Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Iphone Apple Hardware

Apple's Use Of 'Sapphire' in iPhone Camera Lens Questioned in New Tests (theverge.com) 111

Posted by msmash from the in-quest-of-real-sapphire dept.
An anonymous reader writes: Apple has been using sapphire on its iPhone camera lenses for a few years now since the launch of the iPhone 5S, but it might not be as scratch resistant as you'd expect. A new video raises questions over Apple's use of sapphire in its iPhone camera lens, and includes scratch tests to rate its durability. While Apple claims it uses sapphire crystal in its iPhone lens, tests by YouTuber JerryRigEverything show that Apple could be using a more cost effective sapphire laminate on top of regular glass. JerryRigEverything tested Apple's iPhone lens with an XRF machine and electron microscope, and concluded that Apple doesn't use pure sapphire in its lenses. The underside of the lens contains less sapphire than the exposed part, and a scratching comparison with a Tissot sapphire watch showed that the lens cover will scratch at a level 6 on Mohs Scale of Hardness, compared to level 8 for the Tissot watch.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple's Use Of 'Sapphire' in iPhone Camera Lens Questioned in New Tests More

Apple's Use Of 'Sapphire' in iPhone Camera Lens Questioned in New Tests

Comments Filter:

  • People misunderstand "made with sapphire" (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kichigai Mentat ( 588759 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @09:50AM (#53017155) Journal
    No no no no, people are totally misunderstanding what Apple means when they say their stuff is made "with sapphires," not "out of sapphires." Like when I say "I made this with my friend," there's a chunk of sapphire on the factory floor that people work with, like an pet rock.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Like how "Made with Butter" doesn't mean it's 100% butter.
      Reminds me of those morons who were complaining that "almond milk" is false advertising because it isn't just liquid almond...

    • Perhaps they use raw alumina and a source of sodium in their lens glass manufacturing recipe rather than sodic feldspar. That would explain both the "made with sapphire" claim and the hardness of the glass

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or hire escorts to run the machines and call it 'ho-made'

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Wednesday Addams: "Are these girl-scout cookies made out of real girl scouts?"

  • Hard enough? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Aaden42 ( 198257 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @09:52AM (#53017163) Homepage

    Did pulling it out of my pants a few hundred times a month scratch it? No? Good. Guess it was hard enough.

    Oh... And my phone's okay too!

    • Re:Hard enough? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by KiloByte ( 825081 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:23AM (#53017363)

      Did pulling it out of my pants a few hundred times a month scratch it?

      Try having your keys in that pocket. The reason for screen hardness is not scratching by cloth or by a booger-damp tissue but with the most notorious hard item often carried in pockets. And despite Wikipedia claiming iron having a hardness of 4, steel of 4.5, it is enough to scratch a typical smartphone screen. Thus, a sapphire screen would be a major win -- if it was true.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Keys in pockets don't scratch modern phones. What does is sand. Sand and grit is all over the place - and yes, it gets in your pocket and on your keys. Some of that grit is of a hardness that will scratch the screens. For sure. It shouldn't scratch sapphire - but then this article says the lens isn't actually fully sapphire.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          Keys in pockets don't scratch modern phones. What does is sand. Sand and grit is all over the place - and yes, it gets in your pocket and on your keys. Some of that grit is of a hardness that will scratch the screens. For sure. It shouldn't scratch sapphire - but then this article says the lens isn't actually fully sapphire.

          Came here to post this, but let me just quote the AC who got here first. Sand is the killer. Sand easily scratches glass, rarely scratches quartz, and won't scratch topaz or sapphire. That's why sapphire is key: it's sand proof (which makes it nearly everything-proof, for scratching).

      • Re:Hard enough? (Score:4, Informative)

        by morethanapapercert ( 749527 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @12:29PM (#53018337) Homepage
        Keys aren't commonly made of steel and haven't been made of iron since the abandonment of skeleton keys for general use. Most keys are brass or aluminium with both being ~ a 3 on the Mohs scale. ( I use Mohs here because we're talking about contact with alleged sapphire and gemstones are usually rated on the Mohs scale, not Brinnell, Rockwell or Vickers) Thus a key should just skate across a smoothly polished screen surface if it indeed sapphire. In fact, if there are existing scratches on the screen glass, those scratches should mark the key!

