Apple granted patent for basic capability of a vast majority of the AR apps on the market over the past decade. Seriously need to overhaul the patent system.
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 Outlines How Augmented Reality Glasses Could Overlay Points of Interest
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why?
What prior art exists that contains each limitation of any of the patent claims in this patent?
You can't be seriously arguing that patenting the way to use bubbles for providing information for POIs makes sense. What are they patenting? Round corners for bubbles?
Here is what they claim they are addressing: "For representing POIs in an image of a real environment displayed on a screen of a mobile device, none of these prior arts proposes any solution for the problem of an inconvenient user interaction with POIs displayed on a screen caused by difficult accessible areas and the problem of imagery information occluded by user's fingers during user interactions, e.g. when touching a POI on the screen."
And they claim to have solve it by using things like this:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the display element is a semi-transparent display element.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein the computer-generated virtual object is displayed adjacent to a bottom edge of the semi-transparent display element.
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the display element is part of a mobile device.
6. The method of claim 5, wherein the position of the at least one point of interest in the image is determined based on an orientation of the mobile device relative to the at least one point of interest.
What exactly have they invented here? Semi-transparent display elements? Displaying bubbles "adjacent to a bottom edge of the element"?
I am not blaming Apple here. That seems to be the unfortunate situation with the patent system nowadays. I am also not sure why would Apple bother to patent this either.
You are cheating.
1) the first stuff you quote is not what is patented. It is a description that is helpful to understand the patent claims, but Apple has no patent protection for what you quoted.
2) then you cite a bunch of dependent claims. Each starts with “the method of claim ___.” Apple does not get to sue someone if they have a semi-transparent display element. They only get to sue if they have a semi-transparent display element AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS DESCRIBED IN CLAIM 1.
You intentionally did NOT cite claim 1, which is cute, but it is cheating.
The only reason I skipped claim 1 was because it is long and boring. In essence it is not different from other claims. There is nothing important in it either:
"1. A method for representing points of interest in an image of a real environment, comprising: displaying, by a display element, an image of a real environment; determining at least one point of interest in the image; determining a position of the at least one point of interest within the image; displaying, by the display element, a computer-generated indicator associated with the at least one point of interest on the image, a location of the computer-generated indicator based on the position of the at least one point of interest; displaying, by the display element, a computer-generated virtual object related to the at least one point of interest at a location based on the location of the computer-generated indicator; displaying a visually perceivable relation indication indicative of a relation between the computer-generated virtual object and the computer-generated indicator; determining a change in position of the at least one point of interest within a second image of the real environment; updating, on the display element, display of the computer-generated indicator based on the change in position of the at least one point of interest; and updating, on the display element, display of the visually perceivable relation indication based on the updated location of the computer-generated indicator. "
It is “long and boring” because it has narrow scope. Apple can only sue if each of those elements is present.
And, again, I ask where there is something in the prior art that has all those elements? Someone claimed some old system had that, but it was disproven at least because POI’s were not determined “in the image.”
Translated to English, they claim that they invented a method of displaying bubbles near the location of actual POIs (in "reality" picture) and these bubbles follow the POIs as the POIs move. Your question about prior art is irrelevant because there is simply no "art" in this patent. Just common sense.
Your translation to English is another cute trick, but that’s not what the claims require.You have to determine a POI within the image, not based on geographic tagging, for example. You don’t show a “bubble.” You show multiple things: a indicator, a virtual object, a relation indication, etc.
The question about prior art is not irrelevant. Assuming a patent application is directed to patentable subject matter (e.g. not to an abstract algorithm or a law of nature), and assuming it meets the technical requirements (e.g. 35 USC 112), it is valid unless anticipated by the prior art, or rendered obvious by the prior art. So the prior art is very important. And “Rendered obvious” can’t just be a hand wave - there are complicated legal tests for it.
In my opinion it should only be possible to patent ways to do things, not what is done. And that way should not be blaringly obvious, but a carefully resaerched technical thing.
Example: One should not be able to patent a round knob below a touchsreen that brings you "home". But the same, full of new tech to read your fingerprint should.
