Sorry I asked.
I think you're right.
No probs. I like Apple's products, just not their new business practices in some aspects. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop buying the iPhone
Or using my Mac.
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.
Apple Granted Patent for 'In-Cell' Touchscreen Display Concepts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No probs. I like Apple's products, just not their new business practices in some aspects. Doesn't mean I'm gonna stop buying the iPhone
Or using my Mac.
Do you mean weren't good enough?
Does the ITO layer cause any brightness reduction? (i.e. removing it will allow for a less strong backlight?)
I'm thinking in-cell plus gorilla glass 2 makes a "surface" display where it looks as if you're directly touching the screen itself and in-cell plus IGZO make a significantly lower power screen, but if in-cell does nothing to mitigate power and backlight, then that's all on IGZO.
Thank you. I'm not the only one who realizes the unlikelihood of Apple being behind the original idea. rinemy even said the layer was created to reduce noise problems. Surely they would have thought about the ability to remove a layer they were forced to add.
Last edited:
Most of you have not even looked at the Patent Application, so if you are responding on these forums, you are almost certainly speaking out of your a$$e$.
1) Apple doesn't claim to be behind the original idea.
2) Apple claims a potentially better system that could be manufactured at less cost.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...8,243,027.PN.&OS=PN/8,243,027&RS=PN/8,243,027
MacRumors has long been nothing but a day care center for self anointed geeks, but I hardly doubt that any would be harmed by a bit of due diligence before posting.
That and nothing else beyond billions and billions of dollars in profits later on, and ofcourse, the copycats.
except AUO had already finished building their first in-cell displays by the time Apple filed for a patent.
If you are behind the original idea you would be stupid not to spend the few thousand to file a patent. That's my point.
Also, no one ever claimed or implied you must be the sole source of an idea to be the one who can patent it.
Last edited:
We aren't speaking of filing a patent. That was done in 2006.
We are speaking of a Patent that Apple was granted by the U.S Patent Office just recently. It is Apple's to defend. It is a patented method of fabricating an in cell multitouch screen. There are other existing methods and most likely methods that will be found in the future, most of which will neither invalidate Apple's patent nor infringe it.
If Apple's manufacturing process is a success, then Apple incorporates it into its products, possibly to a competitive advantage.
A thinner screen does not necessarily lead to a thinner phone. It can also leave more room for battery & chips & such. As for the iPhone 4 design being delicate, it is far from it if you put a cheap case on it. Or even if you don't. & the rumored new design should be even sturdier with the larger metal frame.
Make the iPhone THICKER
Increase the thickness and thereby the capacity of the battery. Use the decreased size of the electronics to help offset this size increase. We are too concerned with size. Make an iPhone with longer battery life. Do the same with the MacBooks and other portable devices. Or perhaps make an alternate iPhone LL (long life) version using this methodology.
Increase the thickness and thereby the capacity of the battery. Use the decreased size of the electronics to help offset this size increase. We are too concerned with size. Make an iPhone with longer battery life. Do the same with the MacBooks and other portable devices. Or perhaps make an alternate iPhone LL (long life) version using this methodology.
Apple would have been working on it at least a year in the lab.
The patent application would have meant they had all the pieces in place and able to achieve an exemplary prototype to manufacture.
The time between application and now would have been spent developing a fabrication and manufacture process.
I'm not really in favor on thinner phones. Thinner phones tend slip out of the hand more and break.
I was holding my cousins GS3 the other day and even its a gorgeous phone it felt a little too thin.
Phones need a good thickness. It feels better in the hand
I was holding my cousins GS3 the other day and even its a gorgeous phone it felt a little too thin.
Phones need a good thickness. It feels better in the hand
You were looking for a not released yet device and change your mind before having actual factual information about it? Slow down and relax!
Why are people so hostile toward Apple making there devices slimmer? I understand you want great battery life, but don't you want a device that is lighter and fits into your pocket so subtly that you don't even notice its there? I feel that is important.
nope. Just asking the question.
----------
Hopefully we can get both thinner and better battery life. I am sure that is what the designers are shooting for.
Reading comprehension fail. I never said I want it thicker, I said I don't need it thinner.
It's nice how indifferent you claim to be to my needs though. Gives me the warm fuzzies. I'll endeavor to care as little about your needs in the future.
When the new, thinner iPhone comes out, you can use an aftermarket case to make it just as thick as it is now.
Or you can accept it as thin as Apple makes it, even if you don't need it to be thin, and it doesn't really bother you.
When your needs and my needs conflict, I'll choose my needs (you being a total stranger somewhere on the internet, and your needs being an certain thickness to your iPhone -- If I knew you, or you were a stranger who needed me to call an ambulance, I might choose your needs over mine).
Last edited:
No. To stay with your example, it would be Apple researching on and designing a rocket that is able to fly to the moon in all it's detail, and then going to a company that makes metal parts with their technical drawings and telling them: Build this for us. Then the company producing metal parts would maybe have to develop some new techniques or machines that are able to produce the complex new metal parts that are necessary for Apple's rocket.
