or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's newly-patented in-cell touchscreen tech could be bound for next-gen iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's newly-patented in-cell touchscreen tech could be bound for next-gen iPhone

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Apple on Tuesday received a patent for touch screen LCD technology which integrates touch-sensing elements with display circuitry to create a thinner, lighter panel that will possibly make its way to the company's popular smartphone.

Apple's U.S. Patent No. 8,243,027 for a "Touch screen liquid crystal display" describes a variety of methods in which a touchscreen's touch-sensing elements are integrated within the LCD, unlike current technology which places the touch layer over a device's screen. The patent filing cross-references a number of properties regarding multi-touch and LCD technologies.

LCD touchscreen technology used in the current iPhone 4S, for example, is "glass-on-glass" or "on cell," meaning the touch sensitive capacitive element is sandwiched between a display unit's top glass and a protective Gorilla Glass layer. Below the LCD's top glass is the liquid crystal array, a bottom glass and backlight assembly.

In a traditional configuration, colors and brightness are achieved through use of thin film transistors (TFT) overlaid on the top or bottom mother-glasses. The transistors apply a charge to the liquid crystals, which are held in cells, changing their orientation and allowing backlight transmission for the desired pixel color or brightness.

LCD Stackup
Basic LCD stackup. | Source: USPTO


In-cell technology removes the top substrate, or glass layer, by combining the liquid crystal and touch sensing elements into a single structure. As seen in the patent filing, there are multiple ways of integrating the elements.

From the patent filing:

By integrating the layered structure of an LCD and a touch sensor, a variety of benefits can be achieved. This integration can include combining or interleaving the layered structures described above. Integration can further include eliminating redundant structures and/or finding dual purposes (e.g., one purpose for the touch function and another for the display function) for particular layers or structures. This can permit some layers to be eliminated, which can reduce cost and thickness of the touch screen LCD, as well as simplify manufacturing.


One of the methods described is of particular interest to Apple as it can be implemented in both conventional and in-plane-switching (IPS) panels, the latter being used in the current iPhone 4S' Retina display and a number of other products from the Cupertino company.

In-cell Concept
In-cell display concept. | Source: USPTO


In one of Apple's patent concepts regarding an in-cell IPS panel, the technology can "provide touch-sensing capabilities by allowing the same electrodes used for display updating to also be used for touch sensing." This sharing of electrodes is necessary as IPS displays lack the requisite layer to apply a touch drive or touch sensing elements. The patent goes on to say the additional circuitry can help augment the shared electrodes and in some cases "touch pixels can overlap a large number of display pixels."

From the patent filing:

In contrast, because the IPS embodiments discussed below can use the same electrodes used for display control and touch sensing, higher touch resolution can be obtained with little to no additional cost. Alternatively, a number of touch pixels can be grouped to produce a combined touch signal with a lower resolution.



Manufacture Flow
Sample in-cell LCD manufacture flow. | Source: USPTO


Rumors swirled in April that Apple was looking to employ so-called "in-cell" touchscreen technology into a next-generation iPhone, allowing the company to keep weight and size down as the handset moves from a 3.5-inch screen to a larger 4-inch version. The Wall Street Journal in July corroborated the early reports. Display manufacturers like Sharp and LG are at the cutting edge of in-cell technology are have purportedly been tapped to supply the new iPhone's screens.

Tuesday's patent filing describes a display similar to the rumored in-cell units, but includes a variety of ways to integrate a touch sensitive element into an LCD array, not just one. Also outlined are processes related to manufacturing the new screens, whether it be by modifying existing methods or creating entirely new steps in the manufacturing process flow.
post #2 of 47
Looks like innovation to me.
post #3 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Looks like innovation to me.

 

If it differs enough from the in-cell touchscreen which Samsung en AU Optronics have developed for the AMOLED displays which came to market 2~3 years ago. This is for IPS screens so it will probably differ enough.

post #4 of 47

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

post #5 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Looks like innovation to me.

 

But how long till Samsung copies it?

post #6 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

I don't know but it is hard to believe Apple are not researching or at least assisting in researching new forms of battery technology. Anyone here know anything along those lines?
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #7 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

But how long till Samsung copies it?

I confess, I always think when I see these patent applications posted like this ... way to show Sammy how eh? I realize it's a silly thought as this is how the process works but it is always my initial reaction.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #8 of 47

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

 

Where are you that you aren't around a charger for a couple of days? I've had my iPhone last me through 2 and a half days at times. I'd find that remarkably better than anything else out on the market right now. The only thing that rivals it is the Droid Razr Maxx, and which phone would you rather have? Also, of course your old Nokia ran for 2 weeks. So does a Kindle. It doesn't mean that it does anything special, just that it has one task and one task only. It doesn't take too much battery power to sit in standby all day until a call comes in.

post #9 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

But how long till Samsung copies it?

