This patent is a bit silly as it sounds like Apple has patented the mirror. Sometimes I'm not very impressed with Apples patents but I guess they have no choice.
It's not describing a mirror. Besides, screen backlights already have a mirror-like foil, which is easily found just by disassembling an LCD panel.
Remember the "6 bit is good enough, nobody will notice" from the Apple crowd? Good to see that Apple is trying to improve, rather than listening to those guys.
I don't remember thinking 6-bit was OK. Six-bit is cutting corners.
I don't remember thinking 6-bit was OK. Six-bit is cutting corners.
I agree. For a while, it seemed like it had to be that way for portable devices. For example, I hadn't seen a laptop or hand held device with IPS screens before iPad and iPhone 4.
I don't remember thinking 6-bit was OK. Six-bit is cutting corners.
Yeah, maybe Haggar could provide a link to some "6 bit is good enough" talk?
We get a lot of this, claiming that "Apple people" are forever insisting that everything is perfect just as it is, that Apple need not change or improve anything ever, but I never see citations of anyone actually saying that. It just seems to be an article of faith with some folks.
Apple's marketing claimed "millions of colors" on 6 bit screens that were physically incapable of producing "millions of colors". As you can see from those comments, Apple defenders dismissed the issue.
But due to the manner in which certain LEDs are fabricated, viewing angles -- particularly with phosphor-coated LEDs -- can be poor. Variations in chromaticity can negatively affect the color uniformity of the display, resulting in an inaccurate picture.
The FTC really ought to look into people calling these phosphor-coated LEDs "LED lights". An LED light should be a combination of red, green, and blue LEDs that add up to (some color temperature of) white.
These phospor-coated things are fluorescent lights excited by a blue LED instead of a mercury-vapor tube, and therefore no more efficient than fluorescent and just as subject to "tired phosphor" longevity issues. False advertising, in my opinion.
First they need to fix the backlight bleed issues on the iPad 2. Waiting for the official launch in my country soon so I can RMA my iPad 2. Though I can't imagine living without my iPad 2 for more than 2 days (a bit sad, but, meh whatever).
Apple's marketing claimed "millions of colors" on 6 bit screens that were physically incapable of producing "millions of colors". As you can see from those comments, Apple defenders dismissed the issue.
Actually, I see one person defending Apple. Everything else ranges from mild disappointed to pissed.
And this was all three years ago, when 6 bit laptop screens were the norm. So it's not so much about claiming that 6 bit is plenty good, just that Apple is providing the best screen available and perhaps overstating its capabilities, which is quite different.
And: really? You're grumpy about a discussion that happened three years ago?
Apple's marketing claimed "millions of colors" on 6 bit screens that were physically incapable of producing "millions of colors". As you can see from those comments, Apple defenders dismissed the issue.
FFS. It produced millions of colors through dithering, it still produces 16+ million colors, just not as nice as a true 8 bit display. It's an industry-wide practice that was needed to make the best of a bad situation in laptops. You're singling out Apple when there weren't any other companies selling true 8 bit displays in laptops, except maybe for niche applications.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist
The FTC really ought to look into people calling these phosphor-coated LEDs "LED lights". An LED light should be a combination of red, green, and blue LEDs that add up to (some color temperature of) white.
These phospor-coated things are fluorescent lights excited by a blue LED instead of a mercury-vapor tube, and therefore no more efficient than fluorescent and just as subject to "tired phosphor" longevity issues. False advertising, in my opinion.
To say it's no more efficient just because of the phosphor conversion isn't completely true. You have to account for the inefficiency the CCFL ballast, and the original generation of the blue/UV light isn't the same process, LED for one vs. a vapor arc in the other.
I don't think OLED will ever be practical enough for larger, more permanent displays. Too many compromises with the largest being the shorter life of the blue elements that cause color shifting over time as the blue "wears out" first.
I expect quantum dot LED to take over - not just for displays, but for general lighting.
Comments
Thin is very important to Apple!
This patent is a bit silly as it sounds like Apple has patented the mirror. Sometimes I'm not very impressed with Apples patents but I guess they have no choice.