Example: One should not be able to patent a round knob below a touchsreen that brings you "home". But the same, full of new tech to read your fingerprint should.
Mind you, it's a granted patent, not a patent application. The original application was filed back in 2017.
So?
[doublepost=1551338511][/doublepost]
You are exaggerating in order to get you point across.
Not very nice.
Google had years ago the same idea(Apple supposedly has, because we honestly don't know what Apple wants to do) and executed in a way it didn't work. It doesn't mean that if Apple will make a pair of glasses that look like regular glasses and won't have a camera at all(so no privacy problems) they will surely succeed.
Like I've said Microsoft got it right with Holo Lense although they also tried to push it to general consumers at first but they soon realized that there's no point in doing so.
[doublepost=1551338987][/doublepost]
So something like this
Last edited:
lol no. AR/VR are just bad mobility ideas. No one wants to wear computers on their heads all the time.
If they look like eyeglasses or sunglasses, weigh the same, and provide good functionality, why not?
2015: "Nobody wants to wear watches".
2017: Apple's Watch just beat Rolex to become the most popular on Earth
https://www.businessinsider.com/how...came-the-number-one-watch-in-the-world-2017-9
What does popularity mean here? Unit sales or prestige?
Rolex Batman and Pepsi GMT models are still hard to find, and they cost $10k. Im pretty sure Rolex is out of most people’s price range for a watch and are not trying to compete 1:1 with unit sales here.
Sales (in both units and dollars). Apple Watch went beyond just being the top selling smartwatch in the world to being the top selling watch, period.
Remember all the naysayers when "iWatch" rumours were in the news here? It was "Nobody wears watches anymore" before it was announced to "Apple Watch is a flop" and "I've never seen an Apple Watch in the wild" up until recently when it blew up. They're everywhere now.
A trinity of wearable devices — Watch + AirPods + Glasses — are the clear successor to the iPhone. Remember how iPhone sacrificed Apple's own iPod, its golden goose back then. iPod sales were still strong and Apple could've continued their iPod dominance for several more years but they decided to compete with themselves and release the iPhone which killed demand for the iPod pretty quickly.
It's important to remember how wildly successful the iPod was back then to understand the context. I think we're going to see the same thing happen with the iPhone when the Glasses are announced. The iPhone will still play a role for years to come but Apple will shift their focus towards wearables as they have been moving in that direction already.
Apple Watch is now beyond a threshold where it's now powerful enough to run its expected tasks quickly and still last all day — and they even added a bigger screen. If we look at the hockey stick graph, within 2 generations, the Watch will be where the iPhone 6 was in terms of performance, a point where we can argue when the iPhone was powerful enough that increases weren't noticed in everyday use, and upgrade cycles started slowing down.
AirPods are also wildly successful and play an important role in advancing the Watch as an independent device. Add the visual component with AR Glasses and we'll have the full trinity.
Last edited:
Im probably not the demographic for this, but I have always worn a mechanical watch. I don’t think Rolex has ever marketed itself as the most unit sold watch. Prestige on the other hand is a very different story. If it came down to which would you choose if you wanted something free, I guarantee you people would choose a Rolex.
It's just like when some people say that Android hones are way more popular than iPhones, Apple fan would often reply that one can't compare WV with Ferrari (implying price difference). So, with that in mind, we can say that Apple watch is popular but iPhone is not.
Last edited:
Nice personal anecdote but I'm not sure how that relates at all to the point. That point is that going against the naysayers, Apple not only succeeded at becoming the top selling smartwatch, but Apple came in to an established industry it was a complete novice in and displaced longstanding industry leaders like Swatch and Fossil, and the decades long revenue king, Rolex.
They're completely different products for completely different customers, yet there's something impressive when Apple comes in to an industry and totally throws it on its head, despite the insistence by critics that Apple "can't just walk in" and takeover. Yet, they have. Expect the same with AR Glasses disrupting the smartphone industry, yet again.
People match eyeglasses to their style.
There is no option for style choices in VR/AR headsets.
[doublepost=1551394793][/doublepost]
Doesn't mean they're popular. Look around - how many people do you see wearing Apple watches RIGHT NOW? People only wear them when exercising.