 

See post #2, samsung have had this technology in AMOLED displays for some years now (if I recall correctly it was introduced with the first Galaxy S)

post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

But how long till Samsung copies it?

How do you know they haven't already filed something similar? You really don't. Appleinsider (justifiably) reports on Apple patent filings. There is little reason to report on others, regardless of their existence if they don't relate to the primary focus of the site in some way.

post #11 of 47

I go camping at least twice a year where i'm away from plug sockets for a good 5 days where it'd be very useful. In addition, I go on cycle tours for weekends, and fear my battery running out.

 

Also, I rather like the idea of being able to use my phone all day and not have to worry about plugging it in every night otherwise I'll be without my phone the next day.

 

And finally, in my iPhone (less than 12 months old) the battery has deteriorated such that I have to charge it daily (with normal use - i.e. just text messages, bit of music and web surfing). I'd call that fairly unacceptable when all the other elements of the phone have come on in leaps and bounds. 

 

What harm is there in insisting battery technology is developed, I don't see it being a waste of time/money?

post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

I go camping at least twice a year where i'm away from plug sockets for a good 5 days where it'd be very useful. In addition, I go on cycle tours for weekends, and fear my battery running out.

 

Also, I rather like the idea of being able to use my phone all day and not have to worry about plugging it in every night otherwise I'll be without my phone the next day.

 

And finally, in my iPhone (less than 12 months old) the battery has deteriorated such that I have to charge it daily (with normal use - i.e. just text messages, bit of music and web surfing). I'd call that fairly unacceptable when all the other elements of the phone have come on in leaps and bounds. 

 

What harm is there in insisting battery technology is developed, I don't see it being a waste of time/money?

 

Just read this today : http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/techscience/2012/08/13/8/0601000000AEN20120813001600320F.HTML

 

I think there is a lot of development going on in the field of batteries (not only for devices but also for electric cars) but it just hasn't paid off yet, or is still not practical.

 

b.t.w. my link about fast charging comes from south-korea, ironic ? ;)

post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mausz View Post

Just read this today : http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/techscience/2012/08/13/8/0601000000AEN20120813001600320F.HTML

I think there is a lot of development going on in the field of batteries (not only for devices but also for electric cars) but it just hasn't paid off yet, or is still not practical.

b.t.w. my link about fast charging comes from south-korea, ironic ? 1wink.gif

If this proves to be a success I hope those S. Korean scientists can benefit from their hard work and some evil company doesn't simply rip off their IP. /ironic smile
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


If this proves to be a success I hope those S. Korean scientists can benefit from their hard work and some evil company doesn't simply rip off their IP. /ironic smile

 

As the research was (partially) funded by the ministry and therefor with public money, I would not like to see them benefit by going commercial. Something which happens quite a lot, scientist at universities get funding to develop without financial risk, and when one of them gets success, they leave and develop it commercially.

post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

I go camping at least twice a year where i'm away from plug sockets for a good 5 days where it'd be very useful. In addition, I go on cycle tours for weekends, and fear my battery running out.

 

Also, I rather like the idea of being able to use my phone all day and not have to worry about plugging it in every night otherwise I'll be without my phone the next day.

 

And finally, in my iPhone (less than 12 months old) the battery has deteriorated such that I have to charge it daily (with normal use - i.e. just text messages, bit of music and web surfing). I'd call that fairly unacceptable when all the other elements of the phone have come on in leaps and bounds. 

 

What harm is there in insisting battery technology is developed, I don't see it being a waste of time/money?

If the thickness and weight won't bother you -- apparently, it won't, given your post -- get an external battery pack. There are many excellent ones available in the market. Apple is not in the business of doing everything.

post #16 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

 

 

To be fair, if you want an iPhone with great battery life, you can have it if you're willing to make some sacrifices.

 

1. Turn off all battery-sucking functionality that you don't absolutely need (or, turn it on only when needed), such as Bluetooth, location services, iCloud services, etc.

