Apple granted rights to new process for creating high-quality curved glass
While curved glass enclosures have emerged as a hallmark of Samsung's latest smartphone designs, it was revealed this week that Apple has also expressed interest in the subject, developing a safer and more cost-effective manufacturing process that would allow the company to create thinner, higher-quality convex enclosure for devices as small as an iPhone but as large as a Thunderbolt display.
In a patent filing awarded to the company this week, Apple notes that traditional "dropout" and "vacuum" processes for slumping or shaping glass over a convex mold during a heating process present a number of drawbacks due to the fixed alignment systems for which they rely. These include the formation of "perimetrical flanges" on the edges of the glass that then need to be ground away, unintentional stretches or cracks in the glass that result from the rapid heating process, and the use of potentially harmful chemicals and gas.
Most dropout processes also involve heating the glass relatively rapidly, which has proven effective for molding relatively thick glass in excess of half an inch. But the process can often prove detrimental to the quality of relatively thin glass, which can lead to lower yields and waste. As such, Apple says these methods add unnecessary complexity, cost, time and labor to the glass shaping processes.
Instead, Apple's patented process hinges on a alignment system that's configured to move away from the glass as the temperature increases during the slumping process, as opposed to an alignment system that remains affixed to the material throughout the entire process. In this way, the glass is free to bend around the mold without interference -- a method Apple says will allow it to produce higher quality, thinner convex glass more safely and cost effectively.
Still, it's important to note that the advent of the filing, dubbed "Glass alignment for high temperature processes," doesn't necessarily indicate that we'll see an iPhone hit the market with a screen similar to those found on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus and Nexus S. It's only an indication that Apple has explored the idea in earnest in the past.
For instance, Apple's ongoing patent war with Samsung recently saw the disclosure of several dozen prototype iPhone and iPad designs that the company considered but ultimately decided against. One of these, "Proto 0335" or "N90" (pictured above), shows a candy bar-shaped iPhone with what appears to be a slightly convex glass screen. Thus, it's possible the patent, originally submitted in March of 2009, was filed during the design process of that prototype.
Alternatively, the potential also exists for Apple to leverage the patented process for curved glass on future products that have yet come to light. For example, the company wrote in the filing that its technique is not only suitable for glass covers assembled in small form factor electronic devices like mobile phones and media players, but also user input devices such as mice or trackpads, personal digital assistants, remote controls, and glass displays for other relatively larger form factor electronic devices such as "portable computers, tablet computers, displays, monitors, and televisions."
In a patent filing awarded to the company this week, Apple notes that traditional "dropout" and "vacuum" processes for slumping or shaping glass over a convex mold during a heating process present a number of drawbacks due to the fixed alignment systems for which they rely. These include the formation of "perimetrical flanges" on the edges of the glass that then need to be ground away, unintentional stretches or cracks in the glass that result from the rapid heating process, and the use of potentially harmful chemicals and gas.
Most dropout processes also involve heating the glass relatively rapidly, which has proven effective for molding relatively thick glass in excess of half an inch. But the process can often prove detrimental to the quality of relatively thin glass, which can lead to lower yields and waste. As such, Apple says these methods add unnecessary complexity, cost, time and labor to the glass shaping processes.
Instead, Apple's patented process hinges on a alignment system that's configured to move away from the glass as the temperature increases during the slumping process, as opposed to an alignment system that remains affixed to the material throughout the entire process. In this way, the glass is free to bend around the mold without interference -- a method Apple says will allow it to produce higher quality, thinner convex glass more safely and cost effectively.
Still, it's important to note that the advent of the filing, dubbed "Glass alignment for high temperature processes," doesn't necessarily indicate that we'll see an iPhone hit the market with a screen similar to those found on Samsung's Galaxy Nexus and Nexus S. It's only an indication that Apple has explored the idea in earnest in the past.
For instance, Apple's ongoing patent war with Samsung recently saw the disclosure of several dozen prototype iPhone and iPad designs that the company considered but ultimately decided against. One of these, "Proto 0335" or "N90" (pictured above), shows a candy bar-shaped iPhone with what appears to be a slightly convex glass screen. Thus, it's possible the patent, originally submitted in March of 2009, was filed during the design process of that prototype.
Alternatively, the potential also exists for Apple to leverage the patented process for curved glass on future products that have yet come to light. For example, the company wrote in the filing that its technique is not only suitable for glass covers assembled in small form factor electronic devices like mobile phones and media players, but also user input devices such as mice or trackpads, personal digital assistants, remote controls, and glass displays for other relatively larger form factor electronic devices such as "portable computers, tablet computers, displays, monitors, and televisions."
Comments
Talk about a frivolous patent¡
Really? So you're an expert in forming glass, too?
The key part is here:
Having spent part of my career in glass and ceramic forming processes, I'm not aware of existing systems that do that. And while it would be very difficult to implement, the potential advantages are huge.
/s
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation#Temherte_slaq.C3.AE
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony_punctuation#Temherte_slaq.C3.AE
He's just sore because he apparently can't read what I've written in another thread, so he's taking it out on me in every post since.
Gosh. If this really works, you could build floor-to-celing windows out of curved glass. That would enable you to build a whole 4 story building with curved glass, shaped like a space ship!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by myopicman
Gosh. If this really works, you could build floor-to-celing windows out of curved glass. That would enable you to build a whole 4 story building with curved glass, shaped like a space ship!!
?
