So what, if Sapphire is a better solution, why not. Apple didn't invent sapphire. Sapphire has been around a long time.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung and LG Reportedly Exploring Sapphire Crystal Displays
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So what, if Sapphire is a better solution, why not. Apple didn't invent sapphire. Sapphire has been around a long time.
I have already gone over many of your points in the last few pages. Not going to repeat here.
But given that Samsung is still following Apple's gold phone last year. And fingerprint this year. You can be sure that if Apple hadn't sued, Samsung will copy more to try to share parts cost more.
I wonder about the Healthbook rumor now.
As for the 5S name, even if it's their 5th iteration, companies will pick other dissimilar names to differentiate themselves. Just look at everyone on the market. S2-S5 is a play off the iPhone s series and release schedule.
Samsung had an S the S2 phone first. May 2011 vs the iPhone 4s in November 2011.
Company A invents something.
Company B comes along and says "we can use that!" and buys Something.
Company C comes along and says "we can use that too!"...
Company B flips "How dare you, we got it first!!!!"
Company A just wants to sell their Something to as many possible customers as possible.
If Apple had invented Saphire crystal and it was being copied by others, then the bitching and moaning would have some benefit.
But Sapphire has been around for years. Sapphire was not invented by Apple, but by a completely different company. What Apple has done is buy manufacturing capabilities to produce the glass quantities they want.
Why should the company that invented Sapphire "glass" not have the rights to sell that to everyone else?
same thing went for Gorilla glass. Apple didnt invent it. Corning had every right to sell their invention to whomever else wanted to buy it.
Company B comes along and says "we can use that!" and buys Something.
Company C comes along and says "we can use that too!"...
Company B flips "How dare you, we got it first!!!!"
Company A just wants to sell their Something to as many possible customers as possible.
If Apple had invented Saphire crystal and it was being copied by others, then the bitching and moaning would have some benefit.
But Sapphire has been around for years. Sapphire was not invented by Apple, but by a completely different company. What Apple has done is buy manufacturing capabilities to produce the glass quantities they want.
Why should the company that invented Sapphire "glass" not have the rights to sell that to everyone else?
same thing went for Gorilla glass. Apple didnt invent it. Corning had every right to sell their invention to whomever else wanted to buy it.
Maybe he prefers it named this way:
Samsung S
Samsung SII
Samsung SIII
Samsung SIV
Samsung SV
Because according to him Apple invented numbers.
So I guess you are done with iPad and Macs as well? Pop open them and see how many Samsung components there are.
Apple filed an application for the idea of melting or gluing two different planar orientations of sapphire together. The same application also claimed the (not so novel) idea of bonding thin glass to thin sapphire.
For years, sapphire has been bonded to glass and plastic to make such things as scratch resistant bulletproof windows, so it'll be interesting to see if other makers file opposition.
In any case, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. For example, there's nothing in the patent about bonding sapphire to a plastic substrate, which would be even cheaper and lighter
I think the main reason others backed off, was because the cost per device was only predicted to lower from about $30 to about $10... a lot of that in electricity. Apple's getting around that by 1) moving production from the Northeast to the Southwest, and 2) adding a giant solar farm. OTOH, China has some monster hydroelectric dams.
They also have invented manufacturing, processing, and finishing capabilities to deal with the substance, many of which lowered the economic barriers to the usage of the material in the first place. This is not off the shelf buying, but a collaboration with the sapphire industry. Their new plant, on its own, will ramp up to over twice the production capability of sapphire for the entire planet once its at full steam. That's not as trivial or blasé as your wording suggests. In fact its a manufacturing/supply chain feat of engineering.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...e-industry-and-will-transform-it-in-2014.html
New cutting techniques: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...tting-techniques-for-processing-sapphire.html
Sapphire growth techniques: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2014/04/apples-invents-sapphire-growth-systems.html
Sapphire/Glass lamination processes: http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...to-iphone-ipad-future-iwatch-cover-glass.html
Apple is able to use intangibles like marginally better cameras as upgrade motivators, I don't think they will have a hard time with sapphire crystal display covers. I can just see Tim Cook or some other Apple executive doing a 5 minute demo about the wonders of sapphire and how it's usually only used in luxury products like high end watches... complete with scratch demo with Johnny Ive on video showing how amazing it is. Apple is going to sell the hell out of it if/when it makes its way to the iPhone.
Honestly, there's nothing wrong with companies copying other companies (as long as no patents are infringed). What I dont get is why so many people still defend Samsung when they don't even try to hide the fact that they just do whatever apple does. On top of that they DO infringe patents while doing it.
It just makes no sense that people defend samsung, when even samsung would tell you theyre copying apple.
It just makes no sense that people defend samsung, when even samsung would tell you theyre copying apple.
Agreed, Nokia should sue Apple.
(Nokia spun off Vertu in 2002, which always had sapphire screens on their phones.)
/s
Last edited:
It's apples economy of scale kicking in that lowers the barrier of entry to make it cheap enough. At current world capacity a sapphire screen costs $20-$45 from last I checked. Apple's new plant will produce 2X more sapphire than the entire world capacity currently, thus dropping the price dramatically for them.Apple filed an application for the idea of melting or gluing two different planar orientations of sapphire together. The same application also claimed the (not so novel) idea of bonding thin glass to thin sapphire.
For years, sapphire has been bonded to glass and plastic to make such things as scratch resistant bulletproof windows, so it'll be interesting to see if other makers file opposition.
In any case, there's always more than one way to skin a cat. For example, there's nothing in the patent about bonding sapphire to a plastic substrate, which would be even cheaper and lighter
I think the main reason others backed off, was because the cost per device was only predicted to lower from about $30 to about $10... a lot of that in electricity. Apple's getting around that by 1) moving production from the Northeast to the Southwest, and 2) adding a giant solar farm. OTOH, China has some monster hydroelectric dams.