 

2. Buy an iPhone case with a battery, such as this one: http://www.amazon.com/Mophie-Rechargeable-Battery-iPhone-Packaging/dp/B004GGU8SS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1344953890&sr=8-1&keywords=mophie

 

Now, you're still not getting a battery that will last a fortnight, but you'd get several days worth with moderate use.

post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

 

 

Yes, but did that Nokia phone have blue tooth, wi-fi, and the same type of display? Bluetooth and Wi-Fi drain the juice.

post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

Yes, but did that Nokia phone have blue tooth, wi-fi, and the same type of display? Bluetooth and Wi-Fi drain the juice.

 

I used a work Nokia C5-00 last year and it went for 2 weeks without problems. Bluetooth was enabled, it did not have WiFi to be fair.

post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

 

But how long till Samsung copies it?

 

They will just have their Fandriods post "prior art".

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply

Mac Pro Dual 2.8 Quad (2nd gen), 14G Ram, Two DVD-RW Drives, OS X 10.9
Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz, SuperDrive, ATI X1600, 2GB RAM, OS X 10.7
1TB Time Capsule

Reply
post #20 of 47

Uhhh, Didn't Samsung start doing this with their AMOLED screens FOR YEARS NOW

 

Then again, since this is an LCD patent, it is diff, since LCD needs backlight and AMOLED does not. Seeing LCD inherently needs more layers than AMOLED, I'm not sure why Apple is still betting on LCD tech. 

 

Also, this was done in 2007. I don't even think OLED screens were possible in 2007. 

 

Not sure why Apple is sticking with LCD though. 

 

OLED has better contrast ratios (no backlight so black is BLACK), can show brighter colors (although manufacturers like this feature a bit TOO much and over calibrate), uses less power, and since it requires no backlight they are thinner AND can be made flexible. 

 

LCD has about 10 years left in it. OLED prices will come down and drive it out of the market. Sure, an OLED TV may be a bazillion dollars now, but i remember wback when an LCD monitor was a bazillion dollars compared to a CRT, and look how that turned out. 

post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

If your honest you would admit your Nokia wasn't a personal computer in your pocket. If your honest you would admit Apples iPhone has battery life comparable if not better than most smart phones on Market. If your honest, you would admit that this is the state of battery technology and that 5 days between charging  you want is the trade off for phones that do all the things your Nokia couldn't. 

 

 

You can still get what you honestly want. Go buy an old Nokia or a feature phone. But honestly, you don't know what you are talking about.

post #22 of 47
Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

 

Not sure why Apple is sticking with LCD though. 

 

 

Question. How good is OLED in bright sunlight, even now with the modern AMOLED screens? I just heard in some recent podcasts people still lamenting the visibility of AMOLED screens in sunlight, even in the flagship Samsung phones (Galaxy SIII).

 

I'm outside a lot... Personally, I'd never trade visibility in that situation for slightly more color saturation or deeper blacks.

post #23 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

If BLACKBERRY (RIM) had actually been thinking and not playing (f^{*ing) around with the playbook, torch, storm and extented the battery life of the blackberry to a week, perhaps RIM would be swimming, and not gasping, coughing on the the dock from almost drowning....
post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post


If BLACKBERRY (RIM) had actually been thinking and not playing (f^{*ing) around with the playbook, torch, storm and extented the battery life of the blackberry to a week, perhaps RIM would be swimming, and not gasping, coughing on the the dock from almost drowning....

They've not completely given up. They did announce they'll be licensing their OS.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-08-13/rim-says-blackberry-10-will-soon-be-ready-for-licensing

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Uhhh, Didn't Samsung start doing this with their AMOLED screens FOR YEARS NOW

 

Then again, since this is an LCD patent, it is diff, since LCD needs backlight and AMOLED does not. Seeing LCD inherently needs more layers than AMOLED, I'm not sure why Apple is still betting on LCD tech. 

 

Also, this was done in 2007. I don't even think OLED screens were possible in 2007. 

 

Not sure why Apple is sticking with LCD though. 

 

OLED has better contrast ratios (no backlight so black is BLACK), can show brighter colors (although manufacturers like this feature a bit TOO much and over calibrate), uses less power, and since it requires no backlight they are thinner AND can be made flexible. 

 

LCD has about 10 years left in it. OLED prices will come down and drive it out of the market. Sure, an OLED TV may be a bazillion dollars now, but i remember wback when an LCD monitor was a bazillion dollars compared to a CRT, and look how that turned out. 

 

Because you are wrong.

http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/iphone-4-retina-display-vs-galaxy-s-super-amoled-fight/

post #26 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

I go camping at least twice a year where i'm away from plug sockets for a good 5 days where it'd be very useful. In addition, I go on cycle tours for weekends, and fear my battery running out.

