I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think you are confusing two separate things. .
Maybe. I did some more digging and found this...
"Apple may be planning to use Liquidmetal for a new iPhone antenna, says the co-inventor of the sci-fi metal alloy, Dr. Atakan Peker."
"The alloy case could be structural as well as functional. In other words, a Liquidmetal case could also function as a big antenna. And because different mixtures of metal can produce alloys with different characteristics, Apple could blend an alloy that is optimized for receiving radio signals."
"?You can build casings with functional characteristics, and the alloy?s properties as an antenna can be optimized,? Peker said."
So they could make a unibody style case, with the antennas built (so to speak) into the case.
Regardless, Apple did buy the exclusive rights to use Liquidmetal in mobil devices, so they must be planning to do something with it...
New form factor, or new material? Remember all the excitement over Apple gaining an exclusive license to use Liquidmetal alloys in electronic products? And the claim that they're radio transparent?
I personally expect LiquidMetal to be used in the next iPhone, but not in the way most would imagine. I believe instead of the entire casing, LiquidMetal will be used to form an impermeable seal, making the next iPhone waterproof, or at least highly water-resistant
Tim Cook: "Hey, Dan, it's Tim. I have Ivan on conference here. I wanted to let you guys know that when your customers come into your stores and ask you to unlock their phones, you're going to do it from now on. Okay? Thanks, guys!"
Done.
It's quite apparent you have no understanding how CDMA actually works. You can't just unlock CDMA basebands. It does not work like a SIM, at all. It's not some lazy management decision it's a technical specification. Thanks for the good laugh though.
Agreed. If Apple makes a bigger screen iPhone they will have a good reason for it beyond just following the competition's design trends.
And I don't think the next iPhone will rehash the 4S design. It will look different.
The A5X on a smaller, lower resolution screen would be disgustingly powerful as well. Running the same core hardware as the new iPad makes sense for many good reasons.
This is just idiotic. The reason to upgrade is the new features, not the "sleek new look". I expect the 6th gen iPhone to have the same case and look and the 4th and 5th gen iPhones.
May be true, but 'sleek new look' is a feature in its own right. Just pack these
'new features" that is spoken of in the same iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S case design for a THIRD time and see what happens! Your argument won't pass muster... Heck just Google iPhone 4S reviews and case complaints and see what you get.
The patent did not have anything to do with LiquidMetal. It was a process for forming the structural enclosures of cell phones using ceramics and also the use of Y2O3 stabilized zirconia which is not LM. That is the same compound used in jewelry.
Apple's patent was the use of zirconia - a ceramic material which is radio transparent.
That's quite different from zirconium - a metal that is a component of some Liquidmetal alloys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I guess I am missing that. I read that LM was an alloy of ZrTi. Can you point to some links of other alloys of LM besides Titanium?
[...] "In our view, this will be the most significant iPhone upgrade with a four-inch screen and a new, sleek look that we believe will require a Unibody case," White wrote. [...]
Things I'm expecting in the "new iPhone":
- Metal back
- Narrower bezel (with 3.7" to 3.9" screen size)
- Possible minor decrease in thickness
- Possible minor change to overall dimensions
Things I want but am not expecting this year:
- MagSafe dock connector (for easier connecting/disconnecting)
Apple's patent was the use of zirconia - a ceramic material which is radio transparent. [...]
I think zirconium dioxide casings would be pretty cool for iPhone, iPod touch, and maybe even iPad and MacBook Air. But I suspect that recycling could be a major pain, if it's even possible at all with that material. That's why I don't think Apple will be using carbon fiber extensively. Not sure that it can be recycled efficiently enough. \
Define doing it. Name a CDMA phone ever that's carrier or OEM supported to flash between carriers. MetroPCS had MetroFlash for a time and even that had serious caveats, otherwise none exist. There's no real standard method of doing it and there is nothing to unlock. The most you can do is attempt to hardwire flash a different carrier firmware to it with varying degrees of success and then find someone who's willing to add that IMEI to the network and hope daily it doesn't get flagged and banned. The only successes are typically smaller carriers and people who do end up with a myriad of problems with MMS not working, data drops, or just bricked phones as a result of a bad flash. That sound like something Apple is going to jump into to satisfy your dream?
