Apple exploring dual-sided translucent touch-screen panels

[AppleInsider]

Yet another unique patent filing has surface on the part of iPhone maker Apple Inc., this time covering implementations of dual-sided, translucent touch-screens that could serve as the foundation for a flip-screen iPhone or hybrid notebook/tablet device.

The 47-page filing, published for the first time Thursday by the World Intellectual Property Organization, is titled "Dual-sided Track Pad" and incorporates references to over a dozen patent applications previously filed by Cupertino-based firm with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

More specifically, the filing discusses several potential uses for a "capacitive array element [that] may be a dual-sided panel that is capable of sensing touch from either side and sending signals indicative of the touches to a host device (e.g., a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a digital music player or a mobile telephone unit)."

In some embodiments, Apple said the touch-based array element would be completely translucent, so that the display element of a handheld device and the array element may be configured with respect to each other, possibly including a configuration where the array element lies over a traditional display screen so that the display screen is viewable through the array element, in effect forming a touch screen.

The real world implementations of this concept become more apparent from the illustrations provided by Apple as part of the filling. For example, the company portrays a notebook-like device whose internals are tucked away behind a traditional LCD screen, and whose base/keyboard component has been replaced by a framed, dual-sided translucent touch-screen.

While in the "open" position, the side of the touch-screen facing upwards would serve as a sprawling multi-touch input surface capable of receiving input from a virtual keyboard, "finger or stylus." During this time, the opposite side of the translucent touch-screen (facing down) would be immune to input. When in the "closed" position, however, the active side of the touch-screen would be reversed, with the side previously facing downwards now serving as touch-based window to the notebook's traditional LCD component, effectively morphing the closed notebook into multi-touch tablet (see images below).



The same principles could also apply to a flip-based mobile handset, according to the filings, though the advantages in this case appear limited over Apple's existing iPhone design, save for the prospect of using both sides of the touch-screen simultaneously while in the "open" position. In the "closed" position, such a handset would function identically to today's iPhone.



Given that the touch-screen element would be completely translucent, Apple suggests several methods of displaying keyboards, number pads, and controls on panel while in the "open" position. These include using a "polarized light source so as to be slightly visible when lit" or displaying the controls through the use of minuscule LEDs embedded in the translucent touch-screen element.

AppleInsider is offering an unedited copy of the filing here: [3.1MB PDF].

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[ Digg this story ]

[Bageljoey]

Ireland?

...will this do it for you?

[Rogzilla]

Well now, that is kinda sorta awesome.

OK, release this, the desktop multitouch input device and the Apple TV DVR and Apple will be AWESOME!

[Crtaylor]

Looks like Apple is cooking up something great once again! They should do this with all of their stuff, including desktop computers. I could even see a customizable keyboard coming out of this!

[suhail]

WOW! That's mostly practical too. Except the 'would be problem' with the multi-touch notebook when in the closed position, the distance between the users finger/stylus to the image would be way too far, this causes a visual alignment problem between the actual image and the position of the finger/stylus, especially when the user moves or when accessing items closer to the edges of the screen. Wacom overcame this problem in their Cintiq models by adhering the extra thin touch-screen mylar directly onto the display allowing for a minimum distance from the stylus to the image.

[echosonic]

Originally Posted by suhail

WOW! That's mostly practical too. Except the 'would be problem' with the multi-touch notebook when in the closed position, the distance between the users finger/stylus to the image would be way too far, this causes a visual alignment problem between the actual image and the position of the finger/stylus, especially when the user moves or when accessing items closer to the edges of the screen. Wacom overcame this problem in their Cintiq models by adhering the extra thin touch-screen mylar directly onto the display allowing for a minimum distance from the stylus to the image.

Yes, but--

Notice how Apple deliberately draws their "email" and other "UI" screens in these patents so they look totally generic and stupid?

That's so they don't give anything away they dont have to via these applications, which they know are examined microscopically by the public.

I would venture a guess that whatever these patents are intended for will look nothing like any of these pictures...and it's Apple, for pete's sake.

They would not let a less than awesome User Experience within 100 feet of their creation.

[Olternaut]

omg so u take the credit of posting about this article and convieniently moving mine out of the way??