 

Also, I rather like the idea of being able to use my phone all day and not have to worry about plugging it in every night otherwise I'll be without my phone the next day.

 

And finally, in my iPhone (less than 12 months old) the battery has deteriorated such that I have to charge it daily (with normal use - i.e. just text messages, bit of music and web surfing). I'd call that fairly unacceptable when all the other elements of the phone have come on in leaps and bounds. 

 

What harm is there in insisting battery technology is developed, I don't see it being a waste of time/money?

 

With all due respect, that's a fringe case (5 days with no power) and in Apple's view (and my view) it's not worth tripling the size/weight/thickness of the battery/phone in order to make it last several days. The demand for such a thing isnt there from most people, if size/weight is to be heavily sacrificed, because the vast majority of people with iPhones are able to plug it in every night, 99% of the time. I'd suggesting buying some kind of juice pack (like mophie) there's a ton of case options that include a built in battery which doubles/triples the battery life. Would be the perfect solution for you, as you're not gonna get a smartphone with 5 days of battery anytime this decade. I'll help you out: http://www.mophie.com/iPhone-4-s/47.htm

 

Also, the assumption that Apple isn't investing R&D in battery advancement is insane. Their products have some of the best battery life in the industry relative to their size (ie. Macbook Air/Pro) and this is clearly an area where they're continually moving forward. 

post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


I don't know but it is hard to believe Apple are not researching or at least assisting in researching new forms of battery technology. Anyone here know anything along those lines?

You don't know if they are or not. 

post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post

You don't know if they are or not. 

Correct. I think that's exactly what he said.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #29 of 47
Quote:

Sorry, but did you just post an article about an AMOLED screen from TWO generations ago when it was barely even in its infancy? When even a PENTILE display couldn't get over 200 ppi barely, and Samsung didn't even figure out its FMM technology yet (and subsequently have LG spies e-mail all the details back to base, lol)?

 

The advances made since then have been incredible. Trust me, in ten years OLED TV will be the new standard for high end sets. Its over 20 grand for one now, but that will only last for so long. 

 

Its by no coincidence that TV manufacturers are jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They know its the next big thing in display tech. 


Edited by sleepy3 - 8/14/12 at 10:32am
post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


I don't know but it is hard to believe Apple are not researching or at least assisting in researching new forms of battery technology. Anyone here know anything along those lines?

 

Apple has a high investment in battery tech. This one reason why Apple batteries can be made to fit the space available and not rely on off-the-shelf batteries. YouTube has a great video on Apple battery tech. 

 

In addition, Apple employs software and hardware optimization to use less power to do more with limited power. 

 

How often a phone needs to be charged is also a factor of what you use it for. Your old Nokia likely did little more then any other dumb phone of its day. Comparing that charge life to a smart phone is not a fair comparison. 

"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
"That (the) world is moving so quickly that iOS is already amongst the older mobile operating systems in active development today." — The Verge
Reply
post #31 of 47
Originally Posted by sleepy3 View Post

Its by no coincidence that TV manufacturers are jumping on the OLED bandwagon. They know its the next big thing in display tech. 

 

Call me when they decide to make an OLED screen in Super Hi-Vision.

post #32 of 47

For my money, the ultimate display will be one that combines the best elements of the backlit Retina display with the best properties of e-ink (readability in direct sunlight). If any company can crack this and make it work, I think perhaps it will be Apple.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Call me when they decide to make an OLED screen in Super Hi-Vision.

 

Call me when there's ANY Super Hi-Vision screen available. That being said, I don't see how an OLED screen with such resolution wouldn't be possible. I'd be surprised if it wouldn't happen in the next 10 years.

iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
iPad 3, Galaxy S4
Reply
post #34 of 47
Originally Posted by Youarewrong View Post
Call me when there's ANY Super Hi-Vision screen available. That being said, I don't see how an OLED screen with such resolution wouldn't be possible. I'd be surprised if it wouldn't happen in the next 10 years.

 

This year.

Last year.

 

Why.

 

As for the few problems they mention at the end, here's how you fix it. Take a Super Hi-Vision camera. Take a Lytro. Combine them.

 

1000

post #35 of 47
You can't be serious! I sit here honestly believing that the next iPhone will have much better battery lifetimes, but I'm not so crazy as to think that 5 days is possible with near term technology. You need to realize that iPhone is a computer and much like a laptop doesn't last that long (battery lifetimes) if used extensively. It is the nature of the beast and will likely remain an issue for users for sometime.

