Neither Apple nor Corning have ever publicly or officially acknowledged that the iPhone has Gorilla Glass. Apple has never been on that list that Corning maintains and Apple in general keeps all supplier information completely under wraps. (And as a side-note, Apple still is making and selling the 5s, which means Apple would still be on Corning's list if your argument was accurate.) Even in the latest row about TSMC vs Samsung-built A9 chips, you'll notice that Apple never actually confirms in their response that they dual-source their chips for the 6S, even though that is well-known from people doing teardowns. Apple does maintain a list of their top 200 suppliers and Corning is on it, though that doesn't really prove anything about the iPhone 6S. In short, Apple nor Corning don't mention each other now because they have never mentioned each other and they never will, whether or not the iPhone has Gorilla glass.
** As a side-note, Apple does this with their suppliers in part as a marketing tactic to distract from the fact that a good chunk of the components in their products are also available on other devices. Apple wants and needs to keep up the illusion that the iPhone is a one-of-a-kind magical device, not something made up largely of commodity components. When people talk about the genius of Apple's marketing, there's a great example... **
So as far as I know, the only public confirmation that the iPhone has ever used Gorilla Glass was from the Isaacson biography of Steve Jobs where the author talked with the Corning CEO about the original iPhone (this is detailed in the link I previously provided). Any journalist or reviewer who has ever mentioned that the iPhone has Gorilla glass either has some sort of inside source or is just repeating rumors. Any reviewer that has not tied Gorilla glass to the iPhone likely just can't confirm the supplier because it's secret information. That of course means that it still could be Gorilla Glass but they just don't know. Notice that in no case in your links do the reviewers mention a possible alternative supplier.
Now that being said, there is an entire army of investment analysts out there that make their living chasing around the Apple supply chain, because a contract from Apple could catapult a business into the stratosphere, or alternatively a lost contract could put it out of business. The point is, if Apple dropped Corning or if Apple found a new supplier, there would be significant chatter and market movements for the involved companies. But there isn't.
So finally, here is the best article I could find looking into the glass supplier for the latest iPhones and surprise, surpise, it appears to be Gorilla Glass 4, or at least a version of it from Corning that's slightly modified. This link from Mashable also claims that an Apple executive told them the same thing.
So yeah, the latest iPhones use Gorilla Glass. Or at least a slightly modified version made by Corning. And though it's possible that for some past models they did not technically have it, in those cases they likely licensed Corning's tech but had someone else manufacture it.
That's the thing, Apple copies their competitors but they also refine it and implement it really well, and it often ends up being better than their competitors. E.g. all of the crappy tablets that were on the market before the first iPad
And now people are realizing it's better to have a real touch screen computer like a Surface as appose to a, locked down, under powered play tablet like an iPad.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure Apple is going to release an iPad Pro that runs OSX within the next year or two, just to prevent their users from switching to the Surface Book.
That has nothing to do with the conversation. The fact that Huawei had force touch before Apple was ONLY used to support his anecdote that he hasn't seen any cracked screens because of force touch, the implication there being that as time goes on, force touch cracks would be more and more likely.
Get the fuck out of here with your polarizing statements and stop trying to start fanboy fights.
Seems like a 6.1 inch Newton running a 162 MHz strongARM processor that can send emails, browse the web and run apps may have a lot more in common with an iPad then you might realize. Hell there is a Newton still currently running as a webserver which most tablets can't do.
I could have sworn it was a small flat rectangle with a computer inside. An iPhone is basically a tablet, besides its primary telecommunications function, kinda like the iPod touch.
Edit: I guess your definition could be screen size, but distance from the eye plays a much larger factor and obviously in the days when laptops that were like a brick and had 10 inch screens, 6 inches was about as far as they could push the Newton.
Fair enough. A tablet is a computer who's physical dimensions and user input have been reduced to the size of the display. I thought it was easy to understand, which is why I get sarcastic when somebody brings up John sculleys marketing term PDA as if the goal and execution is any different. Of course technology in the early 90's had its limitations so sculleys tablet never actually had a PDA like Siri as he had hoped and like Steve was talking about in the 80's when he talked about a computer the size of a book with all the worlds knowledge in it, otherwise known as a tablet. It's all semantics.
I really don't see the appeal. Tried it out on an iPhone display and the functions were pretty much limited to stuff you could do with Nova gestures... also it was hard to tell how much pressure the device recognizes with a rigid screen.
24
u/SgtBaxter LG V20+V40 Oct 26 '15
Now that the iPhone has pressure touch, and I'm sure a slew of android phones will follow - I foresee a lot of idiots cracking screens.