For shame.

[Olternaut]

At least you could have provided the link from unwiredview.com. Here is the artist's concept:



Would make a great iphone nano.

And here is the rest of the unwiredview.com article: http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/03/1...ellflip-phone/

I might as well abandon my thread on the subject and stick to here then. Read the article because there is mention how this technique might be used in other Apple devices including a possible itablet.

[zanshin]

Originally Posted by echosonic

Yes, but--

Notice how Apple deliberately draws their "email" and other "UI" screens in these patents so they look totally generic and stupid?

Everybody I've worked for does the same thing in order to be more defensible when someone else claims it was their idea years before you filed it.

The big difference is most companies then develop and announce a product that looks totally generic and stupid.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by AppleInsider

Yet another unique patent filing has surface on the part of iPhone maker Apple Inc., this time covering implementations of dual-sided, translucent touch-screens that could serve as the foundation for a flip-screen iPhone or hybrid notebook/tablet device.

[ Digg this story ][/c]

Flip-screen phones are so 2005. The iPhone Nano should be a slider- less bulky, easier to handle, and fits easily in your pockets.

[Olternaut]

Originally Posted by zanshin

Everybody I've worked for does the same thing in order to be more defensible when someone else claims it was their idea years before you filed it.

The big difference is most companies then develop and announce a product that looks totally generic and stupid.

Your right. Pretty smart really.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by Olternaut

At least you could have provided the link from unwiredview.com. Here is the artist's concept:



Would make a great iphone nano.

And here is the rest of the unwiredview.com article: http://www.unwiredview.com/2008/03/1...ellflip-phone/

I might as well abandon my thread on the subject and stick to here then. Read the article because there is mention how this technique might be used in other Apple devices including a possible itablet.

If I hear the term "iPhone Nano" one more time I think I'll throw up.
There's no such thing because it's a stupid idea.
How long is it going to take for people to realize how dumb they sound using idiotic terminology.....

[brianus]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

If I hear the term "iPhone Nano" one more time I think I'll throw up.
There's no such thing because it's a stupid idea.
How long is it going to take for people to realize how dumb they sound using idiotic terminology.....

Heh.. tell that to the "xMac" people

[GQB]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

If I hear the term "iPhone Nano" one more time I think I'll throw up.
There's no such thing because it's a stupid idea.
How long is it going to take for people to realize how dumb they sound using idiotic terminology.....

My, someone got up with a bug in their butt.
I think iPhone Nano is perfectly fine, given a better name for a non-existent product. Got one?

I also disagree with the poster who says flip is 'so 90s'. I think sliders are so '6th grade/Transformers'.

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

If I hear the term "iPhone Nano" one more time I think I'll throw up.
There's no such thing because it's a stupid idea.
How long is it going to take for people to realize how dumb they sound using idiotic terminology.....

Well according to Ireland, he doesnt care if its called the iPod nano or the iPod Monkeybucket, My moneys on the Monkeybucket

Where are you Brendan? or have you just changed your name?

[Olternaut]

Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe

Well according to Ireland, he doesnt care if its called the iPod nano or the iPod Monkeybucket, My moneys on the Monkeybucket

Where are you Brendan? or have you just changed your name?

iPod MonkeyBucket FTW!!

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by GQB

I think iPhone Nano is perfectly fine, given a better name for a non-existent product. Got one?

iDontCare


A better name than a nano phone would be the iDontCare because you'll never see it, nobody would want it, it would be horrible for Apple, and the only guy to come up with the original idea mistook the Touch for a smaller iPhone.

People need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and think for a second.

There already is a smaller than iPhone, cheaper than iPhone, less capable than iPhone.... smart phone.
It's called a Blackberry.
It's a dumb idea, and Apple won't play down to it...... people on here should realize that.
Jeese.....

[GQB]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

iDontCare


A better name than a nano phone would be the iDontCare because you'll never see it, nobody would want it, it would be horrible for Apple, and the only guy to come up with the original idea mistook the Touch for a smaller iPhone.

People need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and think for a second.

There already is a smaller than iPhone, cheaper than iPhone, less capable than iPhone.... smart phone.
It's called a Blackberry.
It's a dumb idea, and Apple won't play down to it...... people on here should realize that.
Jeese.....

