What is the point of Apple expending many months of engineering effort to make the iPhone a few mil thinner, and of a tasteful design, if people just put a big thick Play Doh coloured case on it?
You've been to houses with very nice, expensive furniture covered by plastic, right?
I agree. But I do think this is the "future product transition" (aka, new ipod Touch transitioned out of ipod and into iOS family; + option of getting version with cell radio for prepaid, etc)
See my long rambling post above!
How is your product different from iPad Mini?
And iPhone is only too thick, not too big, the bigger screen Android, namely 4 - 4.3" as been the best seller with anything bigger being either non holdable or non pocketable. I think a Super THIN Edge 4.3" Screen would be the best case scenario. Or they could make a 4.15".
I actually think Product Transition means cheaper iPhone for prepaid market to replace iPod Touch. Since a prepaid iPhone is no different to iPod touch then.
Have everyone forgotten that Apple obtained an exclusive license in august 2010 to use Liquidmetal in consumer products?
My theory is that Apple weren't happy with the plastic, scratch prone back of the 3G/3GS. At the time they were designing the iPhone 4 the only viable design choice, in order to avoid the scratched backs of the older gen phones, was to make the back piece of the next iPhone out of scratch resistant glass. Now, one needs to keep in mind that normal glass molded in a curved shape unfortunately contains lots of inherent material tension (i.e. it will crack VERY easily) hence the flat backpiece of the iPhone 4. The flat back of the current gen phone was, in other words, probably a practical design choice in order to be able to use the best design materials they had at hand.
Now that they have access to a lightweight, scratch and shatter resistant alternative to glass, common plastics and aluminium they are quite likely returning to the original curved design, aiming for more design consistency between their product lines. I believe the curved back piece (though a bit more flat this time) of the 3GS is most likely returning and I'm guessing that the iPhone 5 will look a lot like a miniature iPad 2.
I'd also imagine that Apple will begin a transition to Liquidmetal in all of their smaller consumer electronics over time (iPad 3 and the next iPod Touch), as they update their product lines. Makes little sense to sign an exlusive licensing deal for a radically new material with the properties of Liquidmetal and then NOT put it to use.
Have everyone forgotten that Apple obtained an exclusive license in august 2010 to use Liquidmetal in consumer products?
My theory is that Apple weren't happy with the plastic, scratch prone back of the 3G/3GS. At the time they were designing the iPhone 4 the only viable design choice, in order to avoid the scratched backs of the older gen phones, was to make the back piece of the next iPhone out of scratch resistant glass. Now, one needs to keep in mind that normal glass molded in a curved shape unfortunately contains lots of inherent material tension (i.e. it will crack VERY easily) hence the flat backpiece of the iPhone 4. The flat back of the current gen phone was, in other words, probably a practical design choice in order to be able to use the best design materials they had at hand.
Now that they have access to a lightweight, scratch and shatter resistant alternative to glass, common plastics and aluminium they are quite likely returning to the original curved design, aiming for more design consistency between their product lines. I believe the curved back piece (though a bit more flat this time) of the 3GS is most likely returning and I'm guessing that the iPhone 5 will look a lot like a miniature iPad 2.
I'd also imagine that Apple will begin a transition to Liquidmetal in all of their smaller consumer electronics over time (iPad 3 and the next iPod Touch), as they update their product lines. Makes little sense to sign an exlusive licensing deal for a radically new material with the properties of Liquidmetal and then NOT put it to use.
Cheers
Welcome to the forum. If they move back to a curved back where will the antennas reside? As part of the back plate, in the chrome ring bordering the front plate, or internal?
Welcome to the forum. If they move back to a curved back where will the antennas reside? As part of the back plate, in the chrome ring bordering the front plate, or internal?
Thanks for the welcome!
I doubt that the antenna would be part of the back plate though it has been used as antenna material in some consumer applications so it could be a possibility. More importantly Liquidmetal (which is actually a collective term for a type of amorphous metal alloys with properties more akin to glass or plastics than metals such as aluminium) is completely non-magnetic and, given the extremely hardy properties of it, a case of the material can probably be designed and molded to be substantially thinner than equivalent glass, plastic or aluminium encasings.
I suppose they could use the chrome ring as part of the antenna or the antenna might even be completely internal, as with the 3G/3GS, at the possible cost of a minimally decreased amount of reception compared to the iPhone 4. Since the liquidmetal case would be thinner than an equivalent metal case the Apple designers would achieve several goals: acceptable reception even when completely encased in the material (due to its thinness), scratch resistance similar to glass without being as prone to shattering, and much lighter weight compared to the glass rear slab in the iPhone 4.
The downside of Liquidmetal is most likely that it's still quite expensive to produce as it is a patented production process. I doubt we will see Liquidmetal MacBooks anytime soon...
Which is it, Apple getting what they deserve by allowing the Chinese to manufacture the products or Apple allowing it to happen and getting free publicity? I opt for the latter.
What is the point of Apple expending many months of engineering effort to make the iPhone a few mil thinner, and of a tasteful design, if people just put a big thick Play Doh coloured case on it?
