Michal Ždanský Last week discovered an authentic-looking glass front panel of the upcoming iPhone 6 procured by Sony Dickson. In the past, this has already managed to obtain some components of iPhones and iPads, which, for example, revealed the existence of a plastic iPhone 5c or a gold 5s. He handed the panel over to well-known YouTuber Marques Brownlee, who tested the panel against rough handling, including stabbing. He therefore came to the opinion that it is probably a sapphire display, which, according to the video, was also claimed by a British expert on this material.
[youtube id=b7ANcWQEUI8 width=”620″ height=”360″]
Despite this, we remained skeptical with the fact that it is not entirely clear from the video whether it is indeed a sapphire. Brownlee was also skeptical and subjected the panel to a second test, this time with sandpaper. Sandpaper can really test the hardness of a given material. On the Mohs scale of hardness, sapphire (corundum) is the second highest after diamond, which means that only diamond is able to scratch sapphire. Gorilla Glass, meanwhile, scores around 6,8 out of 10. The sandpaper Brownlee used was equivalent to a 7 on the scale, and it soon became clear that it wasn't actually sapphire as it left scratches on the panel.
Compared to the iPhone 5s, which was also subjected to the durability test, the scratches were significantly less obvious. On the contrary, the sapphire glass that covers the Touch ID remained intact. So the result is that the alleged iPhone 6 panel is significantly more scratch-resistant than the iPhone 5s panel, but it's not sapphire glass. Brownlee suggests that it could still be a hybrid material made up of artificial sapphire that Apple kept patent last year, but it is more likely that this is the third generation of Gorilla Glass.
So what will Apple do with its sapphire production and pre-ordered material for more than half a billion dollars to do? Apart from making Touch ID cover glasses and camera lens covers, where Apple already uses sapphire, the best offering is for the iWatch or similar wrist-worn device.
This is more credible than Apple putting sapphire in there.
You know what will be best? Wait a little over a month and see :)
These leaked components, photos, all sorts of assumptions and conjectures only lead to disappointment and talk like Apple didn't introduce anything that no one knew in advance and here this and there... just let yourself be surprised! ;)
The author (by the way, not for the first time) claims something in a way that does not allow for any other explanation. Didn't it occur to you that the glass might not be IP6 (or whatever it will be labeled as)? I don't know how it will be, but for God's sake, where do you always get that assurance. If you assume that Dickson was right before then try to remember (or look up) who put the first IP4 videos and photos into the world. The fact that something was successful once does not mean that it is not wrong now. I'm not saying he's wrong, but….
Like this, if we didn't think it was an authentic part, we wouldn't have published the article. Given that it's being tested by Brownlee (who is trustworthy and also believes it's authentic) and given the proven durability where a fake regular glass component would otherwise burn, I believe this is indeed a future iPhone panel.
Well, you see, here you think and assume, but the article sounds like it's a done deal. I'm not saying it won't be, I just find it annoying how conjecture with opinions, no matter who they are, is presented as fact. And if it (surprisingly) doesn't work out, another article will come out, where it will be stated that even the authors of the previous article didn't care (although they originally stated it as a fact) and that they were right. But that's the general characteristic of authors, it's more sensational and more enticing, they'll provide "facts" instead of "rumour".
It certainly wasn't supposed to sound like that, it's still in the "maybe" department. We certainly do not intend to present rumors as fact for the sake of pageviews. I edited the penultimate paragraph to make it clear. Either way, the headline makes it clear that this is still an "allegedly leaked" panel.
With all due respect, corundum, sapphire and abrasive insert in sandpaper is the same substance - Al2O3, and it always has the same hardness, except for modifications. And according to the Mohs scale of hardness, it is obvious that the scratch can be made either with the material itself or with a harder material. Just like when a diamond abrasive polishes diamonds into rings.
But the sapphire touchID didn't scratch that, so the dispay must be softer than sapphire
And wouldn't it be because it is more immersed in the body and the hard sandpaper didn't push through there?
I personally expect an emerald display with a ruby touch id all in a tungsten body for a price under 20K. Hello