Ah... I was right.
The ubiquitous "I hate Apple and Jobs" bug up the butt.
Thanks for clarifying.

[Olternaut]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

iDontCare


A better name than a nano phone would be the iDontCare because you'll never see it, nobody would want it, it would be horrible for Apple, and the only guy to come up with the original idea mistook the Touch for a smaller iPhone.

People need to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and think for a second.

There already is a smaller than iPhone, cheaper than iPhone, less capable than iPhone.... smart phone.
It's called a Blackberry.
It's a dumb idea, and Apple won't play down to it...... people on here should realize that.
Jeese.....

I'm sorry but I think your wrong. I (and many others) believe that Apple, in order to expand market share, is going to debut the iphone in various configurations including a simpler lower priced model to appeal to that segment of the market. They are going to try to follow the ipod model for the handsets (plural).
Come toward the end of the year you will see. They want you to automatically think "iphone" when you think "cellphone".
They can't do that 100 percent of course but they might just come close.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by GQB

Ah... I was right.
The ubiquitous "I hate Apple and Jobs" bug up the butt.
Thanks for clarifying.

You missed the point.


The Blackberry is a dumb idea, and Apple will not play down to it.
Apple's going to own the market. Doing something really stupid like a nano-phone, is not something Apple has shown any signs of doing.
They may screw up, but not in the size or magnitude that going low-brow like the blackberry would be.

Get off the nano-phone dumb idea, and focus on keeping the lead.
Remember, Apple will never do anything in the phone business because leaders like Motoroloa will kill them.....

[Olternaut]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

You missed the point.


The Blackberry is a dumb idea, and Apple will not play down to it.
Apple's going to own the market. Doing something really stupid like a nano-phone, is not something Apple has shown any signs of doing.
They may screw up, but not in the size or magnitude that going low-brow like the blackberry would be.

Get off the nano-phone dumb idea, and focus on keeping the lead.
Remember, Apple will never do anything in the phone business because leaders like Motoroloa will kill them.....

Umm....I get what you mean but using motorola as a "leader" is a bad example. lol
They are umm...ahem....no longer a leader. They will be lucky if their mobile handset business even exists this time next year.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by GQB

My, someone got up with a bug in their butt.
I think iPhone Nano is perfectly fine, given a better name for a non-existent product. Got one?

I also disagree with the poster who says flip is 'so 90s'. I think sliders are so '6th grade/Transformers'.

Have you ever owned a slider? Flip-phones are more prone to drop than sliders and flip phone hinges break. Sliders tend to be smaller and thinner. Pardon me- but what's a Transformer and how does that relate to a slider phone?

[GQB]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

You missed the point.


The Blackberry is a dumb idea, and Apple will not play down to it.
Apple's going to own the market. Doing something really stupid like a nano-phone, is not something Apple has shown any signs of doing.
They may screw up, but not in the size or magnitude that going low-brow like the blackberry would be.

Get off the nano-phone dumb idea, and focus on keeping the lead.
Remember, Apple will never do anything in the phone business because leaders like Motoroloa will kill them.....

Got it. Don't agree, but get your POV.
I personally don't think the one-form-fits-all approach will work tho'. I actually think the iPhone is just a touch (no pun intended) obese. I think a slimmer form factor as an option would do well, but we'll see.

But as for Motorola killing Apple in the cell field? C'mon. Motorola is dead meat. They'll be out of the cell market in a year.

[wbrasington]

Originally Posted by GQB

Got it. Don't agree, but get your POV.
I personally don't think the one-form-fits-all approach will work tho'. I actually think the iPhone is just a touch (no pun intended) obese. I think a slimmer form factor as an option would do well, but we'll see.

But as for Motorola killing Apple in the cell field? C'mon. Motorola is dead meat. They'll be out of the cell market in a year.

Apple was supposed to fail at music because of the MP3 players and websites that "owned" the market.

They killed those "owners".

When Apple decided to move into the phone world, everybody said phones were not "easy" like the music business. (pretty funny considering how hard everyone said the music business was, until Apple made it look easy)

When Apple moved into the phone business, RIMM was NOT the copetition.
They did business phones and basically NOBODY thought general consumers would buy a smart phone. (see fa-mouse youtube of Balmer laughing at the iPhone saying "Who wants THAT?")

