Apple Watch

grumbler

SLZ wrote: »

That's how they used to be but now they protect against physical damage to the screen.

From breaking/cracking? I don't believe in magic.
Scratch is 'physical damage' too.
Modern protectors have a thin flexible glass layer. It does protect... the protector from scratching ...

Source: I have screen protectors.

Not very reliable source I would say.

SLZ

grumbler wrote: »

From breaking/cracking? I don't believe in magic.
Scratch is 'physical damage' too.
Modern protectors have a thin flexible glass layer. It does protect... the protector from scratching ...
Not very reliable source I would say.

I've dropped my phone multiple times and the screen hasn't cracked. The protector has smashed and need a replacement but that was £10 vs £150+ for the phone screen. If you get a scratch protector then that's on you but if you get the hard screen protector, that protects the screen.

grumbler

This doesn't prove anything.

• Buy two identical watches.
• Add a protector to one.
• Make a setup allowing to drop a metal ball from the same heigh exactly to the centre of the watch.
• Keep dropping it to both watches in turn while increasing the heigh gradually.
• Report back at what heigh each screen breaks.

This will count as a more or less (depending on the quality of the setup) reliable source.

I agree that the glass layer of the protector is likely to break first, before the screen, but this doesn't prove that it protects the screen from breaking.

If you don't want to waste money, find trustworthy results of a similar experiment.

ETA: and even for an ideal setup there still will be a big variance, i.e. the critical height will be noticeably different for identical watches with (or without) a protector. For really reliable result you need to compare several watches without protectors and several with protectors. The more the better.

shortcrust

Give me a few scratches over a screen protector any day. I'd rather do this.

TadleyBaggie

SLZ wrote: »

I've dropped my phone multiple times and the screen hasn't cracked.

Me too, but I don't use a protector...

callum9999

grumbler wrote: »

This doesn't prove anything.

• Buy two identical watches.
• Add a protector to one.
• Make a setup allowing to drop a metal ball from the same heigh exactly to the centre of the watch.
• Keep dropping it to both watches in turn while increasing the heigh gradually.
• Report back at what heigh each screen breaks.

This will count as a more or less (depending on the quality of the setup) reliable source.

I agree that the glass layer of the protector is likely to break first, before the screen, but this doesn't prove that it protects the screen from breaking.

If you don't want to waste money, find trustworthy results of a similar experiment.

ETA: and even for an ideal setup there still will be a big variance, i.e. the critical height will be noticeably different for identical watches with (or without) a protector. For really reliable result you need to compare several watches without protectors and several with protectors. The more the better.

I'd also be interested in seeing that, but conventional wisdom is that the higher quality tempered glass screen protectors do slightly (emphasise on slightly) help prevent screen damage by absorbing some of the shock. In the majority of cases the protector will break before the glass would break because it's weaker than the glass on the phone - but the energy that caused that protector to break now isn't being transmitted into the screen, so it could possibly have prevented it cracking.

On an Apple Watch however I can't see that having any noticeable effect.

That being said, being a scientist, I can't just accept this as fact without clear evidence - hence the "conventional wisdom" bit, which doesn't necessarily make it true!

andyfromotley

Completely anecdotal but screen protectors definitly help reduce screen breakage on phones.
Grumbler - nominate me for my nobel prize asap!

meer53

I wouldn't call an Apple watch a sports watch ? Do Apple class it as a sports watch ? I'd class it as a normal watch, sports watches tend to have extra protection like plastic/rubber casing, the Apple watch has no extra casing at all.

Just noticed they have one called "Sport" looks the same as all the others to me !

boo_star

callum9999 wrote: »

I'd also be interested in seeing that, but conventional wisdom is that the higher quality tempered glass screen protectors do slightly (emphasise on slightly) help prevent screen damage by absorbing some of the shock. In the majority of cases the protector will break before the glass would break because it's weaker than the glass on the phone - but the energy that caused that protector to break now isn't being transmitted into the screen, so it could possibly have prevented it cracking.

On an Apple Watch however I can't see that having any noticeable effect.

That being said, being a scientist, I can't just accept this as fact without clear evidence - hence the "conventional wisdom" bit, which doesn't necessarily make it true!

As a scientist you would surely know the physics that would make it possible?

If the screen protector cracks then it has clearly absorbed some of the energy of the impact. If there's less energy hitting the screen it's less likely to crack itself.

boo_star

meer53 wrote: »

I wouldn't call an Apple watch a sports watch ? Do Apple class it as a sports watch ? I'd class it as a normal watch, sports watches tend to have extra protection like plastic/rubber casing, the Apple watch has no extra casing at all.

Just noticed they have one called "Sport" looks the same as all the others to me !

The cheaper model is called the "Sport" but I don't believe it's marketed as a "sports" watch, which usually means things like stopwatch features and such. In watches anyway.