“For the Apple Watch, the question of durability translates pretty directly into cost, since the base-model Apple Watch Sport is made from different materials than the more expensive Apple Watch version,” Glenn Derene reports for Consumer Reports. “The face on the $350 to $400 aluminum-bodied Sport model is constructed from what Apple describes as ‘Ion-X’ glass, which is essentially a hardened glass similar to the Corning Gorilla Glass found on many smartphones.”
“The stainless-steel Apple Watch ($550 to $1,100) and gold Apple Watch Edition ($10,000 to $17,000) models have a sapphire-crystal face, a super-hard material used on high-end watches from manufacturers such as Rolex and Breitling,” Derene reports. “Since a base-model Apple Watch is a $200 premium over a base-model Apple Watch Sport, we wondered just how much tougher the sapphire crystal is than the Ion-X glass.”
“The sapphire crystal performed as expected, which is to say very well. It survived a 9-rated pick from our [Mohs material hardness testing] kit. The Apple Watch Sport made it up to a 7-rated pick without damage, but was scratched by an 8-rated pick,” Derene reports. “So the face of the Apple Watch is definitely harder than that of the Apple Watch Sport. But the performance of the hardened glass of the Sport model is pretty impressive as well. An 8 on the Mohs scale is equivalent to topaz, just one step below sapphire, and it means that it takes quite an abrasive material to scratch Apple’s glass.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: We’re only covering this because Consumer Reports (of which we couldn’t have a lower opinion) used an actual standard test – Mohs – which gives accurate results and gives buyers a sence of how Ion-X glass fares vs. sapphire crystal.
Related articles:
Consumer Reports stress test: Apple’s iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus not very bendable at all – September 26, 2014
Consumer Reports evaluates iTunes Store movie streaming, confusion ensues – August 13, 2012
How Apple and facts killed Consumer Reports – March 29, 2012
Consumer Reports was no iPhone killer and they’re no iPad killer, either – March 28, 2012
Tests prove Apple’s new iPad heat levels comparable to Android tablets – March 26, 2012
Expert: iPad heat claims overblown, not a real issue – March 22, 2012
What’s the deal with Consumer Reports and Apple? – March 21, 2012
Consumer Reports’ bombshell: New iPad runs hotter than predecessor but ‘not especially uncomfortable’ – March 20, 2012
FUD Alert: Consumer Reports to ‘investigate’ reports of iPad and ‘excess heat’ – March 20, 2012
Consumer Reports hops off free PR gravy train, officially recommends Apple iPhone 4S – November 8, 2011
Why does anyone believe Consumer Reports? – April 6, 2011
Consumer Reports on iPad 2: We didn’t notice any significant speed improvement – March 15, 2011
Consumer Reports was wrong on Verizon iPhone 4; so-called ‘death grip’ fixed by Apple – March 2, 2011
Consumer Reports: Verizon iPhone 4 has antenna ‘problem’; not recommended – February 25, 2011
Consumer Reports continues laughable vendetta against iPhone 4 – January 14, 2011
Android sweeps Consumer Reports’ rankings as iPhone 4 is omitted – November 17, 2010
All of Consumer Reports’ ‘recommended’ smartphones suffer attenuation when held – July 19, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s free Bumper case does not earn iPhone 4 our recommendation – July 16, 2010
Consumer Reports: Apple’s Bumper case fixes iPhone 4 signal-loss issue – July 15, 2010
Consumer Reports continues harping on iPhone 4 attenuation issue – July 14, 2010
Electromagnetic engineer: Consumer Reports’ iPhone 4 study flawed – July 13, 2010
The Consumer Reports – Apple iPhone 4 fiasco – July 13, 2010
Consumer Reports: Oh yeah, almost forgot, Apple iPhone 4 is also the best smartphone on the market – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports: We cannot recommend Apple iPhone 4 – July 12, 2010
Consumer Reports does their readership a disservice, says viruses target Apple Macs – December 13, 2005
Consumer Reports: Apple’s new iPod screens scratch-prone like iPod nanos – October 28, 2005
Consumer Reports dubiously finds 20-percent of Mac users ‘detected’ virus in last two years -UPDATED – August 10, 2005
I ignore all CR reviews. Not just for electronics, but for everything.
That attitude seems very short-sighted to me. While I do not read CR much now, I used to have a subscription. For some stuff – electronics, for example – I paid very little attention to their dot ratings. But the other aspects of their evaluations could still be helpful. Mostly, I looked to CR to help with mundane things like hand tools, tires, stain and paint, etc. They performed standardized aging, durability, strength, and corrosion tests that were informative for me. I also found their consumer survey results for reliability, etc. to be interesting.
Few things are all good or all bad. A wise person extracts value from all sources.
I think about all they are good for anymore is the yearly car owner surveys.
I ditched CR back in the early 70’s. When I read their reviews of stereo receivers and realized that they based the majority of the score on FM tuner performance. I didn’t use the FM that much. The only time I agreed with CR was a review of canned hams.
Canned hams – Ha
To be fair, CR did chime in immediately after the bogus ‘bendgate’ bullshit and point out exactly what force it took to cause a significant as well as destructive bend in an iPhone 6 Plus. CR also measured the bendability of some Android knockoffs, pointing out that they had equal or worse ratings. IOW: They have attempted to redeem themselves after years of willful Apple ignorance and hate.
They do seem to be trying to redeem themselves, though they have some blemishes in their history not limited to Apple. Years ago they rated a Remington as the best electric razor. Remington advertized that fact, to which CR of course had strong objections. Remington ignored them and kept advertizing. The next year the Remington razor somehow plunged to near the bottom of their reviews. Their defense? “Oh no, the advertizing thing had nothing to do with it! All the others just got better. Honest.”
Also advertising. Sheesh 🙂
I’d be surprised if the glass used on the Watch Sport is not “similar to” but exactly Corning’s Gorilla Glass. Apple’s just being coy with the name because it really does want to move to sapphire screens for everything, when it can.
I would be more surprised if Croning allowed Apple to call its Gorilla Glass something other than Gorilla Glass, since Corning has spent quite a bit of money marketing the Gorilla Glass brand the past few years.
Awareness of something as a meaning is spelled “sense” not “sence”, gentlemen. May I suggest you correct the misspelling in your MDN take? “Sence” is a river in Leistetershire, England with Tributaries such as the Saint and the Tweed.
I’ve found the Mohs hardness test to be too harsh, sometimes down right abusive.
I now prefer the Larry or Curly test method… Nyaaaayaaaaa…. wooob, wooob, wooob, wooob, wooob,