The real competition back at the beginning was the king of Phones.... motorola.
And as much as people want to think THEY self-destructed, Apple killed them by going where they could not follow.

At this juncture, you see my prior comments as "tongue inserted in cheek".

You should also rather easily see why I think it's a dumb idea to look backward at the competition behind us, to figure out how to compete with them...... (picture Nano-phone as looking backward)

Apple should stay on the offensive and keep going forward, no matter how many Android people, Microsoft people, or rimm fanatics say it won't work.
(at this point, read again how Sony will squash the iPod, Motorola will kill any phone Apple comes out with, and for a real laugh look at how Windows will out inovate the Mac....)

[shawnathan]

ireland's out drinkin' green beer.. where everyone else should be !

[rain]

Cool, this is what Apple has planned for OELD technology. Probably 2 years away yet, but this will make for revolutionary products.
I only wonder if Apple will release new displays before OELD's become the standard, or the sun burns out.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by wbrasington

You missed the point.


The Blackberry is a dumb idea, and Apple will not play down to it.
Apple's going to own the market. Doing something really stupid like a nano-phone, is not something Apple has shown any signs of doing.
They may screw up, but not in the size or magnitude that going low-brow like the blackberry would be.

Get off the nano-phone dumb idea, and focus on keeping the lead.
Remember, Apple will never do anything in the phone business because leaders like Motoroloa will kill them.....

Motorola is no longer a leader due to the fact that they made a big mistake with only one decent phone - the RAZR. Apple will come out with additional models and they will be amazing. There will be smaller, cheaper versions.
If you don't like the Nano name then how's the iPhone-mini?
It will be the return of Yao and Verne Troyer!

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by Olternaut

iPod MonkeyBucket FTW!!

Funny I thought YOU'D like it

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by shawnathan

ireland's out drinkin' green beer.. where everyone else should be !

Happy St. Patty's Day- Ireland!!!

[Walter Slocombe]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Motorola is no longer a leader due to the fact that they made a big mistake with only one decent phone - the RAZR. Apple will come out with additional models and they will be amazing. There will be smaller, cheaper versions.
If you don't like the Nano name then how's the iPhone-mini?
It will be the return of Yao and Verne Troyer!

Dear frog in haven!

Please understand that Apple are GROWING A NEW PLATFORM the iPhone, any future iPhones from Apple will be MORE powerful, just like new computers get more powerful, more apps more processor intensive apps will need more cycles.. but the BASE LINE will have to be the current iPhone.

The only way Apple will bring out an iPhone nano is when they can do the same phone they have now, but in a smaller size/form but it will be AS POWERFUL as the current phone, because AS A PLATFORM it must be able to run the new apps.

IMO this is why there are extra untapped cycles in the iPhones CPU, they are there for future app developments.

think of the iPhone as Steve and Apple see it, a NEW PLATFORM and you will see why a lesser iPhone simply wouldn't BE an iPhone any more.

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Have you ever owned a slider? Flip-phones are more prone to drop than sliders and flip phone hinges break. Sliders tend to be smaller and thinner. Pardon me- but what's a Transformer and how does that relate to a slider phone?

I don't understand why you say sliders are thinner. But the, per Abster2Core, you've said lots of outlandish things.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by JeffDM

I don't understand why you say sliders are thinner. But the, per Abster2Core, you've said lots of outlandish things.

That opinion is outlandish?
For the most part sliders are thinner. Have you ever seen/used one? They are also more durable- no hinge. People I've know who have switched to them like them a lot- their form factor is much more compact and their use more ergonomic.
Why do you think flipphones superior? And note- I don't think your opinion is outlandish and I won't look up anybody who's disagreed with you in the past!
As for your other comment- you really should form your own opinions from whatever I've said and not from somebody who can't even discuss things without being totally irrational.

[teckstud]

Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe

Dear frog in haven!

Please understand that Apple are GROWING A NEW PLATFORM the iPhone, any future iPhones from Apple will be MORE powerful, just like new computers get more powerful, more apps more processor intensive apps will need more cycles.. but the BASE LINE will have to be the current iPhone.

