ your LIES, you transsexual weirdo? Ok, asking it again now nearly 5 yrs. later now in response to your bullshit lies again here quoted:
"APK - not only an expert on how the HOSTS file is the best way to secure your computer" - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Wednesday September 17, 2014 @07:06PM (#47932519) Homepage
Under your NEW sockpuppet account too no less: SEE my challenge to you above - where've I ever said they completely secure you? I never have, liar...
Of course, YOU ARE welcome to disprove my points on them after you said this lately too:
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ?
... apkb
One of the 1st times "Barb" libeled me stating "APK is a know-nothing that's never worked in the industry" -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... in 1 of her numerous sockpuppet fake accounts kept active @ the same time here she uses to upmod herself & downmod opponents she can't get the better of (everyone's onto your games, freak).
Funny part is I've DONE FAR BETTER than ole' "cyclops Frank N. Furter" ever has shown in that exchange too http://slashdot.org/comments.p... , lol!
---
Later, he/she kept a journal on me & libeled me even more but worse -> http://slashdot.org/journal/25...
(Typical b.s. to *try* to 'put down' computer "geeks/nerds" saying "I live in a basement with my mommy" etc. when *ANYTHING BUT THAT* is true, considering I am a taxpaying homeowner!).
---
* From the dates you can SEE she's kept this up unceasingly since early to mid 2010 no less, & that's only scratching the surface (there's far more).
(Even TELLING OTHERS TO HARASS ME BY ANONYMOUS COWARD POSTS, calling me a "pedo" -> http://news.slashdot.org/comme... )
He/She left in May 2012 after being exposed for ALL OF THAT, but came back with this NEW account of hers, & what started up again (I did *NOT* bother "shim" even once before that)?
You guessed it (more harassment) -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
Where I challenged her for her usual CRAP she always runs from (to validly disprove my points on hosts, which she clearly, cannot):
"I tore apart your stupid hosts file crapola." - by BarbaraHudson (3785311) on Tuesday August 19, 2014 @10:46AM (#47703255) Homepage
Oh, really?
Then why'd you run from disproving my points on them giving users added speed, security, reliability & more here too then -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...
APK
P.S.=> Barb/Tom (whatever, with multiple sockpuppets too http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... = http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... + http://slashdot.org/~Barbara%2... ) you've destroyed yourself yet again...
...apk
your problem is you inherently do not understand the scientific method
there is no logical reason to even conduct a test like M$ did in my example...the factors are not salient
i tried to give you an example, but it just went right over your head
i used to be a design researcher...daily doing user testing in a non-corporate environment...i know what i'm talking about as much as anyone in the universe on this topic
i want to continue this conversation because your interest is actually intersting to me
i love this stuff, and it seems you have strong thoughts about HCI as well
so, to continue, maybe you could tell me why you think M$'s controller testing that I linked to was a good test?
what, in your mind, are they testing, what 'problem' are the working a hypothesis for?
Thank you Dave Raggett