Your original point about one phone doesn't make sense anyway as each carrier still have their own SIMs, so what would it ship with, none? When's the subsidy applied? You expect people to pay $6/700 through Apple? It's just not going to happen.
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think you are confusing two separate things.
Apple has two exclusive world-wide materials use licences (no one else but they can use said material in a mobile device), one is the zirconia stuff, the other is the liquid metal.
Liquid metal is a metalic glass composite and is not radio transparent in that it's mostly metal with small amounts of other materials.
Zirconia is the advanced ceramic with properties very close to something like gorilla glass and *is* radio transparent like all glasses and most ceramics.
As pointed out above, it's not quite that simple because there are different alloys.
Their most common alloy is listed as non-magnetic and a relatively poor conductor. No mention is made of radio transparency. There have been many reports that some liquidmetal alloys are radio transparent - and that may even be true - but I haven't seen any evidence from LQMT or anyone who really knows.
That is an over simplification. There are criteria that really don't come under the umbrella of function, but are traditionally of vital importance to Apple. You could argue that if the declared function of a shape and weight is to be loved and coveted, the form indeed follows function - but that's not what's usually meant by the term. If the the new iPhone has a curved back, I am not sure you could argue the form followed function.
"In our view, this will be the most significant iPhone upgrade with a four-inch screen and a new, sleek look that we believe will require a Unibody case," White wrote. "This new, sleek look will be the most important reason that consumers decide to upgrade."
This is just idiotic. The reason to upgrade is the new features, not the "sleek new look". I expect the 6th gen iPhone to have the same case and look and the 4th and 5th gen iPhones.
I disagree - people love new functions such as Siri but 'the look' is the reason most people up-grade. Without 'the look' cars would probably look today like the looked in the 70's . Sure, the drag coefficient is less with improved design but that is only one factor. suspension, weight, engine design etc are equally important.
Design is not an absolute exercise. Yesterdays 'perfect' design can look old fashioned today for no real technical reason. Good design also 'suggests' function, so a sleek modern design suggests modern features in spite of those features in no way being dependent on the sleek 'look'.
My first powerbook was the latest and greatest in shit hot design and function. It still would be a fantastic machine with mostly interior updates - but its looks belong in a museum.
It's quite apparent you have no understanding how CDMA actually works. You can't just unlock CDMA basebands. It does not work like a SIM, at all. It's not some lazy management decision it's a technical specification. Thanks for the good laugh though.
of course CDMA can't be unlocked via sim - thats true - but many of us took Sprint phones in the past - and via only s/w hacking made them work on Verizon - it was years before Verizon bothered with the TREO. a CDMA (Verizon) iPhone can be unlocked to work on other CDMA systems via software only - thats unlocking just the same
"In our view, this will be the most significant iPhone upgrade with a four-inch screen and a new, sleek look that we believe will require a Unibody case," White wrote. "This new, sleek look will be the most important reason that consumers decide to upgrade."
This is just idiotic. The reason to upgrade is the new features, not the "sleek new look". I expect the 6th gen iPhone to have the same case and look and the 4th and 5th gen iPhones.
Sometimes people get bored. So even though a new case might not effect performance, people like different things. I for one would welcome the 4 inch screen.
I don't think so. The iPhone 3GS outsold every single large screen android phone in 2011. If large screens were so desirable that would not happen.
It is possible for people to desire larger screens, but not so much so that they are willing to sacrifice all the other benefits the iPhone offers. I want the screen size to increase if Apple can do it without increasing the over all footprint of the phone by very much. This doesn't mean that if I needed a new phone I would go with a non-Apple solution just because I would prefer a larger screen.
As pointed out above, it's not quite that simple because there are different alloys.