        There are two caveats though:

        1) This only accounts for the keys themselves, not the spring steel keyring that is almost universally used to organize keys nor any keychains, fobs or charms.

        2) There are several aspects lumped together under the term "hardness", scratch resistance, rebound hardness and resistance to deformation under a static load. A materials rating under the Mohs scale doesn't cover all of that, so only gives you one part of the picture. And as far as I know, no general purpose hardness test covers glancing/gouging impacts where the velocity of impact is as an equally important component of the tests. A straw can embed itself in wood if it's going fast enough after all. (velocity of the impacting object IS quite important in armour testing, so those tests are careful to take speed and angle of impact into consideration.

      • My keys and my phone always go in separate pockets. ALWAYS.
    • I've got a 2-year old Nexus 5 with the plastic still on the lens cover (I forgot about it, then never bothered removing it since the pictures seemed fine). The plastic is not scratched. So the scratch resistance is not meant to be protect against everyday damage - normal Gorilla Glass is probably good enough for that (considering I don't have any protection for the front screen and it's not scratched either). It's meant to protect against the outliers - the rare cases when a grit of sand (likely quartz)

  • I'm sorry, but without significant consumer complaints, I fail to see how this is even a topic to sit around and bullshit about.

    Other than perhaps a Kardashian, no one is carrying around diamonds in their pockets to scratch their pseudo-sapphire iPhone lens.

    • Re:And yet, consumers are silent. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Shimbo ( 100005 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:10AM (#53017265)

      Other than perhaps a Kardashian, no one is carrying around diamonds in their pockets to scratch their pseudo-sapphire iPhone lens.

      If it is only 6 on the Mohs scale it means that it will be scratched by quartz, so if you have dirt in your pocket it may get scratched.

      • Other than perhaps a Kardashian, no one is carrying around diamonds in their pockets to scratch their pseudo-sapphire iPhone lens.

        If it is only 6 on the Mohs scale it means that it will be scratched by quartz, so if you have dirt in your pocket it may get scratched.

        Dirt you say? Well, in that case, we should start pouring over the thousands of reports of scratched lenses so we can figure out how to fix this massive problem.

        Gee, that's odd. You mean there's not thousands of reports? You mean there's not even hundreds of users who are demanding this be fixed immediately?

        I wonder what else we could do to help. This problem seems so worthy of our time and research.

        /sarcasm

        • Well, they deemed it worthy enough of time to hype the new "sapphire" lens (the sole point of which is to prevent this sort of thing, in theory).

    • False advertising regardless (Score:5, Insightful)

      by grimJester ( 890090 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:32AM (#53017423)
      If they imply it has hardness 9 like sapphire does and it only has 6 that's false advertising. In practice that's the difference between being scratched by sand or not.

      • If they imply it has hardness 9 like sapphire does and it only has 6 that's false advertising. In practice that's the difference between being scratched by sand or not.

        Well, the guy characterized the lens, and found that the surface laminate was indeed sapphire. If his subsequent hardness test found a hardness other than 9, then the guy needs to go back and learn to conduct a proper measurement.

        The Mohs'-scale value of 9 is defined by that of sapphire.

      • If they imply it has hardness 9 like sapphire does and it only has 6 that's false advertising. In practice that's the difference between being scratched by sand or not.

        I recall Apple using the word sapphire, which even their lawyers approved of due to the fact that sapphire is used in the construction of the lens.

        Perhaps you can help identify where Apple specifically talks about "hardness" when advertising their new iPhone lens, as if 95% of the human population even knows what the hell a Mohs scale is.

        We can label this a lot of things, but false advertising is likely not one of them.

  • All irregularities ities 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.

  • Did Apple ever say it was sapphire all the way through? If not, and if it doesn't scratch from normal use, why is this a problem?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by blane.bramble ( 133160 )

      Quite. Welcome to marketing, where the language is both very precise and very loose at the same time.