The only way Apple will bring out an iPhone nano is when they can do the same phone they have now, but in a smaller size/form but it will be AS POWERFUL as the current phone, because AS A PLATFORM it must be able to run the new apps.

IMO this is why there are extra untapped cycles in the iPhones CPU, they are there for future app developments.

think of the iPhone as Steve and Apple see it, a NEW PLATFORM and you will see why a lesser iPhone simply wouldn't BE an iPhone any more.

I agree it would no longer be an iphone perse not anymore than a Nano is a full iPod. The Nano just finally caught up to a regular iPod in capabilities after 3 years. But Apple would sell a lot more phones if they came out with and lesser version in price and functionality. Remember the iPod Mini was what took the iPod into the stratosphere.
Not everybody wants a data plan phone. A regular cellphone with a reduced OS would help grow the platform, in my opinion, and sell tons.
If the current iPhone, according to you, is the base then everything else added would cost more. Is that good?

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by teckstud

That opinion is outlandish?
For the most part sliders are thinner. Have you ever seen/used one? They are also more durable- no hinge. People I've know who have switched to them like them a lot- their form factor is much more compact and their use more ergonomic.
Why do you think flipphones superior? And note- I don't think your opinion is outlandish and I won't look up anybody who's disagreed with you in the past!
As for your other comment- you really should form your own opinions from whatever I've said and not from somebody who can't even discuss things without being totally irrational.

I did not say flip phones are superior. But I don't see anything special about sliders that would make them thinner. I've seen some, but they weren't any thinner. I don't see how they're more ergonomic, a slider is usually a straight stick when the human face is curved - which can be accommodated with a hinge that doesn't open to 180.

[SpamSandwich]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Flip-screen phones are so 2005. The iPhone Nano should be a slider- less bulky, easier to handle, and fits easily in your pockets.

Flip is really the only thing that makes sense. There's no chance of accidental activation and the screen is protected. Also, instead of the moronic action of activating your iPhone with a finger swipe, simply opening the phone takes care of it... no distractions. Clamshell is the same concept that keeps your MacBook from getting damaged in transit. Once Apple makes a flip phone, all will be right with the world.

[MacRonin]

I would rather see this version of an iPhone nano. Drop the Internet & such; I will do all that on my Newton 2…

;^p

[kenaustus]

First thought is that the competition is reaching for the antacid.

Second thought is don't look at what the competition has delivered in terms of form factors, like flip or sliders. Sit back, relax and let Jonathan Ive & Co. design something you are going to REALLY want - again.

[iCarbon]

I'll admit that I want the whole internet on my mobile phone. But I also want my mobile phone to fit in my BLOODY POCKET!!!!

if you think that an iPhone nano is a silly idea, you haven't looked in the mirror while wearing a phone in a special case on your belt. I hate to say it, but the phone holster is not the gun-slinger look of the modern age, any more than the pocket protector was 40 years ago. Its just an unfortunate and fairly lame by-product of bulky and fragile phones. iPhones are not fragile (remember that one which was run over by a truck? http://www.engadget.com/2008/02/02/i...tell-the-tale/). So the real problem is that they don't fit into a pocket. Give me an iphone interface, with the same level of internet access that actually fits in my pocket, and I'll shill out $800 clams without thinking.

Call me crazy, but its the one big thing I've been waiting for all this time!

[JeffDM]

Originally Posted by iCarbon

I'll admit that I want the whole internet on my mobile phone. But I also want my mobile phone to fit in my BLOODY POCKET!!!!

How small are your bloody pockets?

[sennen]

Originally Posted by teckstud

Have you ever owned a slider? Flip-phones are more prone to drop than sliders and flip phone hinges break. Sliders tend to be smaller and thinner. Pardon me- but what's a Transformer and how does that relate to a slider phone?

i disagree with all your comments on flip phones. ever used a japanese flip phone? nice big, clear screens and good sized keypad. i've got an NEC flip phone, the hinge is rock solid after 2.5 years. it's a great phone, much more user friendly than the nokia 6200 that i also have atm.

i for one would love to see a flip iPhone.