It's the same for microchips. Apple or for example ARM may come up with a new microprocessor design - but they're not actually producing microchips, because they don't have the fabs to do so. They're going to a chip producing company with their technical drawings of the new design and tell them: Build this for us.
For every complex enough product, there are always two steps: Developing the actual product, then developing techniques or machines to produce this new product.
----------
I know about this tech my friend its just well i dunno,Sharp was working on it with Toshiba and finally at some point they made it with IGZO and out of the blue apples patent for an idea of the touch sensors be on the screen itself gets the ok and Boom apple has the patent of something others were working for years,can you imagine Sharp and Toshiba paying apple lets say 20$ per screen if they want to use it?when they developed it?,maybe i am wrong i know this is how the patent system works atm but it feels a bit lame and NO i am not a samsung fan or anything , i buy apple products for a decade now thank you
You're also getting it wrong. Sharp and Toshiba are display manufacturers. They develop techniques and machines to MANUFACTURE these in-cell panels. But the research and development of the in-cell panels itself has been done by Apple.
It's like if you would invent a really cool new tool that is made out of metal and has a very complex shape. You go to a company that manufactures metal parts and ask them to build this for you. Because the metal shape of your new tool is so complex, the manufacturer first has to develop a new technique to produce such complex metal parts. Got what I mean?
----------
Looking at this page http://www.auo.com/?sn=196&lang=en-US tells you that AUOs in-cell technology works very different that the one from Apple. There's often more than one way to do things!
----------
Again, AUOs in-cell technology is very different from Apple's solution.
Right, an Iridium Tin Oxide layer is not perfectly transparent. In fact, I think Apple has a patent on filling in the space between the ITO circuits with a cheaper but similar colored covering, in order to keep the ITO lines from standing out. Of course, both cut back light transmission.
After looking over this patent in more detail, I don't think it gets rid of the ITO layers altogether, at least not in every case described. It might just get rid of one of the two circuit layers needed (the drive) and move that onto the LCD circuit plate. The other layer (for sense) will still exist.
Iridium is a rare earth that's getting short in supply, btw. The most conservative estimates have China's supply (and they're the main source right now) exhausted as early as 2017.
Because of that, many companies are looking into alternative transparent circuit materials and/or different touchscreen methods.
Thanks for breakdown.
Iridium is used in all displays, not exclusively touchscreens AFAIK. At least, that was true when CRTs were king.
Because Apple is a designing company and not really a tech company.
Samsung has been using in-cell technology since 2010. Apple is playing catch-up as usual. It's a shame.
Why do you keep viewing Samsung as just a manufacturing company? They're spending $40+ bill on R&D this year just to improve manufacturing? Get it through your head. Apple is NOT an engineering firm. Samsung and others are the real geniuses and do the research and development. Apple goes around looking to see what Samsung and others have developed and then decides to license their technology to use on their iphone, ipads, macbooks, etc.
First of all thanks for the crarification before.
Now (i know it sounds somewhat odd) but lets take for example the latest samsung GS3,it has a 4.8" hd amoled also a quad core at 1.4ghz(in my country)with a 1gb ram and a 2100mah battery at 133grams it lasts with heavy use around 24-26 hours,thats allot i think so i wonder how come apple can't pull this numbers?not to mention its thinner than the current iphone.
PS.Thanks to Iconoclysm and hchung,because you make dialogue instead of throwing some smart as.s answer and then took off.
I agree. I just got the Galasy S3 and it smokes my iphone 4s in everything except the physical looks of the phones.
The reason why Samsung's phones are so well-made is that they spend $40 bill every year on R&D to bring us cutting-edge tech. Because their build materials are the latest in the tech-world, they're pricey and therefore, Samsung doesn't really make a lot of profit per phone sold.
Apple, on the other hand, uses cheap, 4-5 year-old tech and charges the same price as a Samsung phone that's using the latest tech. The only gripe I have with Samsung phones is that they use plastic. Apple is good at making their products seem "not-cheap" when they really are.
Last edited:
Wrong. Although there are countless examples, I'll point to their A5 and A5X chips as indicators of their technical expertise in one area.
On AMOLED displays, the mechanics and manufacture of which are very different from LCD displays. Apple would be the first to deploy it on LCD technology, leaving others who opt for LCD touchscreens to be the ones playing catchup.
Samsung and Apple are equal in terms of handset manufacturers. They both design their own SoCs and displays. Apple just has to outsource the manufacture of both. The claim they aren't an 'engineering firm' is patent nonsense.
The reason samsung and others spend so much on R&D is because a lot of their R&D never sees the light of day. Apple is very focused in what technologies they develop and have a very high ROI.
More nonsense. Apple has a track record of being first to market with a lot of innovations. They were first to market with a modern smartphone with ppi of 300+. First to market with a Cortex A9 based tablet in the US. First to market with the 543MP2. They invented the ultrabook category. You arguments are extremely weak and are unsupported.