There’s certainly a benefit to Apple’s use of sapphire crystal on Apple Watch. It’s extremely scratch resistant (even though stainless steel may not be) and will hold up over time, but how does it compare to sapphire crystal used in traditional watches? In a new video published by Unbox Therapy, Apple Watch was put up against a Tissot watch to see if Apple’s standards for sapphire crystal match up with traditional watchmakers….
The test was performed with a diamond tester, which tests the conductivity of various materials, but usually for evaluating jewelry. Standard glass will not provide a reading with the diamond tester, while sapphire crystal (or other gems) will provide a readout based on its conductivity. That being said, there’s no better way to evaluate the sapphire crystal’s authenticity on Apple Watch and compare it to high-end analog watches.
Check out the video below for a closer look at the test and results:
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rrrKEYY6Kg]
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
Very cool video.
I’ve always enjoyed Unbox Therapy’s delivery style (long before the Bendgate phenom made him super-famous), and I like his straightforward approach. This is another example of getting the lowdown on the latest tech and answering questions other reviewers don’t even think to ask.
I also like that he addresses the difficulty Apple went to to bring sapphire to market in exactly the way they wanted, despite the trouble they had to go to to get it done right.
Agreed. Now, I look forward to MKBHDs review.
Mkbhd review: it’s not Google, it’s crap. Apple is bad.
Should shut up some of the people that doubt the craftsmanship of the phone. I’m now looking at my stainless steel model more as a timepiece, I was really worried that it would be another gadget like the pebble watch that I would be selling on eBay in a few weeks. Quality. When you compare the price to that basic watch timepiece in the video, it’s worth every penny.
*watch!
Again, Apple is awesome!
I wince every time I watch one of this guy’s videos. While I’m not expecting a professor from MIT, you would think that someone publishing a video claiming to prove or disprove some technical issue would go to some effort to a) thoroughly research and understand the basis for the test he is about to conduct and b) explain the process to his viewers.
This guy has clearly not done either of the above. His explanation for how one can differentiate glass from diamond, sapphire, what he calls “other special materials” is cringeworthy. So he goes on to explain that glass doesn’t conduct electricity, but those other special materials do.
After performing the test, he concludes that the Apple Watch has genuine sapphire because his gadget showed a reading of 8! What is that supposed to mean?
He never explains whether a particular reading is supposed to correspond with a particular material, or which readings are associated with which materials. On top of this, his gadget has a dial labeled “volume” which he fiddles with while mumbling something about adjusting “sensitivity.”
Based on his technical explanation, assuming we take it to be true, the only thing his test concluded was that the steel Apple watch’s crystal is not made of glass. He provided no reasoning or explanation as to why it couldn’t be another material. it could be diamond, or perhaps some other “special material” like emerald, ruby, quartz, or how about an electrically conductive plastic?
A five minute Google search reveals that “while diamond testers have been fairly successful, attempts to use this technology to detect colored gemstones have not fared nearly as well.” Wikipedia’s entry on gemstones indicates that that proper methods for identifying gemstones is by testing their refractive index, specific gravity, or via spectroscopy. Not one word about electrical conductivity.
Yes, the problem with haters and doubters out there is that they always compare features. They do not have any regard to design or materials. I saw a comment early claiming that Moto 360 is king of smartwatches. Moto 360 is indeed a phone strapped to your wrist in round shape, that is not really round. It is not a time piece – its a gadget. People need to understand that what makes traditional watches valuable are materials. Every watch tells time, but one cost $30 and another $100K.
Also, it lacks a ton of features to the apple watch.
And doesn’t even last for half a day when subject to use of all its functions…
What would you expect from Apple?