Eludes you sarcasm does.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/11/06/08/apple_planning_massive_12000_capacity_spaceship_campus_in_cupertino.html
The patent appears to be specifically for devices not for building structures. Curved glass for such structures is difficult but possible.
I agree. As I said, actually implementing this would be extremely difficult. If Apple finds a way to make it practical, it would be a huge breakthrough in glass manufacturing - in spite of what some uninformed blowhards say.
There. I fixed it for you.
Originally Posted by jragosta
There. I fixed it for you.
My, that's more childish than I thought you'd be. Normally I just let people take stuff out on me, and I think you've reached your quota here. Please don't further.
It's just too bad that there are folks out there, especially at other sites, who want to read this into their own private little wars or PR campaigns.
Originally Posted by droslovinia
They're patenting a manufacturing process, as many, many, many other companies have done throughout the history of business. I don't know about the byplay with the other folks here, not the uses to which this process will be put, but it's often newsworthy when a manufacturer develops a new process for creating something - even if it IS Apple doing it. This is humanity moving forward and developing new ways of doing things, and that's often good to know.
Yes! Exactly! This is just how patents should be; Apple isn't patenting "curved glass", they're patenting a new way of making it. Just as Apple didn't patent "rounded rectangles", they patented a theretofore unused product design.
Flat glass is pretty easy. There are a number of techniques for doing so. Otherwise it would be I possible to have the very large plasma and LCD TV set out now.
But curved is very difficult. You're thinking of very low quality glassware. Low quality when compared to optical processes, that is. Doing very thin and optical quality is very difficult in curved. But it has been done.
I just don't see why anyone would want to. Anyone here remember old monitors and TV sets? No flat glass there. The CRT's were curved because of the problems with angular dispersion of the electron beam, which distorted the further it got from the center. When Zenith came out with the first true flat screen monitor, it looked concave, because we were so used to the convex monitors we used. Since flat is better than curved in a screen, why would we want curved? If the s Rees behind is flat, then we have the same problem of our finger being away from the front of the screen, but this time, the distance would vary. Not good and we would get more reflections again from going back to two inner surfaces. If the screen is curved, then we really need to ask; For what purpose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
... Normally I just let people take stuff out on me, and I think you've reached your quota here. Please don't further.
Not to jump in on someone else's argument, but this statement strikes me as a rather obvious falsehood. Form my perspective, you spend enormous amounts of time arguing back and forth, rarely ever leave the last word to someone else (even when you are clearly wrong), and have a deep desire/need to "win" every argument you get into.
Notice that I put "win" in quotes though. There is a big difference between winning an argument and being right about what was argued.
You may "win" each argument by having the last word, and exerting your moderator privileges to confound your opponents, but that is quite different from being "right" all the time. Seems to me that you are right about what you are talking about roughly 80-90% of the time (as am I, and "jragosta" and many many others on this forum), but that you have some grand illusion wherein you think that browbeating your opponents into submission, or merely speaking louder than anyone else, equals "victory" on the other 10-20% of the time.
It really doesn't.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
My, that's more childish than I thought you'd be. Normally I just let people take stuff out on me, and I think you've reached your quota here. Please don't further.
Lol, you use the exact same 'there i corrected it for you' ALL THE TIME
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Not to jump in on someone else's argument, but this statement strikes me as a rather obvious falsehood. Form my perspective, you spend enormous amounts of time arguing back and forth, rarely ever leave the last word to someone else (even when you are clearly wrong), and have a deep desire/need to "win" every argument you get into.
Notice that I put "win" in quotes though. There is a big difference between winning an argument and being right about what was argued.
You may "win" each argument by having the last word, and exerting your moderator privileges to confound your opponents, but that is quite different from being "right" all the time. Seems to me that you are right about what you are talking about roughly 80-90% of the time (as am I, and "jragosta" and many many others on this forum), but that you have some grand illusion wherein you think that browbeating your opponents into submission, or merely speaking louder than anyone else, equals "victory" on the other 10-20% of the time.
It really doesn't.
I wouldn't even call it a win. A win isn't when you think you won and everybody else thinks that you are an idiot... iPhone 5
Back to the article, I think contrary to some that a screen just a little curved like on that prototype could be a nice idea. But that will never happen because it takes too much space.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Not to jump in on someone else's argument, but this statement strikes me as a rather obvious falsehood.
I allow many things said to me that would be infractions said to anyone else.
Form my perspective, you spend enormous amounts of time arguing back and forth, rarely ever leave the last word to someone else (even when you are clearly wrong), and have a deep desire/need to "win" every argument you get into.
Oh, that's quite false, which you really ought to know personally.
…exerting your moderator privileges to confound your opponents…
This strikes me as amusing. Had to look up the definition of confound to make sure I was right. I was, of course, but it's still amusing, your use.
…merely speaking louder than anyone else…
Oh, I don't do that very often.
Originally Posted by ClemyNX
I wouldn't even call it a win. A win isn't when you think you won and everybody else thinks that you are an idiot...
I fail to see how it's my fault that Apple has chosen to forgo reason and common sense to give products names that have nothing to do with the product itself. "I have a MacBook. The big one, no screen and 50 pounds." Makes a ton of sense¡ They can do whatever they wish; doesn't mean it works out well. The iPhone 7 is the 10th iPhone. And people want to let that pass and still make fun of Microsoft's terrible naming/numbering scheme.
Curved glass? Meh. Samsung will have flexible displays next year.