Their most common alloy is listed as non-magnetic and a relatively poor conductor. No mention is made of radio transparency. There have been many reports that some liquidmetal alloys are radio transparent - and that may even be true - but I haven't seen any evidence from LQMT or anyone who really knows.
I was trying to simplify.
Of course there are variations, but "Liquid Metal" is basically a type of metal alloy with trace amounts of other substances. It isn't radio transparent as a category and likely won't ever be because it's primarily metal.
The other stuff is primarily crystalline/ceramic with small amounts of other stuff and therefore *is* radio transparent.
It would be cool indeed to blend the properties of these two together to make a new material for the back, or to make a back out of both materials bonded together in interesting ways, but to me it seems unlikely. Apple is not a materials research company per se and I think a lot of folks hopes for these materials (mine included) fall into the realm of science fiction more than science fact.
It seems far more likely to me that the next phone, while smaller or larger, or perhaps having a different shape, will almost certainly continue the same basic design. This means that the antennas will still be on the outside in an annular ring as on the current iPhone, and that the front will be some kind of glass panel just like the current iPhone. The back can be anything you want in such a design as it doesn't matter as long as the antennas are on the outside.
My initial disagreement was with the tired old "unibody" theory, which makes no sense as it requires moving the antennas back inside the case and yet the case is now aluminium so it has to be pierced by windows for it to even work. Barring some completely new antenna design that we don't know about yet, a unibody iPhone makes no sense at all.
Comments
And if in some crazy way the new iPhone does not have true 4G LTE, knock several hundred out of the stock estimates.
It's a given that this won't be happening, so why bring it up at all?
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think you are confusing two separate things. .
Maybe. I did some more digging and found this...
"Apple may be planning to use Liquidmetal for a new iPhone antenna, says the co-inventor of the sci-fi metal alloy, Dr. Atakan Peker."
"The alloy case could be structural as well as functional. In other words, a Liquidmetal case could also function as a big antenna. And because different mixtures of metal can produce alloys with different characteristics, Apple could blend an alloy that is optimized for receiving radio signals."
"?You can build casings with functional characteristics, and the alloy?s properties as an antenna can be optimized,? Peker said."
So they could make a unibody style case, with the antennas built (so to speak) into the case.
Regardless, Apple did buy the exclusive rights to use Liquidmetal in mobil devices, so they must be planning to do something with it...
New form factor, or new material? Remember all the excitement over Apple gaining an exclusive license to use Liquidmetal alloys in electronic products? And the claim that they're radio transparent?
I personally expect LiquidMetal to be used in the next iPhone, but not in the way most would imagine. I believe instead of the entire casing, LiquidMetal will be used to form an impermeable seal, making the next iPhone waterproof, or at least highly water-resistant
Tim Cook: "Hey, Dan, it's Tim. I have Ivan on conference here. I wanted to let you guys know that when your customers come into your stores and ask you to unlock their phones, you're going to do it from now on. Okay? Thanks, guys!"
Done.
It's quite apparent you have no understanding how CDMA actually works. You can't just unlock CDMA basebands. It does not work like a SIM, at all. It's not some lazy management decision it's a technical specification. Thanks for the good laugh though.
Likely any new form will follow function
Agreed. If Apple makes a bigger screen iPhone they will have a good reason for it beyond just following the competition's design trends.
And I don't think the next iPhone will rehash the 4S design. It will look different.
The A5X on a smaller, lower resolution screen would be disgustingly powerful as well. Running the same core hardware as the new iPad makes sense for many good reasons.
This is just idiotic. The reason to upgrade is the new features, not the "sleek new look". I expect the 6th gen iPhone to have the same case and look and the 4th and 5th gen iPhones.
May be true, but 'sleek new look' is a feature in its own right. Just pack these
'new features" that is spoken of in the same iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S case design for a THIRD time and see what happens! Your argument won't pass muster... Heck just Google iPhone 4S reviews and case complaints and see what you get.
/
/
/
You can't just unlock CDMA base bands.
So how have people been doing it, then?
