Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Oh, again with this nonsense.

Not to mention, you’re wrong. Please explain to me how a patent entitled “Method of forming a micro led structure and array of micro led structures with an electrically insulating layer” doesn’t “deal...with the...actual production of the display.”

So this patent deals with a possible way to generate an array of microLEDs. Congrats... There's just 2 problems:
1. Sounds pretty trivial. This is not going to impact the quality of the microLED at all, and at most, it sounds like a toilet paper patent just a hair above Apple's "rectangle with rounded corners" patent in terms of significance.

2. Every microLED manufacturer probably already has their own method of forming their microLED array. Why would they opt for Apple's method when their own in-house solution is probably lower cost due to higher economies of scale?

Or how about “Method of forming a micro LED device with self-aligned metallization stack”? Also not about “the actual production of the display?”

Did you read the abstract? This sounds like a copy paste of the previous patent. At this point, I think Apple is just patenting every little thing. Not sure what their purpose is.

method for integrating a light emitting device

This patent does not deal with microLED image quality.

They also bought luxvue quite awhile ago, and have been working on microleds and manufacturing them for a long time. And picking one random patent is meaningless.

This is probably a marketing move to trick their fans into thinking they're receiving super, ultra secret technology. I doubt anything useful comes out of the acquisition.
 
So this patent deals with a possible way to generate an array of microLEDs. Congrats... There's just 2 problems:
1. Sounds pretty trivial. This is not going to impact the quality of the microLED at all, and at most, it sounds like a toilet paper patent just a hair above Apple's "rectangle with rounded corners" patent in terms of significance.

2. Every microLED manufacturer probably already has their own method of forming their microLED array. Why would they opt for Apple's method when their own in-house solution is probably lower cost due to higher economies of scale?



Did you read the abstract? This sounds like a copy paste of the previous patent. At this point, I think Apple is just patenting every little thing. Not sure what their purpose is.



This patent does not deal with microLED image quality.



This is probably a marketing move to trick their fans into thinking they're receiving super, ultra secret technology. I doubt anything useful comes out of the acquisition.

A marketing move made way back in, what, 2014? Give me a break. And “abstracts” aren’t what determines what is patented. The claims do. So here are some claims, taken from Apple’s dozens of patents on methods of manufacturing microLEDs, so that anyone else reading knows better than to buy what you’re trying to sell:

Some methods for manufacturing microLEDs that apple has invented:

  1. A method of forming an array of micro-light emitting diodes (LEDs), the method comprising the steps of: bonding a first substrate stack to a second substrate stack by a bonding layer; wherein the first substrate stack comprises: a pn type a diode layer, the pn diode layer is formed on the first substrate; a plurality of independent reflective metallization stacks on the pn diode layer; a patterned electrical insulating layer, the patterned electrical property An insulating layer laterally between the plurality of separate reflective metallization stacks on the pn-type diode layer; wherein bonding the first substrate stack to the second substrate stack with the bonding layer comprises patterning the pattern One of the insulating layers is embedded in the bonding layer; the first substrate is removed; and the pn-type diode layer is etched through to form a plurality of layers over the plurality of independent reflective metallization stacks a micro pn-type diode and exposing the patterned electrically insulating layer laterally between the plurality of micro pn-type diodes.
  1. The method of claim 1, wherein the first substrate stack comprises the patterned electrically insulating layer and one of the plurality of independent reflective metallization stacks above the first conductive bond a layer, and the second substrate stack includes a second conductive bonding layer; and wherein the step of bonding the first substrate stack to the second substrate stack further comprises the step of bonding the first conductive bonding layer to the second The conductive bonding layer forms an alloy bonding layer.

  1. 1. A method of forming a micro LED array comprising:
    forming a plurality of laterally separate self-aligned metallization stacks within a corresponding plurality of openings in a patterned sacrificial layer formed on a p-n diode layer;
    bonding a first substrate stack including the plurality of laterally separate self-aligned metallization stacks, the patterned sacrificial layer, and the p-n diode layer to a second substrate with a bonding layer;
    etching through the p-n diode layer to form a plurality of micro p-n diodes over the plurality of separate metallization stacks, and exposing the patterned sacrificial layer laterally between the plurality of separate metallization stacks; and
    removing the patterned sacrificial layer.
  2. 1. A method of forming a micro LED array in the following sequence comprising:
    bonding a first substrate stack to a second substrate stack with a bonding layer;
    wherein the first substrate stack comprises:
    a p-n diode layer formed on a first substrate;
    a plurality of separate reflective metallization stacks on the p-n diode layer;
    a patterned electrically insulating layer laterally between the plurality of separate reflective metallization stacks on the p-n diode layer;
    removing the first substrate; and
    etching through the p-n diode layer to form a plurality of micro p-n diodes over the plurality of separate reflective metallization stacks, and exposing the patterned electrically insulating layer laterally between the plurality of micro p-n diodes, wherein the patterned electrically insulating layer acts as an etch stop layer during the etching.

