TheiPhone 6was supposed to have a sapphire display. More than a year ago, Apple turned to GT Advanced Technologies, the now-bankrupt supplier, to solve its longstanding problems with scratched and cracked displays. But as soon as the two companies signed an agreement, their relationship became riddled with complications. In the ensuing year,as chronicled in detail by theWall Street Journal, everything shifted.
I’m linking to The Verge’s summary because of the paywall.
I think you might have forgotten to put the link in somewhere.
Edit: there it is
Edited 2014-11-20 01:58 UTC
Sapphire is totally unsuitable for phone screens. It is very brittle (particularly in thin sheets). It is also virtually impossible to make optically clear sapphire in blocks large enough to make phone screens.
I actual agree with your conclusion (mostly). I think “totally unsuitable” is maybe too strong a phrase, replace it with “extremely difficult and costly to get right” and I agree 100%.
It is very brittle… I don’t think it is too brittle, but it is definitely more brittle than gorilla glass. Still I think it can survive enough flex without breaking if used on a very rigid case that can insulate the glass against flexing – but it does require some compromises compared to other options. It makes up for brittleness by being extremely resistant to direct point impact breakage.
“Virtually impossible to make optically clear sapphire in block large enough to make a phone screen”? Well again I think it is possible, the problem is getting yields high enough to be economically viable. But yeah, virtually impossible is not far off.
Im only posting because even though I mostly agree with you, you are making it sound like an fundamental problem with the material that cannot be overcome. I don’t agree with that at all, its just a matter of time really. Someone will figure out how to make large high quality boules economically viable eventually…
Its the “economically viable” part that is the challenge.
Edited 2014-11-20 05:21 UTC
Sapphire works quite well in watches. This is because the case is ultra rigid and the crystal is extremely thick (3-5mm) compared with the diameter (~30mm).
Even the small diameter boules used in watch crystals can have noticeable optical defects. If you are trying to look at individual pixels the distortions will be quite obvious.
From an engineering standpoint, it seems obvious (IMO) that flexible screens (such as the oled ones developed by Samsung and LG) are a better fit to thin, large, exposed objects such as phones. Or you have to go all the way: ultra-rigid ceramic shell for ex.
Whereas with the right flexibility, plastic could recover from scratches.
http://www.frenchtoday.com/french-poetry-reading/le-chene-et-le-ros…
I think someone pitched sapphire a bit to much to Apple executives.
The iPhone 6 was supposed to have a sapphire display
No, some people thought that because Apple was investing in sapphire that meant the sapphire was for iPhone screens. There was never a shred of actual evidence that the sapphire was for iPhones rather than say, the iWatch.
Do you think this deal between Apple and GT going south and GT filling bankruptcy after billions of investment was because they couldn’t make little tiny watch screens?
I get being skeptical of unofficial information, but GT was contracted to make iphone screens. There were many people who (through whatever nefarious means this is done) got their hands on actual production quality sapphire iphone 6 displays – just do a google search…
Odds are there just weren’t enough of them that would pass quality checks to be viable for actual production. But they certainly existed.
To contend anything else is just denying reality.
ps…
Making synthetic sapphire glass the size of a watch display is fairly commonplace – companies have been doing it for over a decade. The fact that even with all the problems with GT Apple is using sapphire for their iWatch makes this self evident.
Its scaling it up in size and volume, and down in cost that poses the challenge. GT thought they were up to this task and they failed.
wow. I can’t believe the post I replied to above is seriously being upvoted…?
Here’s a question for all your brainiacs doing the mindless upvoting… What exactly do you think Apple needed 262kg (!) sapphire boules for? Do you have any idea how ridiculously large those are compared to the industry norms (hint: its about 3x larger than anything else in high volume).
You don’t need 10+ inch sapphire cores for watch faces… Hell, you don’t even want them, they cost to damn much. If all they needed was volume, they would have just contracted for more furnaces, not gigantic ones… They needed the size
Get a clue.
Edited 2014-11-20 15:37 UTC
Then of course, you know, there is the info from the bankruptcy which says they were for the iPhone. But lets live in bizarro world.
The small diameter boules used to make watch crystals have been available for over 100 years. They are extremely cheap.
The reality is that Apple, in it’s typical arrogance, thought it knew better than industry experts (who understood that sapphire phone screens wouldn’t work). When things inevitably went pear-shaped Apple blamed their supplier.
Industry experts once thought trains couldn’t go faster than 180km/h, that what customers really wanted were faster horses and that 640Kb was enough for anyone.
(OK, one or tw oof those may have been urban legends).
Point is, Apple took a risk and it didn’t pay off. When did we start poo-pooing efforts to advance the status quo. If companies with $100bn in the bank can’t take risks, then who will?
Yeah well, if those industry experts were talking about trains in the US, they weren’t wrong.
There is a huge difference between taking risks and disregarding the laws of chemistry and physics. Sapphire has properties that make it a very poor choice for phone screens. It is obvious that the marketing and design department at Apple have far more influence than real engineers and materials scientists.