I doubt that the antenna would be part of the back plate as Liquidmetal isn't particularly conductive. Liquidmetal (which is actually a collective term for a type of amorphous metal alloys with properties more akin to glass or plastics than metals such as aluminium) is completely non-magnetic and, given the extremely hardy properties of it, a case of the material can probably be designed and molded to be substantially thinner than equivalent glass, plastic or aluminium encasings.
I should have been more clear. I mean integrated into the backplate. I know that Liquidmetal isn't conductive but I'm not aware of how radio transparency it is.
Quote:
The downside of Liquidmetal is most likely that it's still quite expensive to produce. I doubt we will see Liquidmetal MacBooks anytime soon...
When Apple starting milling their machines from a solid piece of aluminium it seemed like it would be excessively expensive. And while the benefits are clear in a mobile device like a notebook, it is less clear to mill the Mac mini from a solid block when it's not likely to be handled or moved.
Even the antennas in the iPhone 4 are milled. That's a lot of very precise milling but with 20+ million a quarter the economy of scale is certainly there. With the exclusivity you mention I don't think it's unreasonable to think Apple could have this ready for the iPhone 5 with another unprecedented level of design and quality the competition can't feasibly achieve within a reasonable price point.
I should have been more clear. I mean integrated into the backplate. I know that Liquidmetal isn't conductive but I'm not aware of how radio transparency it is.
When Apple starting milling their machines from a solid piece of aluminium it seemed like it would be excessively expensive. And while the benefits are clear in a mobile device like a notebook, it is less clear to mill the Mac mini from a solid block when it's not likely to be handled or moved.
Even the antennas in the iPhone 4 are milled. That's a lot of very precise milling but with 20+ million a quarter the economy of scale is certainly there. With the exclusivity you mention I don't think it's unreasonable to think Apple could have this ready for the iPhone 5 with another unprecedented level of design and quality the competition can't feasibly achieve within a reasonable price point.
I clarified a bit myself while you were posting: It's been used in radio antennas according to some articles on the web so it can be used as antenna material despite lacking electrical conductivity. The main thing about it however is that it can be made quite a bit thinner than an equivalent regular metal or plastic case which would allow for more radio transparency even if the physical properties of the material are the same. I have my doubts that Apple will make the antennagate mistake, using an external antenna, twice but they might have found an engineering solution for it in the 5. Who knows?
Anyway, I agree with you. I don't doubt that there is a very good reason for Apple signing exclusive rights to the material and that they could push the cost of production way down despite the material being on license from 3rd party.
Hopefully my next iPhone won't look like roadkill after a few months of sitting in pockets and won't shatter from being thrown around or used out in the cold.
I'll laugh like a maniac if Apple have purposely leaked incorrect info to the Chinese copiers.
It would teach them to jump the gun (who really wants a case before the phone is out?) and might make them wary about other information that was leaked.
Comments
What is the point of Apple expending many months of engineering effort to make the iPhone a few mil thinner, and of a tasteful design, if people just put a big thick Play Doh coloured case on it?
You've been to houses with very nice, expensive furniture covered by plastic, right?
I agree. But I do think this is the "future product transition" (aka, new ipod Touch transitioned out of ipod and into iOS family; + option of getting version with cell radio for prepaid, etc)
See my long rambling post above!
How is your product different from iPad Mini?
And iPhone is only too thick, not too big, the bigger screen Android, namely 4 - 4.3" as been the best seller with anything bigger being either non holdable or non pocketable. I think a Super THIN Edge 4.3" Screen would be the best case scenario. Or they could make a 4.15".
I actually think Product Transition means cheaper iPhone for prepaid market to replace iPod Touch. Since a prepaid iPhone is no different to iPod touch then.
My theory is that Apple weren't happy with the plastic, scratch prone back of the 3G/3GS. At the time they were designing the iPhone 4 the only viable design choice, in order to avoid the scratched backs of the older gen phones, was to make the back piece of the next iPhone out of scratch resistant glass. Now, one needs to keep in mind that normal glass molded in a curved shape unfortunately contains lots of inherent material tension (i.e. it will crack VERY easily) hence the flat backpiece of the iPhone 4. The flat back of the current gen phone was, in other words, probably a practical design choice in order to be able to use the best design materials they had at hand.
Now that they have access to a lightweight, scratch and shatter resistant alternative to glass, common plastics and aluminium they are quite likely returning to the original curved design, aiming for more design consistency between their product lines. I believe the curved back piece (though a bit more flat this time) of the 3GS is most likely returning and I'm guessing that the iPhone 5 will look a lot like a miniature iPad 2.
I'd also imagine that Apple will begin a transition to Liquidmetal in all of their smaller consumer electronics over time (iPad 3 and the next iPod Touch), as they update their product lines. Makes little sense to sign an exlusive licensing deal for a radically new material with the properties of Liquidmetal and then NOT put it to use.
Cheers
Have everyone forgotten that Apple obtained an exclusive license in august 2010 to use Liquidmetal in consumer products?
