Apple’s next iPhone might be a scratch-proof looker

Apple
Apple

It’s already 2025 and speculations are rife that the new Apple iPhone 17 will blow everyone away with its undeniable display. Recently leaked information includes an “anti-reflective, super-hard” coating on each side of the display with greater scratch resistance than the existing ceramic shield on the iPhone 15 models. This consideration of China as a source suggests a major change that is likely to improve the durability of iPhones.

The partnership between Apple and Corning with Ceramic Shield has helped develop technology that impacts its durability. But the iPhone 17 display can be upgraded internally. Fabrication-wise, the refreshed coating technology may not be included in the iPhone 16 when it hits Apple warehouses soon, but it will be a ‘selling point’ when the iPhone 17 arrives.

Edge-to-edge cutouts and endless dark zones are the main features of this display innovation. However, the latest Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra has Corning’s Gorilla Glass armor which shows almost the same features. This technology incredibly reduces the level of reflections while making it resistant to minor scratches that come with normal smartphone screens. Corning confirms that it is up to ten times more resistant to scratches than other types of glasses.

The camera lens cover with the promoted name is believed to be Gorilla Glass armor; However, it is unclear whether Apple will directly adopt this technology. This matches the reported characteristics. While Samsung and Sharp’s suits have grouped around the Corning formula, Apple is doing something similar, but on its terms. Being an Apple supplier, Corning has quite a legacy of collaborating with the company. Thus, such a venture would not be surprising.

Now, this deal provides another argument for waiting for the iPhone 17. The phone could have a beyond-the-ordinary and crystal clear (break-proof) display and if it successfully enhances both performance and user experience, the state-of-the-art phone description would not be an exaggeration.

Source