No, its the New iPhone (fall 2012) with LTE technology
I might wait for the iPhone New-S
The patent did not have anything to do with LiquidMetal. It was a process for forming the structural enclosures of cell phones using ceramics and also the use of Y2O3 stabilized zirconia which is not LM. That is the same compound used in jewelry.
Apple's patent was the use of zirconia - a ceramic material which is radio transparent.
That's quite different from zirconium - a metal that is a component of some Liquidmetal alloys.
I guess I am missing that. I read that LM was an alloy of ZrTi. Can you point to some links of other alloys of LM besides Titanium?
http://www.liquidmetal.com/
'alloys' (plural)
For the others asking about magnetic behavior, the main production alloy is Zr/Ti and is nonmagnetic:
http://www.liquidmetal.com/faqs/
Not all Liquidmetal alloys would be non-magnetic - and it is not clear that even the Zr/Ti alloy would be radio transparent.
[...] "In our view, this will be the most significant iPhone upgrade with a four-inch screen and a new, sleek look that we believe will require a Unibody case," White wrote. [...]
Things I'm expecting in the "new iPhone":
- Metal back
- Narrower bezel (with 3.7" to 3.9" screen size)
- Possible minor decrease in thickness
- Possible minor change to overall dimensions
Things I want but am not expecting this year:
- MagSafe dock connector (for easier connecting/disconnecting)
- LiquidMetal back (for scratch-proofness)
- Wireless earbuds
- Optical zoom on rear-facing camera
Things I want that might never happen:
- Inductive charging
Apple's patent was the use of zirconia - a ceramic material which is radio transparent. [...]
I think zirconium dioxide casings would be pretty cool for iPhone, iPod touch, and maybe even iPad and MacBook Air. But I suspect that recycling could be a major pain, if it's even possible at all with that material. That's why I don't think Apple will be using carbon fiber extensively. Not sure that it can be recycled efficiently enough.
I don't think so. The iPhone 3GS outsold every single large screen android phone in 2011. If large screens were so desirable that would not happen.
2011 phone sales (millions)
iOS 93
Android 237
86% of Android phones are 4" or larger. So large Android phones outsold small Android and iOS phones combined close to 2:1.
Apple is missing huge opportunity. Apple would probably sell twice more phones if a large screen iPhone model would be available.
So how have people been doing it, then?
Define doing it. Name a CDMA phone ever that's carrier or OEM supported to flash between carriers. MetroPCS had MetroFlash for a time and even that had serious caveats, otherwise none exist. There's no real standard method of doing it and there is nothing to unlock. The most you can do is attempt to hardwire flash a different carrier firmware to it with varying degrees of success and then find someone who's willing to add that IMEI to the network and hope daily it doesn't get flagged and banned. The only successes are typically smaller carriers and people who do end up with a myriad of problems with MMS not working, data drops, or just bricked phones as a result of a bad flash. That sound like something Apple is going to jump into to satisfy your dream?
Your original point about one phone doesn't make sense anyway as each carrier still have their own SIMs, so what would it ship with, none? When's the subsidy applied? You expect people to pay $6/700 through Apple? It's just not going to happen.
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect. I think you are confusing two separate things.
Apple has two exclusive world-wide materials use licences (no one else but they can use said material in a mobile device), one is the zirconia stuff, the other is the liquid metal.
Liquid metal is a metalic glass composite and is not radio transparent in that it's mostly metal with small amounts of other materials.
Zirconia is the advanced ceramic with properties very close to something like gorilla glass and *is* radio transparent like all glasses and most ceramics.
As pointed out above, it's not quite that simple because there are different alloys.
Their most common alloy is listed as non-magnetic and a relatively poor conductor. No mention is made of radio transparency. There have been many reports that some liquidmetal alloys are radio transparent - and that may even be true - but I haven't seen any evidence from LQMT or anyone who really knows.
Likely any new form will follow function.