1. A method of fabricating a micro device comprising:
bonding a first substrate stack to a second substrate stack with an intermediate electrically conductive bonding layer having a liquidus temperature of 350° C. or lower;
patterning an active device layer of the first substrate stack to form a plurality of micro devices;
heating a region of the intermediate electrically conductive bonding layer to the liquidus temperature or higher;
picking up one of the plurality of the micro devices and a portion of the intermediate electrically conductive bonding layer with a transfer head;
placing the micro device and the portion of the intermediate electrically conductive bonding layer on an electrically conductive receiving bonding layer on a receiving substrate; and
bonding the intermediate electrically conductive bonding layer to the electrically conductive receiving bonding layer to form a permanent alloy bonding layer having a liquidus temperature above 150° C.

1. A stabilization structure comprising:
a carrier substrate;
an array of micro devices on the carrier substrate, wherein each micro device includes a device layer with a bottom surface;
a stabilization layer including an array of staging cavities corresponding to the array of micro devices, wherein each staging cavity includes sidewalls of the stabilization layer that completely laterally surround at least a portion of a thickness of the device layer of a corresponding micro device; and
a sacrificial release layer that completely covers a bottom surface forming a lower main surface of each staging cavity, spans along the sidewalls of each cavity, and spans underneath an entirety of the bottom surface of the device layer of the corresponding micro device;
wherein the array of micro devices is embedded in the sacrificial release layer within the array of staging cavities, wherein the stabilization layer spans directly underneath each micro device.


There are literally dozens of patents like this, each going to different methods of making microled devices. There are about a dozen patents that go to designs for specific equipment like transfer heads to be used in the manufacturing process. There are dozens of patents that go to the structure of the microled panels. And there are dozens of patents that go to support circuits, like variable-rate refresh.

Anybody who wants to check, just go to the USPTO website and search for AN/Apple and microled. You’ll have plenty of reading material.
 
This rumor site is becoming sadly quite useless.

Come on. Think before you post.
So this year we're going Mini-LED after 15+ years on LCD. Next year we're going OLED. The year or two after we're doing Micro-LED?

Who believes this crap?

Its a rumors site...not news site
 
Ok that’s cool, but the point of the iPad is to be a budget friendly computer with a touch screen. OLED would make the prices rocket sky high. Honestly, I would rather have a good, fast chip than an OLED screen. I’m not saying I don’t like OLED, but I think it’s more reasonable for Apple to 1. Stop changing the screen size every year and 2. Put a new chip in the iPads for different years considering that the 6th Gen and 7th Gen shared the same chip. Wouldnt be suprised if 8th Gen and 9th Gen is gonna have the same chip too.
 
Gonna be 2016 all over again. Will follow my strategy and upgrade my MacBook Pro at the tail end of this new product cycle. So, late 2025 when all the issues have been ironed out. Then again, I jumped on the M1, but it technically it’s been proven and I have to say, it’s the smoothest transition ever.
I think the speed in which Apple makes gains will be faster than Intel (and Apple) of the last decade - CPUs/memory/pcie/screen tech? are all going to make one want to upgrade sooner than they did in the 2010s...
 
I think the speed in which Apple makes gains will be faster than Intel (and Apple) of the last decade - CPUs/memory/pcie/screen tech? are all going to make one want to upgrade sooner than they did in the 2010s...
Not gonna lie, the new iMacs are tempting me to break my promises to myself. I am going to hold out until the end of the year to see what they do with the larger display. I was hoping Face ID was gonna come to the iMac because it seems like such a right fit. But I think they are likely saving it for a third rev.
 
Apple doesn't develop tech. They do testing to see which suppliers have the best tech, but they don't develop them. It's like building a PC.
Apple’s entire business is tech development. Don’t confuse manufacturing with development. TSMC just makes Apple developed silicon, for example.
 
Apple doesn't develop tech. They do testing to see which suppliers have the best tech, but they don't develop them. It's like building a PC.
Apple literally invented and developed LTPO that Samsung is now parading around in with their Galaxy S21 Ultras. LTPO was custom engineered for Apple Watch Series 4.
 
Apple literally invented and developed LTPO that Samsung is now parading around in with their Galaxy S21 Ultras. LTPO was custom engineered for Apple Watch Series 4.

LMFAO... Samsung's LTPO is different from Apple's LTPO, much like how LG's OLED is different from Samsung's. Samsung uses hybrid-oxide and polycrystalline silicon, and Apple uses LTPS and Indium Gallium Zinc Oxide. I suspect Samsung's is better, as it's already being mass-manufactured on smartphones and not just watches and is a gen ahead. Rumors already state that Apple will opt for Samsung's version of LTPO rather than their own.

Nobody "invented" LTPO. The key ingredients for LTPO come from IGZO (Invented by a different company), and just because other companies implemented it into an OLED display doesn't mean it's an "invention". I'm amused that you use the word "invent" so loosely. It's such a low bar and an insult to companies and people that actually invent technology. It's like saying companies putting higher resolutions on their products is an "invention".

There are several key display innovations that Samsung has made that are on Apple devices such as the diamond-pentile matrix, which is a more important innovation to OLED than LTPO, yet I would hesitate to even call it an "invention". Innovations to the display manufacturing process to reduce energy consumption, improve yields and improve display quality is happening every year (Samsung Y-OCTA used in iPhone displays). What I find funny is that you focus on 1 small "innovation"; ignore the mountains of other, more important innovations; and then accuse Samsung of stealing LTPO when Samsung's proprietary version is a completely different technology.

Of all the innovations that have happened to make OLEDs affordable, high yielding, energy efficient and with superior quality image quality, do you seriously think that Apple contributed more to this tech's development than Samsung did? They only thing I see on Apple's side is an implementation on someone else's invention, and their implementation isn't even better than Samsung's. If Apple was such a big innovator in this space, why can't they just share their technology to other display manufacturers and have them complete with Samsung instead of buying from Samsung every single time? Sounds like Apple's "innovations" aren't as valuable as you think they are.

You are delusional and you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Last edited:
Apple’s entire business is tech development. Don’t confuse manufacturing with development. TSMC just makes Apple developed silicon, for example.

No, Apple's business is implementing tech that others develop.
Apple-developed silicon isn't impressive. It's the 5 nm fab that's the real secret sauce.
If you give any company an option to take TSMC's 5nm fab or Apple silicon, every single one would opt for TSMC's 5nm fab.
 
No, Apple's business is implementing tech that others develop.
Apple-developed silicon isn't impressive. It's the 5 nm fab that's the real secret sauce.
If you give any company an option to take TSMC's 5nm fab or Apple silicon, every single one would opt for TSMC's 5nm fab.
Apple makes more money than any company, so I’m pretty sure people would take Apple’s position in anything more often than not.

Apple silicon is far more than just the 5nm process. Chip design is a real thing. Apple does a lot of tech development and integrates it perfectly with software. They are winning. Pure tech creation is a commodity biz and Apple has overcome that.
 
Apple makes more money than any company, so I’m pretty sure people would take Apple’s position in anything more often than not.

Apple silicon is far more than just the 5nm process. Chip design is a real thing. Apple does a lot of tech development and integrates it perfectly with software. They are winning. Pure tech creation is a commodity biz and Apple has overcome that.


My comparison is with TSMC and Apple Silicon department, not the entire Apple company. As TSMC does not make smartphones or computers, I'm not sure how your comparison is even relevant.

Chip design is primarily a cost-benefit job, not something that advances tech. The chip manufacturer and the companies working on advancing chip manufacturing are the one that advance tech, like how the invention of MOSFET led to higher transistor scalability and the birth of the digital age. The chip designer is primarily responsible for where they wish to place the transistors and the shape of the transistors and other things like how big they want to make their CPU/GPU cores before yields plummet and costs skyrocket. The job is mainly one that focuses on cost-benefit relationship that is constrained by the manufacturer's technique and the chip designer's goals + budget. The problem with chip design primarily rests with convincing your manager to raise your budget, being flexible with your goals and getting capacity from the manufacturer; it's not really a technical challenge.

I suggest you watch James Douma's interview with Dave Lee about Tesla's FSD chip. James makes a remark about how chip design isn't really difficult and any design can be reproduced by other companies if they really wanted to. This is not so for chip manufacturing, as throwing any amount of money isn't guaranteed to net you any good results (See China).

China wants to start a war over TSMC. Apple could go away and the world would be pretty much the same without smug hipsters. If TSMC told Apple to go find another manufacturer, Apple would be screwed.

I know Apple fanatics have a hard-on for the word "design", but that word is used so loosely and is pretty ambiguous, because it can mean a wide variety of things. You can say that Mohammad Atalla and Dawon Kahng "designed" the MOSFET and the manufacturing process. The MOSFET is arguably one of the most important inventions in human history and is up there in terms of importance with the internal combustion engine (And the automobile).

Then you have the "design" that Apple uses, which is simply just picking which manufacturer they want to use in their products and maybe doing a few worthless customizations on them much like how PC enthusiasts pick which parts to put on their PC. Both entities "designed" their products, but neither are as impactful to tech advancement.
 
Last edited:
My comparison is with TSMC and Apple Silicon department, not the entire Apple company. As TSMC does not make smartphones or computers, I'm not sure how your comparison is even relevant.

Chip design is primarily a cost-benefit job, not something that advances tech. The chip manufacturer and the companies working on advancing chip manufacturing are the one that advance tech, like how the invention of MOSFET led to higher transistor scalability and the birth of the digital age. The chip designer is primarily responsible for where they wish to place the transistors and the shape of the transistors and other things like how big they want to make their CPU/GPU cores before yields plummet and costs skyrocket. The job is mainly one that focuses on cost-benefit relationship that is constrained by the manufacturer's technique and the chip designer's goals + budget. The problem with chip design primarily rests with convincing your manager to raise your budget, being flexible with your goals and getting capacity from the manufacturer; it's not really a technical challenge.

I suggest you watch James Douma's interview with Dave Lee about Tesla's FSD chip. James makes a remark about how chip design isn't really difficult and any design can be reproduced by other companies if they really wanted to. This is not so for chip manufacturing, as throwing any amount of money isn't guaranteed to net you any good results (See China).

China wants to start a war over TSMC. Apple could go away and the world would be pretty much the same without smug hipsters. If TSMC told Apple to go find another manufacturer, Apple would be screwed.

I know Apple fanatics have a hard-on for the word "design", but that word is used so loosely and is pretty ambiguous, because it can mean a wide variety of things. You can say that Mohammad Atalla and Dawon Kahng "designed" the MOSFET and the manufacturing process. The MOSFET is arguably one of the most important inventions in human history and is up there in terms of importance with the internal combustion engine (And the automobile).

Then you have the "design" that Apple uses, which is simply just picking which manufacturer they want to use in their products and maybe doing a few worthless customizations on them much like how PC enthusiasts pick which parts to put on their PC. Both entities "designed" their products, but neither are as impactful to tech advancement.
Ah yes, any company could do it if they wanted to. You have no grasp of chip design to write it off as “worthless customizations.”

Done.
 
Ah yes, any company could do it if they wanted to.

Yes, they can. It's not difficult. It's a cost-benefit problem, not a technical challenge. Other companies may not want to design their own chips, because they don't have an army of rabid fanboys salivating like a dog whenever they hear the words "custom" and "design". It's not worth the cost to them. Apple is a unique case, because their fans want to feel special and want to believe they're getting super secret technology that only Apple can make, so Apple has an interest in "designing" and shouting from the rooftops that it's "custom", even if it's mostly worthless customizations.

Again, I suggest you watch Douma's interview with James Lee.


You have no grasp of chip design to write it off as “worthless customizations.”
Please enlighten us all. What is there to chip design other than making sure you're within budget, determining which components to add to your SoC, and determining how big/small you should make your processors and a few other nuances? It ultimately boils down to how effective the manufacturer's process is and how much you're willing to spend. Case-in-point, look at how AMD processors outperformed Intel's when they had the manufacturing advantage while Intel was stuck on 14 nm for years. The advantage in manufacturing technique makes designing chips easier, but don't be fooled into thinking that the chip designer should be given credit. It's 99% chip manufacturer and 1% chip designer.

The chip designer's job is more cost-optimization than technical.
 
Last edited:
Apple doesn't develop tech. They do testing to see which suppliers have the best tech, but they don't develop them. It's like building a PC.
That’s not true when it comes to mini/microLED. They’ve got a factory they rebuilt to focus on developing the manufacturing tech. Once they have it where they want, they will set up the manufacturing process in the factories of their partners for mass production. Apple does actually do R&D in this field.
 
That’s not true when it comes to mini/microLED. They’ve got a factory they rebuilt to focus on developing the manufacturing tech. Once they have it where they want, they will set up the manufacturing process in the factories of their partners for mass production. Apple does actually do R&D in this field.

miniLED is not the same thing as microLED. There are many Chinese companies producing miniLED with good quality and low cost, so I'm not sure what more Apple can contribute to this technology.

We will see with microLED. At least you realize that the manufacturing process is the most important part of tech development, unlike the others in this community who think the "designer" who picks which manufacturer to use is the one advancing tech. I don't think I've ever seen a case of an OEM telling a manufacturer how to manufacture their own products, which flies in the face of common business sense. Costs would be extremely high if every OEM had their own manufacturing technique. The industry is advanced by manufacturing companies, who seek companies like Apple to buy their tech. That way, there are economies of scale and costs are reduced for everyone. Some industries are, however, more flexible than others, namely the logic semiconductor industry, but even then the way the transistors are placed is the manufacturer's technology. Where the designer wants to place transistors and how big they want to make certain components becomes more of a cost-benefit challenge more than a technical challenge. Their technical roles of a chip designer are mainly to stress the limitations of the manufacturer's process and determine the cost-yield point that management is satisfied with.


Apple fanboy fairytales about Apple designing everything from scratch are nonsense. Whatever contribution Apple makes to some tech is peanuts compares to what the manufacturers are doing.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.