      A point in case, does:

      "A first for Company X"

      Mean that Company X is the first in the world to do something, or just that this is the first time they have done it, and others may have been doing it for years...

      • The later...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ghoul ( 157158 )

        Yeah this reminds me of Tim Cook excitedly saying "This is the best iPhone ever". Just think about that statement. Something would have to go seriously wrong to come up with an iPhone which was not better than or at least as good as the previous one. Take that back recursively back to the first iPhone so every iPhone released has to be the best iPhone ever (if not some people should be losing jobs. Apple Maps I am looking at you).
        But instead of simply saying we have been drawing salaries for the last one ye

    • If someone sells you a gold bracelet would you expect it to be made of gold or only gold plated?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Megol ( 3135005 )

        Now this have to be the worst comparison of the week! The sapphire is a scratch-resistant layer, gold isn't. Sapphire is worth shit, gold isn't. If someone sells you a sapphire glass watch it doesn't mean that the whole glass is sapphire (as that may be worse than a layered approach) and it doesn't matter as it is the outer layer that is relevant, if someone sells you a gold watch and it is only gold plated you got ripped off.

    • If they're claiming it's sapphire, and there's no sapphire in it, and it scratches just as easily as regular glass, that's called "false advertising".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by BosHaus ( 629060 )

        If they're claiming it's sapphire, and there's no sapphire in it, and it scratches just as easily as regular glass, that's called "false advertising".

        No sapphire in it? Did you watch the video? The show it's 85% Aluminum oxide (sapphire) with a very thin layer of niobium on the interior to improve the refractive index. What the issue is here is the carbon impurities in the sapphire, not that there is no sapphire.

      • If they're claiming it's sapphire, and there's no sapphire in it, and it scratches just as easily as regular glass, that's called "false advertising".

        From TFS:

        "The underside of the lens contains less sapphire than the exposed part"

        Now I understand not reading TFA before posting on /.; but not even bothering to read TFS?!?

      • Maybe their Chinese manufacturing plants took some shortcuts? Been known to happen, not just on phones, but other things too.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )
      The summary is not even an accurate depiction of the video's conclusion. I watched it about a week ago, so I got through to the end without the urge to jump back to slashdot and comment half way through. He concludes that it is real sapphire, but a much lower grade than used in the Tissot watch (which figures given the price difference), and with a coating on the inside surface to improve the optical qualities. Due to the low quality of the sapphire, it isn't really any more scratch resistant than gorilla g

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Optical glass is almost invariably coated—usually on both sides—to reduce reflections between lens elements that can cause lens flare, and to reduce reflections between the outside element and any filters (or external zoom/wide-angle converters) that folks might stick on the front of the lens. The lens can be as hard as you want; if the coating isn't equally hard (which it won't be), then the hardness of the glass itself is meaningless marketing drivel.

        This is why real camera makers provide le

        • Apple's marketing department has to wait long enough that they can claim 'thicker' as a New Innovative Feature.

          Apple's Engineers??? Apple isn't an engineer-driven company.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by swb ( 14022 )

          IMO, Apple's engineers need to stop kidding themselves by pretending that users care more about thin than about reliability.

          Apple's engineers probably don't get to decide about this, they're just told it has to be thinner by a group of rich, effete old men who pretend that making really thin products is somehow good artistic design and that it means they are still relevant and virile.

          That the camera lens is a bulbous protrusion since the iPhone 6 is probably an item of massive conflict between engineering and the "designers". Improving camera performance has been a design, marketing and engineering goal and one case where marke

    • Not just that, the tests do not demonstrate that sapphire is not used. They just question whether the usage leads to thorough scratch resistance.

  • Sapphire crystal lens cover (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Midnight Thunder ( 17205 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:23AM (#53017359) Homepage Journal

    If you check their website Apple states 'Sapphire crystal lens cover' in the specs of their phones: http://www.apple.com/ca/iphone... [apple.com] , so if you are trying to scratch the underside claiming sapphire, then you are probably doing something wrong?

    Is this a non-story or did I miss something?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by sl3xd ( 111641 )

      Oh, you know, any excuse for a fanboi to rant about the rival team...

      Reality doesn't matter anymore. Just like sports and politics.

      Better pick your tribe soon or you'll be banished for being different.

    • Re:Sapphire crystal lens cover (Score:5, Informative)

      by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @11:08AM (#53017733)

      The problem is that when you try to scratch the front side, the force transfers to the back side and cause a visible and permanent scratch even though the front side stays smooth. It is shown in the video.

    • Is this a non-story or did I miss something?

      I think you missed something: looking for sapphire on the underside is a way to tell if it's sapphire throughout, or just a veneer on the top. By having less (or no) sapphire on the underside, it would appear it's more like a coating applied over glass, not pure sapphire.

      I can't say for certain whether its a non-story; that's up to the millions of customers that purchased phones with the coating, and whether they feel cheated or not.

    • If you check their website Apple states 'Sapphire crystal lens cover' in the specs of their phones: http://www.apple.com/ca/iphone... [apple.com] , so if you are trying to scratch the underside claiming sapphire, then you are probably doing something wrong?

      Is this a non-story or did I miss something?

      This is a non-story. No one would make a lens entirely out of sapphire.

      First, why waste money machining something so hard? Just laminate your lens with it.

      First, sapphire has an anisotropic crystal structure. Its index of refraction will vary with the direction light is traveling through the sapphire. That means image aberrations, or in simple language: blurry, doubled, or color-fringed images.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fermion ( 181285 )
      I woud suspect it was something like a epitaxial layer of safire to coat a glass lens. In fact, depending on how the measurement was done, the lens could be safire. Glass is a generic term to mean a substrate that is not a single crystal, and could be of many compositions, including Aluminum Oxide doped with titanium. One requirement is that the lens does not preferential reflect and visible frequency of light, so that rules out most of what one would commonly call sapphire.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        I woud suspect it was something like a epitaxial layer of safire to coat a glass lens. In fact, depending on how the measurement was done, the lens could be safire. Glass is a generic term to mean a substrate that is not a single crystal, and could be of many compositions, including Aluminum Oxide doped with titanium.

        I'm sorry, but the specification "sapphire crystal lens cover" in ordinary English would mean that the principal component of the lens cover is sapphire crystal. Not a sapphire crystal epitaxi

  • Just a hunch (Score:3)

    by Doug Otto ( 2821601 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @10:56AM (#53017611)
    I suspect a lens made entirely of sapphire glass would have pretty shitty optics. Using it as a cover would allow improved scratch protection and retain acceptable optical properties. Not much different than putting a lens protector over a camera lens. What's the problem?

    • Re:Just a hunch (Score:4, Informative)

      by sl3xd ( 111641 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @11:13AM (#53017789) Journal

      I don't think optics would be the problem: It's impact resistance. While it's great for scratches & abrasions, sapphire is easy to shatter & crack.

      When you have a lens that sticks out of the phone, impact resistance is probably something to consider.

      • somehow this isn't a problem for watch makers

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Megol ( 3135005 )

          Watches aren't riding in peoples pockets, watches aren't likely to be dropped. And if it isn't a problem for watches why is replacement sapphire glass available?

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sl3xd ( 111641 )

            And if it isn't a problem for watches why is replacement sapphire glass available?

            Exactly. Watches DO get cracked sapphire screens, frequently.

            I know a guy who works at an Apple store. He tells me the #1 problem with the Apple watches that have a sapphire screen is it shatters. Shattering is not really a problem with the ion-reinforced glass.

          • Not even sure what you are arguing here. If sapphire lenses were so fragile that they weren't worth using, watch makers wouldn't use them. Obviously whatever tradeoff you believe exists are outweighed by the benefits. Another thing that is obvious is that you have never worn a watch... not sure how it compares with a phone but if you are at least moderately active, they take an absolute beating.

            • Watches swing out and around, exposed, on the end of the wearer's arm. They take a tremendous beating. I recently bought a Pebble Steel. The gorilla glass face on it is holding up really well so far.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Megol ( 3135005 )

              When I want to hammer something I use a hammer, not my watch. Have had the same watch for 23 years now and the only visible wear (unless one takes out a loupe) is that the gold coated details are wearing. But again I take the watch off if using machinery - not only for the safety of the watch but for safety of myself.

