WSJ: why Apple's iPhone sapphire plans fell through
- D
- AnonD-310979
- 0aZ
- 23 Nov 2014
The only Sapphire I know of is Dusty Rhodes' former valet the old chubby lady known as Sapphire hehe
As Sensational Sherri would say, "Sapphire!! You common woman!!" lol wow I'm so off topic
- j
- jay34
- Hkf
- 21 Nov 2014
For a website specialized in mobile devices, I found we simplify this story way too much. I invite readers to look for the Guradian article "The desperate struggle at the heart of the brutal Apple supply chain" and get a better insight in this industry.
- i
- i_ssan
- PU3
- 21 Nov 2014
In 2006, Corning Glass was not ready for 3.5" screen.
In 2007, iPhone was the first to use it and it brought Corning Glass to smart phone world.
In 2013, GTAT was not ready for 5.5" screen.
In 2014, GTAT was .........
- D
- Dot-WiFi
- IV$
- 21 Nov 2014
thinkbeforeyouspeak, 20 Nov 2014ha ha ha really?he dont know what is iphone ... he only listened to internet
- ?
- Anonymous
- UD{
- 20 Nov 2014
Anonymous, 20 Nov 2014That's right, I never had one and I am never going to have ... moreAnd you are not required.
- D
- AnonD-152638
- mhB
- 20 Nov 2014
I think there is no way, that Apple had plans to equip all iPhones 6 or iPhone 6 plus with saphire glass. They would not employ GT for such a large production this early on in their progress.
Apple traditionally leaves the limited edition iPhones to third party. Perhaps they had plans to change that, but I doubt it, since they were looking at low cost Saphire glass, that had potential to in some years time make it on to their standard iPhones.
The deal could have been only for their watch, with plans to scale up productions later on, if proven successfull. But still, seems like quite a bit of a gamble, only a year to ramp up productions, to the levels Apple needs for their watches, cause we can bet apple is hoping for a lot of sales. However, since their watch will come in several of editions, perhaps this sapphire glass was just for the more expensive variants, this time around, to make it to the full series for their next release.
Sure Apple was probably hoping to one day put Saphire glass on their iPhones, but it wasnt realistic to do it on this generation. And since there were no rumours of Samsung releasing sapphire glass phones (at least not before we heard about Apples deal) Apple would not have been stressed to get in to the market. Apple would want to gamble unless they felt forced to do so. Sure, a deal with Corning could have gone very wrong, but I doubt corning would have the guts to turn Apple down, in order to try get a better deal.
So the story that iPhone 6 was to get sapphire glass covered displays is probably not true.
There is a small chance that this technology could have made it to the iPhone 7. And that GT was pushed to start mass producing soon, to be in the run for a deal with Apple. And if that is so, GT are to blame for how badly they handled it.
If it was really meant for iPhone 6, then Apple is to blame for such a stupid gamble, on untried and untested technology.
If it was meant for Apples watch, things could have been handled better. It would still be strange that Apple would gamble in that way. But then they would have always had the chance to only use it on the more expensive variants, if productions didnt scale up in time. If Apple kept pushing for GT to deliver enough for all their watches, well, yet again that would have been a stupid gamble, that could potentially delay their launch, cause little time would be left to sign a deal with another company to deliver the glass. Seeing how things turned out, the seems like a likely scenario, however. With partly Apple to blame for trying to push technology, by putting pressure on a small company. And by doing so gambling on keeping their intended delivery date. And GT to blame, for not handling it properly, not employing the right people. Not having the courage to tell Apple that it will likely not happend. And perhaps keeping some problems with their production in the dark, in hope to be able to turn things around before they had to deliver.
- ?
- Anonymous
- 9E7
- 20 Nov 2014
thinkbeforeyouspeak, 20 Nov 2014ha ha ha really?ha ha ha yes really.
- ?
- Anonymous
- 9E7
- 20 Nov 2014
That's right, I never had one and I am never going to have one because I am not going give Apple my money for such a piece of something.
- t
- thinkbeforeyouspeak
- TKj
- 20 Nov 2014
Anonymous, 20 Nov 2014Doesn't matter what glass is on it. iPhone is shit. An over... moreha ha ha really?
- N
- Nick
- M{V
- 20 Nov 2014
Anonymous, 20 Nov 2014Doesn't matter what glass is on it. iPhone is shit. An over... moreThis uncompromising post clearly shows you never had one... Please think before you post
- s
- stonemann
- t7Q
- 20 Nov 2014
sapphire is good for watches that will last for years, what is the use of sapphire in your phone after it become outdated after few years. unless you can take it and attach in your new phone. technology is very fast, flexible oleds are coming and we can't attach our precious sapphire on it.
- ?
- Anonymous
- pqk
- 20 Nov 2014
Anonymous, 20 Nov 2014Doesn't matter what glass is on it. iPhone is shit. An over... moreWell said!
- ?
- Anonymous
- JcN
- 20 Nov 2014
such an expensive material with a medicore hardware,Tge reason offcorse is to make peopke buy faster phones when they get slow with the updates
- ?
- Anonymous
- 9E7
- 20 Nov 2014
Doesn't matter what glass is on it. iPhone is shit. An overpriced crap with 4 years old technology.
- ?