That is an over simplification. There are criteria that really don't come under the umbrella of function, but are traditionally of vital importance to Apple. You could argue that if the declared function of a shape and weight is to be loved and coveted, the form indeed follows function - but that's not what's usually meant by the term. If the the new iPhone has a curved back, I am not sure you could argue the form followed function.
"In our view, this will be the most significant iPhone upgrade with a four-inch screen and a new, sleek look that we believe will require a Unibody case," White wrote. "This new, sleek look will be the most important reason that consumers decide to upgrade."
This is just idiotic. The reason to upgrade is the new features, not the "sleek new look". I expect the 6th gen iPhone to have the same case and look and the 4th and 5th gen iPhones.
I disagree - people love new functions such as Siri but 'the look' is the reason most people up-grade. Without 'the look' cars would probably look today like the looked in the 70's
Design is not an absolute exercise. Yesterdays 'perfect' design can look old fashioned today for no real technical reason. Good design also 'suggests' function, so a sleek modern design suggests modern features in spite of those features in no way being dependent on the sleek 'look'.
My first powerbook was the latest and greatest in shit hot design and function. It still would be a fantastic machine with mostly interior updates - but its looks belong in a museum.
It's quite apparent you have no understanding how CDMA actually works. You can't just unlock CDMA basebands. It does not work like a SIM, at all. It's not some lazy management decision it's a technical specification. Thanks for the good laugh though.
of course CDMA can't be unlocked via sim - thats true - but many of us took Sprint phones in the past - and via only s/w hacking made them work on Verizon - it was years before Verizon bothered with the TREO. a CDMA (Verizon) iPhone can be unlocked to work on other CDMA systems via software only - thats unlocking just the same
"In our view, this will be the most significant iPhone upgrade with a four-inch screen and a new, sleek look that we believe will require a Unibody case," White wrote. "This new, sleek look will be the most important reason that consumers decide to upgrade."
This is just idiotic. The reason to upgrade is the new features, not the "sleek new look". I expect the 6th gen iPhone to have the same case and look and the 4th and 5th gen iPhones.
Sometimes people get bored. So even though a new case might not effect performance, people like different things. I for one would welcome the 4 inch screen.
I don't think so. The iPhone 3GS outsold every single large screen android phone in 2011. If large screens were so desirable that would not happen.
It is possible for people to desire larger screens, but not so much so that they are willing to sacrifice all the other benefits the iPhone offers. I want the screen size to increase if Apple can do it without increasing the over all footprint of the phone by very much. This doesn't mean that if I needed a new phone I would go with a non-Apple solution just because I would prefer a larger screen.
As pointed out above, it's not quite that simple because there are different alloys.
Their most common alloy is listed as non-magnetic and a relatively poor conductor. No mention is made of radio transparency. There have been many reports that some liquidmetal alloys are radio transparent - and that may even be true - but I haven't seen any evidence from LQMT or anyone who really knows.
I was trying to simplify.
Of course there are variations, but "Liquid Metal" is basically a type of metal alloy with trace amounts of other substances. It isn't radio transparent as a category and likely won't ever be because it's primarily metal.
The other stuff is primarily crystalline/ceramic with small amounts of other stuff and therefore *is* radio transparent.
It would be cool indeed to blend the properties of these two together to make a new material for the back, or to make a back out of both materials bonded together in interesting ways, but to me it seems unlikely. Apple is not a materials research company per se and I think a lot of folks hopes for these materials (mine included) fall into the realm of science fiction more than science fact.
It seems far more likely to me that the next phone, while smaller or larger, or perhaps having a different shape, will almost certainly continue the same basic design. This means that the antennas will still be on the outside in an annular ring as on the current iPhone, and that the front will be some kind of glass panel just like the current iPhone. The back can be anything you want in such a design as it doesn't matter as long as the antennas are on the outside.
My initial disagreement was with the tired old "unibody" theory, which makes no sense as it requires moving the antennas back inside the case and yet the case is now aluminium so it has to be pierced by windows for it to even work. Barring some completely new antenna design that we don't know about yet, a unibody iPhone makes no sense at all.