If I'm not mistaken you're the poster with the extensive touchscreen background. Any excitement from the Sapphire/Quantum Dot news out of Japan? Much brighter screens, with a much more accurate touchscreen tech, possibly paving the way for Apple's long worked on "iPen" project?
It's a big two years for apple coming up.
People are aware of the limited production Vertu phone, but at the same time Apple's patent indicates that their implementation will be different, especially for mass production.
It's also only one component in the entire phone. The Vertu phone is very different from the iPhone, and it's expensive.
There is no need to turn a blind eye towards Apple. Anyone can tell an iPhone from a Vertu phone, or a Mac from a Xerox.
OTOH, Samsung continue to ape Apple's every move. Look at even their flagship phone name.
S5 vs the original 5s. Look at other phones on the market. They all try to establish their own ID.
Even Google remarked that the first Samsung copy phone looks too similar to iPhone.
Facepalm. If Apple hadn't sued, Samsung would be copying everything happily. Now at least they are more sensitive to it but their brand have been damaged I think.
Edit: You also don't have to look at Apple alone. Look at other companies that Samsung infringed and victimized. There was a recent article about their practices.
lol. Apple couldn't even come up with their own name and used iPhone, which belonged to Cisco.
This was one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Congratulations.
----------
Really?
Links?
"Samsung are [sic] doing this because Apple is doing this" - this is unknown, it is just assumed on this forum.
"when Apple sues them,..." - how would Samsung be sued in this case? It's a material that has been previously used in the same manner that Apple is trying to.
"place marketing gimmicks on their products" - I don't understand your point here. What you call a gimmick others call features. Just because you may not see a need for a feature doesn't make it any less a feature.
"...it's the unethical business strategy" - yes, because Apple is completely on the straight and narrow in everything they do.
I think you got off track here. I was merely pointing out, if you want to say that Samsung is copying Apple for using sapphire crystal as their screen (which, btw Apple hasn't even done yet) it's just as much "copying" as Apple using a larger screen size. Which, in my opinion, neither of these are copying at all - it's just trying new things to give the customer a better experience to entice other consumers to buy their product. This is business 101, not a conspiracy.
"Samsung are [sic] doing this because Apple is doing this" - this is unknown, it is just assumed on this forum.
"when Apple sues them,..." - how would Samsung be sued in this case? It's a material that has been previously used in the same manner that Apple is trying to.
"place marketing gimmicks on their products" - I don't understand your point here. What you call a gimmick others call features. Just because you may not see a need for a feature doesn't make it any less a feature.
"...it's the unethical business strategy" - yes, because Apple is completely on the straight and narrow in everything they do.
I think you got off track here. I was merely pointing out, if you want to say that Samsung is copying Apple for using sapphire crystal as their screen (which, btw Apple hasn't even done yet) it's just as much "copying" as Apple using a larger screen size. Which, in my opinion, neither of these are copying at all - it's just trying new things to give the customer a better experience to entice other consumers to buy their product. This is business 101, not a conspiracy.
At least a change for Shamesung is that they're copying Apple rumors instead of finished products this time!
Heck, they all copied the watch industry.
Seriously, I think people use the word "copy" here to mean different things, and it all gets mixed up. There's copying as in using someone else's IP, and then there's copying as in choosing to use the same style or substance which belong to nobody.
The world will catch up. In that patently apple link you gave, the reason why it was titled "Apple saves the sapphire industry" is because the world has EXCESS sapphire production capability, so Apple making sapphire popular will help renew the demand to eat that production.
I think so too.
Not to mention, its very possible Gorilla Glass wouldn't have even seen the light of day if it wasn't for Apple. I'm sure everyone has heard the story from Cornings CEO, about Steve Jobs meeting with him and convincing him to try harder to make Gorilla Glass a reality. They didn't think they could do it before that.
Smart as a whip I see
To me sapphire as a mass consumed product is on the same track as solar cells. Germany (in this case analogous to Apple) made GIANT investments in manufacturing solar panels, and in doing so lowered the price (for tooling/processing/manufacturing) so far that the rest of the world quickly caught up.
In fact, I think apple does this in many fields. Unibody CNCing was impossible for PC makers until apple ramped up production to the point that the entry barrier for the tooling equipment and expertise was lowered to the point where unibody ultrabooks (a much needed shift in laptop manufacturing) became viable at a consumer price point.
The same applies to the "ultra low power" CPUs that the macbook air enabled. Before Apple ran with it and thus allowed the industry to follow suit it was just a specialty R&D part that intel had shelved. Now the processor industry is tripping over themselves in a race to get to lower wattage.
Mass adoption of Gorilla Glass follows the same pattern. A part and process that existed, but had no market to justify the expense of mass manufacturing, then comes apple.
Next up, as odd as it sounds, structural glass is about to be reinvigorated for the Apple campus. They are bringing forward (in conjunction with the industry) the biggest seamlessly laminated glass panels the world has ever seen, and in doing so contributing to building the processes that means others will be able to follow suit (and hopefully excel).
My main reason for being a fan of apple is that their investments and strategic moves pave the way for entire markets to break open and thus everyone benefits in the long run, regardless of the given ecosystem they are in.
No, he 'literally' made a deal with Xerox, who was abandoning the mouse and GUI concepts, and got permission to use them. He then improved them, Xerox's windows could not overlap each other.
----------
The real innovation is not using sapphire. It's the technology they have invested in for producing extremely thin sheets of sapphire.
Which is why Apple will continue to win. They have vision that goes out years ahead. Jobs had already planned a retina screen in 2005.