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 Receives Patent for 3D Gesture Control on Touchscreen Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Reliabiliy / false positives / pantomine
Dudes, chill!
The patent doesn't cover all 3D hand motions in front of a screen. There is way too much prior art. The claim is using the a sensor embedded in the screen to somehow get x, y and z. If you can put that in the screen instead of an extra sensor, you have a cost advantage. You could do this with some very sophisticated filtering work in a capacitive touch interface with some active scanning.
However, I'd love to see the stats on a detecting false positives on this type of interface. When touching a screen, the user is making an in situ statement by action they want to interact with the device. When an action passes in proximity a display, how can the OS determine that the hand action was intended for the device?
Many cultures have hand actions complementing their spoken words in communication. Some cultures, a hand motion or body position can change the meaning of a spoken word as much as an inflection in different Chinese dialects. Thus, would such an interface be globally accepted as Apple targets their products?
Perhaps the user has to have one touch on the screen just before or during to activate z-axis awareness. I can see a lot of games take advantage of this. There have been several 3D extensions of HTML for web sites. Love to see this adaptation.
Dudes, chill!
The patent doesn't cover all 3D hand motions in front of a screen. There is way too much prior art. The claim is using the a sensor embedded in the screen to somehow get x, y and z. If you can put that in the screen instead of an extra sensor, you have a cost advantage. You could do this with some very sophisticated filtering work in a capacitive touch interface with some active scanning.
However, I'd love to see the stats on a detecting false positives on this type of interface. When touching a screen, the user is making an in situ statement by action they want to interact with the device. When an action passes in proximity a display, how can the OS determine that the hand action was intended for the device?
Many cultures have hand actions complementing their spoken words in communication. Some cultures, a hand motion or body position can change the meaning of a spoken word as much as an inflection in different Chinese dialects. Thus, would such an interface be globally accepted as Apple targets their products?
Perhaps the user has to have one touch on the screen just before or during to activate z-axis awareness. I can see a lot of games take advantage of this. There have been several 3D extensions of HTML for web sites. Love to see this adaptation.
No ****
No that's not similiar to the patent above. This thing is sh( t and stupid and nobody buy that one I didn't see people use their hands to wave to see pictures everyday in subway using their sg4. They use they finger to flick pictures.
Wasn't Samsung's Air Gesture implementation is on similar grounds? If they didn't filed any patents then their next set of Galaxies are already duped!
No that's not similiar to the patent above. This thing is sh( t and stupid and nobody buy that one I didn't see people use their hands to wave to see pictures everyday in subway using their sg4. They use they finger to flick pictures.
Samsung's "Air Gestures" ummm... well they suck. Most rarely work as intended unless the conditions are perfect.
The only one on my S4 that is worth using is the wave to check messages when it's sitting on my desk. No button to press to see the message type and count.
Cool, but meh at the same time.
The only one on my S4 that is worth using is the wave to check messages when it's sitting on my desk. No button to press to see the message type and count.
Cool, but meh at the same time.
I don't know why people say that when no claim says where the proximity sensor is located
probably because it say exactly that in the article they just finished reading prior to responding?
OP said:
Probably you will understand that an article excerpt is not one claim of the patent.
First rule for understanding a patent: read the claims, not what someone writes about the patent
hey.. you asked 'why are people saying this' (or smthng).. and i'm telling you why.
i get it that you want to nitpick it because you've been doing it this whole thread.
go sue the OP or something.. idk
You are quoting the wrong man here, or the right one. It depends on your opinion who should patent office serve, actual inventor or big business.
In theory Edison invented lot's of things in practice he didn't invent jack sh.. He was an opportunists, very wealthy one to begin with much like Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, etc. who recognized and bought out others good ideas, shoved them into consumer's throats and made a positive business case. So he was a genuine ultra successful manager or businessman, however you like it. Their business had to be protected so that's where patent office comes into hand and their relationship with big businesses.
In theory patent requires implementation breakdown, in practice implementation could be described very vaguely and still go through and get approved. Not all patent implementations are like that but implementations we are discussing here including one mentioned in this article are as vague as they can be.
Because they are vague as " The apparatus of claim 25, further comprising a display to show the representation of the 3D object, and wherein the sensor module comprises a proximity sensor to detect movements in proximity to the surface of the display.".
That's your implementation of claimed patented technology right there (and btw this patent is about gestures cause it claims such things as touching the screen surface and lifting your hand in air).
Due to lack of description of implementation we have a long lasting court battles because each side can be proven wrong so the side who wins is the side that has most grease. Your single inventor doesn't stand a chance here.
So in theory yes patent office asks you for implementation description but in practice what they approve is actual purpose and end use of the patent.
If that was not the case Apple could not win on "bounce back" case against Samsung. Why? Because "bounce back" is nothing more than a software behavior that's implemented strictly by code on a very high level. Because its a high level coding it can be coded (read: implemented) in hundreds of different ways and it would still do the same thing.
And somebody asked someone "if you thought about it why didn't you patent it?" short answer being "It would run you at least 10,000 to patent something properly" so that's another proof why patent office is not about inventor but about protecting the industry.
nah.. t.edison was very much an inventor and definitely was a tinkerer/experimenter/implementer..
his business guy was none other than j.p.morgan.. you know, the kingpin of the same family that basically controls the world $ these days.
There is a fine line between disclosure for patent filing and trade secret making it feasible.
Wasn't Samsung's Air Gesture implementation is on similar grounds? If they didn't filed any patents then their next set of Galaxies are already duped!
air gestures are a joke along with half the other gimmicks on touchwiz. the only good software idea is samsung's multiwindow, which is something that should be standardized on every smartphone in 2013.
not to mention, these are different technologies and this one may actually have worthwhile functionality.
3D gesture Control By Apple
Thank you apple. I have seen the device.
I post image bellow related 3D app:
3D gesture Control device used in tom cruise movie:
Thank you apple. I have seen the device.
I post image bellow related 3D app:
3D gesture Control device used in tom cruise movie: