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
Why not G1-G7 ?
You have to put their entire practice together to see why it's copying.
None of the phone are called Sx _and_ none looked almost identical to an iPhone when first launched.
The newer iterations are just a reminder of the first blatant copy. The name stuck after all these years, and they still say they didn't copy.
I don't expect Apple sheeps to know about the HTC G1.
Yeah, don't forget Apple copying Samsung by releasing a larger phone size lol!
Agreed, which is why I don't get why people are so reluctant to say Samsung is copying apple. they are. And they're not hiding it. What's the big deal? If they're doing something illegal, they'll be punished (and they have, and so have apple).
Samsung consistently copies apple. Who cares? Why pretend they don't?
How does this not surprise me that an article like this, warrants statements like this from the Fanboys.
Of course other companies are going to look at it. That doesn't mean they'll necessarily use it. Just like Apple looked into incorporating a drop down menu like Android was using.
Anyone really familiar with the sapphire glass?
I heard its great for watches and such because it doesn't scratch because the only thing stronger than sapphire is diamond?
But I also heard it was very brittle. Does that mean my iPhone is still susceptible to breaking? I'm so over replacing the screen.
I heard its great for watches and such because it doesn't scratch because the only thing stronger than sapphire is diamond?
But I also heard it was very brittle. Does that mean my iPhone is still susceptible to breaking? I'm so over replacing the screen.
Why not G1-G7 ?
You have to put their entire practice together to see why it's copying.
None of the phone are called Sx _and_ none looked almost identical to an iPhone when first launched.
The newer iterations are just a reminder of the first blatant copy. The name stuck after all these years, and they still say they didn't copy.
If they were truly copying wouldn't that have gone with the Galaxy GS instead of the S on launch. Seeing as the 3GS was the phone out when they were developing the 1st Galaxy S phone... Also most of the phones Samsung have ever made has SXX-### as the model number. You are really trying to reach here saying the Galaxy S's name is copied off the iPhone's tick/tock naming schemes here.
Last edited:
sigh....
No, you actually file this under:
Explore viability of renewing interest in technology due to competitor showing some success in the field...
Just like what happens every single day, NOT copying.
Oh and Apple is working with GT Advanced on this, they are NOT making the glass themselves:
http://9to5mac.com/2014/02/06/exclu...e-100-200m-5-inch-iphone-displays-in-arizona/
And lets not forget the fact Swiss watches have been using Sapphire Crystal glass for years and years already.
How about the Apple Television? Why else would Mr. Secrecy reveal info about how he's cracked the problem to an unreleased product? Maybe to see others scramble to produce a smart tv which helps Apple do market research on what's working, what's not and if such a product should exist at all
How does this not surprise you that a site like Macrumors, has a disproportionate number of Fanboys.
None of that is correct.
- Xerox was not abandoning the mouse and GUI. They just weren't marketing them very much beyond their Star office system.
- Xerox knew how to do overlapping windows. That's how their menus worked. However, their user testing showed that the first thing most people did was tile their windows to see everything. Later, they made that optional.
- Not even when sued by Xerox, did Apple ever claim they had a document giving them permission to use what they saw during their 1979 visits.
The only license that Xerox said they gave Apple, was one in June 1981 to use Smalltalk 80. Which btw, had overlapping windows three years before the Mac came out.
Some of us go way back, and have complete collections of the magazines of the time, to back up our memories.
Last edited:
How about the Apple Television? Why else would Mr. Secrecy reveal info about how he's cracked the problem to an unreleased product? Maybe to see others scramble to produce a smart tv which helps Apple do market research on what's working, what's not and if such a product should exist at all
That's wrong, smart TV's have been around for a few years now and they had absolutely NOTHING to do with any Apple rumours. You need to recheck that one. if Apple launch a smart TV they will be following everyone else and very late to the market, not creating or developing one.
Indeed. I remember the outrage when Apple decided to use a speaker in its phone, they were totally copying other cell phone makers!
If a rumor came out that Apple was working on a lead painted arsenic coated chassis. Samsung would release it within 3 months.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Very brittle in a drop (like Gorilla Glass). No major gain against shattering screen with sapphire. Even a pane of diamond (screen) would not yield a major gain either.
The benefit is an increase in scratch resistance and maybe the marketing spin of "sapphire" over "glass."
A few here are arguing that this will also bring a thinner "thin" which- I know- is very important to the masses who find the 5s too thick.
Samsung and LG Reportedly Exploring Sapphire Crystal Displays
This is the difference between Apple and Samsung. Apple moves mountains and Samsung uses the trails made by Apple. The iPhone made gorilla glass ubiquitous and it'll do the same for sapphire.
Anyone that owns a sapphire glass watch knows how resistant it is. GG has pretty poor scratch resistance by comparison.
This is the difference between Apple and Samsung. Apple moves mountains and Samsung uses the trails made by Apple. The iPhone made gorilla glass ubiquitous and it'll do the same for sapphire.
Anyone that owns a sapphire glass watch knows how resistant it is. GG has pretty poor scratch resistance by comparison.
Very brittle in a drop (like Gorilla Glass). No major gain against shattering screen with sapphire. Even a pane of diamond (screen) would not yield a major gain either.
The benefit is an increase in scratch resistance and maybe the marketing spin of "sapphire" over "glass."
A few here are arguing that this will also bring a thinner "thin" which- I know- is very important to the masses who find the 5s too thick.
Sapphire paves the way to far more efficient and brighter screens (whilst still being more battery efficient), as well as more sensitive and accurate touch screens.
Not everything is simply "marketing spin"
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...strates-came-to-light-in-japan-this-week.html
By all means, please go ahead and trust the Cult Of Mac and the New Yorker...
Quoting Cult Of Mac:
Quoting New Yorker:
Apple and Xerox had a carefully negotiated deal.
Do you really think that what they negotiated with Steve was "roughly sixteen million dollars for a pleasant chat and some lunch, with no possibility to make use of anything seen or discussed"? Xerox is not, and was not, a charity, and I don't think Steve was feeling quite that generous towards them.
Interestingly, the ion gun technique to cut sapphire came from a company that originally created it for making solar cells.
Yep, as do other companies. Why was Apple able to come in right away and make money from the iPhone?
- Because other companies like Nokia, Samsung, Motorola had pioneered cell phones and all the related radio chips and core antenna science, and made the cost of entry viable to smaller companies.
- Because other companies like Nokia, Samsung, Motorola had spent billions and decades creating a huge worldwide set of standards, infrastructure, and marketplace.
- Because other companies like Samsung and LG had created the way to manufacture inexpensive Flash memory, and high resolution displays in mass quantities.
- Because other companies like Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, Qualcomm were willing to license their IP or sell products and services to others (like Apple).
- etc
Sure, and that happens because of many other companies as well. It's okay to be a fan, as long as you aren't blind to what other companies contribute.
Last edited:
My point exactly. It became a standard because it was proven to save lives. If Sapphire glass is more durable why prevent others from using it. In addition Apple was not the first to develop Sapphire glass. Below is an article from cult-of-mac.
What Were Some of the Sapphire Glass Applications Before Apple?
As with the Corning Gorilla Glass currently used by Apple, sapphire crystal isnt a new material.
The most likely interaction most people have with Sapphire crystal is in the displays used for the majority of high and mid-level watches. While glass was used by watchmakers for many years, sapphire is now used by many manufacturers since this better protects the watch against the elements. (Think about how much more exposed your watch is, compared to your iPhone, on a daily basis.)
Other commonplace uses of sapphire in everyday life include semiconductors and barcode sensors, where the material is again chosen due to its ruggedness.
Sapphire has also found widespread use in is the avionics world, where its ability to withstand extreme high and low temperatures along with its resistance to damage makes it a useful tool for the aviation displays in aircraft. Another regular application is in the optic heads of missiles. These missiles are regularly equipped with a combination of infrared, radar, and optical sensors for guidance, and the optic heads need to remain undamaged when the missile is moving through the air, or else being handled on the ground. Sapphire is also used in some iterations of bullet proof glass.
Read more at http://www.cultofmac.com/267068/eve...hire-glass-afraid-ask-qa/#k11EjTgxLmSY7WtX.99
You raise good points. It's hard to factor in innovation that companies like Samsung contribute many times because they are moving forward on components (take a look at the A9 contracts) while consumer facing companies house the finished product.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If the link is the proof, it's a broken link (edit, now it's working).
Why does only Sapphire pave that way (edit, it doesn't. First the article is written around the idea of rationalizing the sapphire plant acquisition, so it's a "focus on the positives" hunt for support. There's no effort to contrast it with the existing glass option except for a reference in just one paragraph. Second, within the same article that talks about doubling the brightness under sapphire, it says that a glass front yields 100% improvement too. Is "doubling" and "100% improvement" not about the same? I have a dollar and double it = $2. I get a 100% gain on $1 = $2)?
Why not glass or anything else? The picture implies brighter LEDs but is that because a pane of sapphire is in front of a brighter LED panel or is that ONLY possible if sapphire is out front? (edit: this is not completely clear from the article. There is an implication that sapphire might yield better than glass but the article is really trying to justify sapphire rather than objectively contrast the two).
I could put a 10 watt bulb next to a 200 watt bulb and hold various transparent materials in front of it to yield the same effect. Is that really apples to apples (that it's the sapphire and not the LED panel that makes that happen)?
What does the clear pane of sapphire (or glass) have to do with battery efficiency? (edit: I read the last line implying energy efficiency NOT as saying this adds ANY energy efficiency but just that Apple is always hunting for energy efficiency. Unless this does indeed deliver energy efficiency, a way to achieve that would be to maintain about the same level of brightness as available now while requiring less power to the LEDs. In other words, we don't get brighter screens but just less energy being used to power the same level of brightness. I'm not seeing how sapphire contributes to that while glass could not unless sapphire is the ONLY way to make this work.)
Is anyone complaining about Apple (glass) touch screens lacking sensitivity or accuracy?
I'll respect that maybe the broken link did point to proof of all of this but even this sounds like mostly marketing spin to me.
Last edited:
Not Xerox Parc.
Apple was offering a pre-IPO rate to large investors, and talked with Xerox Development Corporation about a possible future partnership, in which Apple computers might be sold from the numerous Xerox stores of the time. XDC was interested in the growing personal computer field.
Jobs used this XDC marketing connection to wrangle (insiders say bully) his way into a demo of what a totally different section of Xerox was working on... the GUI.
Note that the Xerox investment was not compensation from Apple for the Jobs visit. On the contrary, Jobs' visit was a result of Xerox's initial investment in Apple. Nor did it involve a license, nor has the existence of such a license ever been claimed by Apple.