It's not describing a mirror. Besides, screen backlights already have a mirror-like foil, which is easily found just by disassembling an LCD panel.
Remember the "6 bit is good enough, nobody will notice" from the Apple crowd? Good to see that Apple is trying to improve, rather than listening to those guys.
I don't remember thinking 6-bit was OK. Six-bit is cutting corners.
I don't remember thinking 6-bit was OK. Six-bit is cutting corners.
I agree. For a while, it seemed like it had to be that way for portable devices. For example, I hadn't seen a laptop or hand held device with IPS screens before iPad and iPhone 4.
I don't remember thinking 6-bit was OK. Six-bit is cutting corners.
Yeah, maybe Haggar could provide a link to some "6 bit is good enough" talk?
We get a lot of this, claiming that "Apple people" are forever insisting that everything is perfect just as it is, that Apple need not change or improve anything ever, but I never see citations of anyone actually saying that. It just seems to be an article of faith with some folks.
I don't remember thinking 6-bit was OK. Six-bit is cutting corners.
Here is where it started:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...o-displays.ars
Apple's marketing claimed "millions of colors" on 6 bit screens that were physically incapable of producing "millions of colors". As you can see from those comments, Apple defenders dismissed the issue.
But due to the manner in which certain LEDs are fabricated, viewing angles -- particularly with phosphor-coated LEDs -- can be poor. Variations in chromaticity can negatively affect the color uniformity of the display, resulting in an inaccurate picture.
The FTC really ought to look into people calling these phosphor-coated LEDs "LED lights". An LED light should be a combination of red, green, and blue LEDs that add up to (some color temperature of) white.
These phospor-coated things are fluorescent lights excited by a blue LED instead of a mercury-vapor tube, and therefore no more efficient than fluorescent and just as subject to "tired phosphor" longevity issues. False advertising, in my opinion.
Am I the only one that thinks the first patent drawing looks like something from Aperture Labs?
Ha Ha Awesome. Just put a small diagram of a cake somewhere on that and it will be complete.
Here is where it started:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...o-displays.ars
Apple's marketing claimed "millions of colors" on 6 bit screens that were physically incapable of producing "millions of colors". As you can see from those comments, Apple defenders dismissed the issue.
Actually, I see one person defending Apple. Everything else ranges from mild disappointed to pissed.
And this was all three years ago, when 6 bit laptop screens were the norm. So it's not so much about claiming that 6 bit is plenty good, just that Apple is providing the best screen available and perhaps overstating its capabilities, which is quite different.
And: really? You're grumpy about a discussion that happened three years ago?
Here is where it started:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...o-displays.ars
Apple's marketing claimed "millions of colors" on 6 bit screens that were physically incapable of producing "millions of colors". As you can see from those comments, Apple defenders dismissed the issue.
FFS. It produced millions of colors through dithering, it still produces 16+ million colors, just not as nice as a true 8 bit display. It's an industry-wide practice that was needed to make the best of a bad situation in laptops. You're singling out Apple when there weren't any other companies selling true 8 bit displays in laptops, except maybe for niche applications.
The FTC really ought to look into people calling these phosphor-coated LEDs "LED lights". An LED light should be a combination of red, green, and blue LEDs that add up to (some color temperature of) white.
These phospor-coated things are fluorescent lights excited by a blue LED instead of a mercury-vapor tube, and therefore no more efficient than fluorescent and just as subject to "tired phosphor" longevity issues. False advertising, in my opinion.
To say it's no more efficient just because of the phosphor conversion isn't completely true. You have to account for the inefficiency the CCFL ballast, and the original generation of the blue/UV light isn't the same process, LED for one vs. a vapor arc in the other.
Not going for OLED technology?
I don't think OLED will ever be practical enough for larger, more permanent displays. Too many compromises with the largest being the shorter life of the blue elements that cause color shifting over time as the blue "wears out" first.
I expect quantum dot LED to take over - not just for displays, but for general lighting.
It does nothing but sound great in a feature list.
And that's where the interest in it comes from