- Anonymous
- Hkt
- 20 Nov 2014
lets go, 20 Nov 2014I don't agree withn the Apple revised version as Apple anno... moreDid you read the WSJ article? It was the production of the sapphire glass that was the issue. It doesn't matter how thin it was or how it would be laminated on normal glass.
You'll see in the article how the big pieces of glass (which were to be later cut into the screens) were all coming out cracked.
Yes your point with vertu is correct. Sapphire has been used by them but thanks to their cost their requirements are low. And making smaller pieces has been in production for years in watch industry.
However Apple would need large quantites(unlike vertu) of screen size sheets (unlike watches). The mistake Apple and GT did was to try and push a technology that was not consumer scale production ready in a short timeline.
- ?
- Anonymous
- Hkt
- 20 Nov 2014
TimeTech, 20 Nov 2014Who's fault this, definitely not Samsung or even GT, it was... moreErr. Did you bother reading the full article at wsj? How is only managing to supply 10% of the promised glass not a problem on GTs part?
It claims that Apple was even willing to keep the whole thing going before GT filed for bankruptcy after which it informed Apple that it did so..
Apple was trying to push for a technology which wasn't production ready and that too on a stringent timeline. And well such things happen to fail sometimes. Obviously they couldn't push forward their iphone 6 launch..
- l
- lets go
- IaH
- 20 Nov 2014
AnonD-298939, 20 Nov 2014I remember when this story first broke everyone here was bl... moreI don't agree withn the Apple revised version as Apple announced (hinted) at this in 2013, after the IP5S launch and bought the signed the deal in Feb 2014
It is down to image and Apple projecting the iPhone as premium (PRICE ONLY) product whilst not actually providing one.
There is NO other rational explanation that supports another conclusion
I read up on article that interest me, my assessment is this
I guess Vertu phones IMO have caught Apples eye, Apple seeing Sapphire on arguably the most expensive phones an ANDROID phone wanted to emulate
FACT: We know VERTU already uses Sapphire glass on its phone.
The problem is NOT Sapphire Glass itself, it is the expense of Sapphire
So it is OK for Vertu as their phones "Ain't Cheap" so there, buy it if you can afford it
Corning Gorilla glass is $3 THREE DOLLARS per phone
Sapphire Glass cost 10 times more $30 THIRTY DOLLARS per phone
Vertu phones cost typically $5000 plus
So Vertu can either passes on the extra $27 to its customer or take a $27 hit per phone which isn’t going to affect profits or put a buyer off
My take is this is Sapphire is "show only” if Vertu luxury and all that uses Sapphire well Apple also
Apple iPhones are premium (PRICE ONLY) devices
Apple jumped on the "Sapphire" bandwagon
The problem was NOT Sapphire Glass itself but Apple wanted a "cheaper version" of Sapphire Glass! reported here
http://www.gsmarena.com/apples_sapphire_display_cost_may_be_lower_than_we_think-news-9353.php
GT produced this version of Sapphire Glass (sapphire glass "lite") which is then sent to the finishers.
Each piece of Sapphire Glass has to be added to the display manually in a ‘isolation’ room ensuring no dust or any other matter get trapped
This is the low yield reported.
Afaik is NOT a production problem, in part using a "cut down" version of what Vertu adds to its phones
Prior to the display being added the sapphire glass must be joined to the display and this is done manually
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/512411/your-next-smartphone-screen-may-be-made-of-sapphire/
I note that Apple did NOT go back to Gorilla Glass using shatterproof glass instead.
The "switch" to Sapphire was so it could join the elite, whilst offering a product that includes the word Sapphire and clearly NOT Sapphire.
If the Sapphire (Vertu) were used then both the iPhone6 & 6+ would have been sapphire coated.
Apple have a strict profit margin markup policy which a FULL COST sapphire coating would have lessened so
It should come as no surprise to find out the origins of the iPhone 6, an "original" and the "copy"
http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3?idPhone1=4910&idPhone2=6378
I can only conclude the new block just days was to try the process again and NOT the reason for the failure as Apple knew in 2013 the iPhone6 launch
- ?
- Anonymous
- Mx@
- 20 Nov 2014
Anonymous, 20 Nov 2014>signing a deal with no track record company they deser... morenot a fair comment as a lot of people lost their jobs due to this. when you are in the situation where you are faced with losing your job, then you will wish you had never said those words son
- D
- AnonD-101046
- 3pS
- 20 Nov 2014
If people bothered in general to actually read the news on sapphire manufacturing prior to GT being acquired by Apple they would know that the breakthrough in creating large quantities of the crystal was not even a year old and as the article states it was only a few days before the purchase that the FIRST finalized, in a way, block was created. When a new technology or manufacturing process emerges it takes around 24 months to be implemented in true-world conditions and production, not immediately. Personally I think Apple did a HUGE mistake to destroy GT Technologies unless it was a corporate move to create a new subsidiary or buy one in order for the latter to acquire GT's assets in a fraction of the price, which is morally ambiguous but the perfect business plan when you actually want to make money and not just spend it..
- T
- TimeTech
- 6p2
- 20 Nov 2014
Who's fault this, definitely not Samsung or even GT, it was Apple's, they must know the consumption better than anyone else not even GT. Foxcon the basic mass producer of Apple products has to expand the capacity based on Apple's total plan & they are not going to disclose any such information to anyone, this is how Apple works, no competitor, no disclosure, that's not the world works.
Do we remember how expensive the iphones before Samsung & other's captured the trend of smartphone.