By the way expecting more is all right as it drives industry forward, I just don't see the technology to deliver what you want in the next couple of years. At least not in a manageable pocketable cell phone. Today you can slap a battery pack onto an iPhone to extend the range but few do because it bulks up the device to much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

If I'm honest I'd trade new touchscreen tech, a bigger screen, better camera, faster processor, better graphics, lighter form factor and other functions for Apple to just make a phone with battery that lasts a reasonable amount of time (5 days perhaps between charges). I recall most of my old Nokia mobile phones only needing to be charged once a fortnight. I know screens suck battery life, as do 3G/Wi-fi/music/videos etc. but why shouldn't we expect a little more battery life for when we're not near a plug socket. Why don't Apple spend some of their billions of cash sloshing about in their accounts on developing battery tech. It's urgently needed, and could be incredibly lucrative to Apple.

Last I knew Apple owned a company that in fact has developed much of the battery tech used in its machines. That is why they can build laptops that can run for 3 or 4 years without significant loss in battery capacity. A rational comparison of Apples battery technology indicates that they are very much technology leaders now. That isn't to say we don't need something better but improvements don't happen overnight. Further batteries are real safety issues and as such require extensive validation and safety research to make sure a design is valid for public consumption.
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by CustardCar View Post

I go camping at least twice a year where i'm away from plug sockets for a good 5 days where it'd be very useful. In addition, I go on cycle tours for weekends, and fear my battery running out.
What good is a cell phone if you are camping? Most places I go to to experience the great out doors have no signal. More interesting is this, how many other devices do you carry that are likely to last on one set of atteries for such a trip. I mean really I carry extra batteries for my LED flashlights.
Quote:
Also, I rather like the idea of being able to use my phone all day and not have to worry about plugging it in every night otherwise I'll be without my phone the next day.
Honestly that is assinine! Is it really that difficult to slip the phone into a charger when hitting the sack?
Quote:
And finally, in my iPhone (less than 12 months old) the battery has deteriorated such that I have to charge it daily (with normal use - i.e. just text messages, bit of music and web surfing). I'd call that fairly unacceptable when all the other elements of the phone have come on in leaps and bounds. 
if the battery has actually failed or regressed why not take the unit back to Apple for a replacement?

It is more likely though that you are simply using the hardware more than in the past.
Quote:
What harm is there in insisting battery technology is developed, I don't see it being a waste of time/money?

It isn't a waste of money however your implication that research isn't being done is down right misinformed. Battery technology is one of the hottest spots in R&D as everybody has the same issue. That is they need higher capacity and safer batteries.
post #37 of 47

I dont care about the lawsuit possibilities of this.  What I do want to know is, if this is used on the new iPhone will it cause a screen replacement to be $300 like the Galaxy S3.  Cause when my wife drops her new iphone and cracks the screen I want to know it will cost a lot less.  That is a huge disadvantage of the s3.  The glass is fused to the screen and it is a very expensive replacement.

post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoverlow View Post

I dont care about the lawsuit possibilities of this.  What I do want to know is, if this is used on the new iPhone will it cause a screen replacement to be $300 like the Galaxy S3.  Cause when my wife drops her new iphone and cracks the screen I want to know it will cost a lot less.  That is a huge disadvantage of the s3.  The glass is fused to the screen and it is a very expensive replacement.

When you purchase an iPhone it is a good idea to also buy Apple Care for it. As I recall the last iPhone I purchased AC+ was $99 for 2 years but they also said if the screen needs to be replaced it is only $50.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

Looks like innovation to me.

They aren't the first. I'm wondering what is different enough to gain a patent.

 

http://www.auo.com/?sn=107&lang=en-US&c=10&n=586

post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Honestly that is assinine!

True.

Ok so anyway, now we've got the touch layer integrated, that makes room for...

More layers?

1) Transparent Photovoltaic layer? Would be a good work around for battery life issues.
2) Light sensing pixels? Like cones in the eye. A Real Retina Display. The possibilities:
i) Built-in fingerprint recognition
ii) Facial recognition
iii) Hover effects on finger proximity
iv) Greater multitouch input - shape of object, object tracking
v) Due to sensor effective size, huge aperture, 3D vision possible
vi) True face-to-face FaceTime, eye contact, a window, the goal for video conferencing
vii) Apps. There will be uses we can only dream of. Like a mirror.
3) Not really a "layer" but glasses-free 3D. Let Nintendo work out the kinks first.

Anyone for iPhone 7 speculation?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's newly-patented in-cell touchscreen tech could be bound for next-gen iPhone