      • I don't think optics would be the problem: It's impact resistance. While it's great for scratches & abrasions, sapphire is easy to shatter & crack.

        When you have a lens that sticks out of the phone, impact resistance is probably something to consider.

        When I moved from an iPhone 4 (which had lens-scratching problems), to an iPhone 6, the first thing I checked out was the camera lens. The lens is recessed within its metal mount by about 0.3 mm. This is obviously to protect the lens surface from abrasions, such as when an iPhone is slid across a table.

        Try it yourself. You can feel the recess with your fingernail.

      • When you have a lens that sticks out of the phone, impact resistance is probably something to consider.

        "What a striking photo!"

        "Yeah..."

    • It's not used as a lens, just as a window and if it is flat it isn't going to do anything to the image. The term 'lens' is often used interchangeably as the individual light bending component, or the whole assembly.
    • Seems like that isn't the case [wikipedia.org]. Looks like you can even get some custom order lenses [guildoptics.com] if you would like. In doing a bit more digging it looks like sapphire would be a better material with better light transmission properties over a greater range [rayotek.com].
    • The problem is that using it only as a thin cover does not improve scratch protection (or very little). Apple is advertising sapphire to make people think it will be really better than glass, but it turns out to be just as good as glass so there is no point in calling that sapphire-grade resistant ... which means it is 98% marketing and 2% science.
  • I am curious if the sapphire layer/coating for the lens is done by Apple, or by someone else. Because there is the distinct chance that Apple is using a vendor's tech that they bankrupted to deliver a product that people don't understand and are complaining about.

    • I am curious if the sapphire layer/coating for the lens is done by Apple, or by someone else. Because there is the distinct chance that Apple is using a vendor's tech that they bankrupted to deliver a product that people don't understand and are complaining about.

      GTAT and Apple parted ways, and Apple is simply not using their "tech", partially because GTAT never delivered said "tech". In fact, that was what caused them to file bankruptcy: GTAT failed to meet Apple's deadline, and so Apple withheld a $140 million payment. GTAT is not out of business, but they are out of the 'Apple' business.

      However, as reported by DigiTimes last year, Apple’s now sourcing sapphire displays from three overseas suppliers: South Korea’s Hansol Technics, China’s Harbi

  • My niece dropped her phone (iPhone 6S) in a parking at the beach last week. When she came back to look for it, someone had ran over it. The protective glass cover was shattered while the screen was fine and in a certain angle you can kind of see a faint line on the rear camera. Otherwise, the phone was fine except for some sand that's now embedded in the case.

  • It's a PHONE camera, about as good as it will get is for "snapshots". I love it when I see an article by a manufacturer or blogger saying so and so's smartphone camera is "just as good as a DSLR". Just the math alone tells you the SENSOR of even an APS-C consumer grade DSLR is more than 10 times the size of any of the best smartphone sensors. Quantity of sensors, doesn't equal quality.

  • Article Update. (Score:3)

    by Dishevel ( 1105119 ) on Wednesday October 05, 2016 @02:03PM (#53018995)
    From the article.

    Update October 5th, 1PM ET:
    Apple has confirmed to The Verge that the company uses sapphire in its iPhone camera lens. It appears the correct testing conditions weren't adhered to in JerryRigEverything's tests. "Apple confirms the iPhone 7 camera lens is sapphire, and under proper testing conditions achieves the hardness and purity results expected from sapphire," says an Apple spokesperson.

    Shit. I like hating Apple too.

  • From the Wikipedia page - which anyone with even a slight grounding (university, year 1, lecture about 2 - 3) in mineral optics would have known from minute one of the advertising campaign :

    Crystal system Trigonal
    [...]
    Birefringence 0.008
    Pleochroism Strong

    So, the first line is an absolute killer unless you can ensure that the optical axis of the trigonal crystal is aligned with the optical axis of any lens system you're using (the trilobites learned that 500-odd million years ago when they developed the sc [trilobites.info]

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close