My theory is that Apple weren't happy with the plastic, scratch prone back of the 3G/3GS. At the time they were designing the iPhone 4 the only viable design choice, in order to avoid the scratched backs of the older gen phones, was to make the back piece of the next iPhone out of scratch resistant glass. Now, one needs to keep in mind that normal glass molded in a curved shape unfortunately contains lots of inherent material tension (i.e. it will crack VERY easily) hence the flat backpiece of the iPhone 4. The flat back of the current gen phone was, in other words, probably a practical design choice in order to be able to use the best design materials they had at hand.
Now that they have access to a lightweight, scratch and shatter resistant alternative to glass, common plastics and aluminium they are quite likely returning to the original curved design, aiming for more design consistency between their product lines. I believe the curved back piece (though a bit more flat this time) of the 3GS is most likely returning and I'm guessing that the iPhone 5 will look a lot like a miniature iPad 2.
I'd also imagine that Apple will begin a transition to Liquidmetal in all of their smaller consumer electronics over time (iPad 3 and the next iPod Touch), as they update their product lines. Makes little sense to sign an exlusive licensing deal for a radically new material with the properties of Liquidmetal and then NOT put it to use.
Cheers
Welcome to the forum. If they move back to a curved back where will the antennas reside? As part of the back plate, in the chrome ring bordering the front plate, or internal?
Welcome to the forum. If they move back to a curved back where will the antennas reside? As part of the back plate, in the chrome ring bordering the front plate, or internal?
Thanks for the welcome!
I doubt that the antenna would be part of the back plate though it has been used as antenna material in some consumer applications so it could be a possibility. More importantly Liquidmetal (which is actually a collective term for a type of amorphous metal alloys with properties more akin to glass or plastics than metals such as aluminium) is completely non-magnetic and, given the extremely hardy properties of it, a case of the material can probably be designed and molded to be substantially thinner than equivalent glass, plastic or aluminium encasings.
I suppose they could use the chrome ring as part of the antenna or the antenna might even be completely internal, as with the 3G/3GS, at the possible cost of a minimally decreased amount of reception compared to the iPhone 4. Since the liquidmetal case would be thinner than an equivalent metal case the Apple designers would achieve several goals: acceptable reception even when completely encased in the material (due to its thinness), scratch resistance similar to glass without being as prone to shattering, and much lighter weight compared to the glass rear slab in the iPhone 4.
The downside of Liquidmetal is most likely that it's still quite expensive to produce as it is a patented production process. I doubt we will see Liquidmetal MacBooks anytime soon...
Cheers
What is the point of Apple expending many months of engineering effort to make the iPhone a few mil thinner, and of a tasteful design, if people just put a big thick Play Doh coloured case on it?
Totally agree.
I doubt that the antenna would be part of the back plate as Liquidmetal isn't particularly conductive. Liquidmetal (which is actually a collective term for a type of amorphous metal alloys with properties more akin to glass or plastics than metals such as aluminium) is completely non-magnetic and, given the extremely hardy properties of it, a case of the material can probably be designed and molded to be substantially thinner than equivalent glass, plastic or aluminium encasings.
I should have been more clear. I mean integrated into the backplate. I know that Liquidmetal isn't conductive but I'm not aware of how radio transparency it is.
The downside of Liquidmetal is most likely that it's still quite expensive to produce. I doubt we will see Liquidmetal MacBooks anytime soon...
When Apple starting milling their machines from a solid piece of aluminium it seemed like it would be excessively expensive. And while the benefits are clear in a mobile device like a notebook, it is less clear to mill the Mac mini from a solid block when it's not likely to be handled or moved.
Even the antennas in the iPhone 4 are milled. That's a lot of very precise milling but with 20+ million a quarter the economy of scale is certainly there. With the exclusivity you mention I don't think it's unreasonable to think Apple could have this ready for the iPhone 5 with another unprecedented level of design and quality the competition can't feasibly achieve within a reasonable price point.
I should have been more clear. I mean integrated into the backplate. I know that Liquidmetal isn't conductive but I'm not aware of how radio transparency it is.
When Apple starting milling their machines from a solid piece of aluminium it seemed like it would be excessively expensive. And while the benefits are clear in a mobile device like a notebook, it is less clear to mill the Mac mini from a solid block when it's not likely to be handled or moved.
Even the antennas in the iPhone 4 are milled. That's a lot of very precise milling but with 20+ million a quarter the economy of scale is certainly there. With the exclusivity you mention I don't think it's unreasonable to think Apple could have this ready for the iPhone 5 with another unprecedented level of design and quality the competition can't feasibly achieve within a reasonable price point.
I clarified a bit myself while you were posting: It's been used in radio antennas according to some articles on the web so it can be used as antenna material despite lacking electrical conductivity. The main thing about it however is that it can be made quite a bit thinner than an equivalent regular metal or plastic case which would allow for more radio transparency even if the physical properties of the material are the same. I have my doubts that Apple will make the antennagate mistake, using an external antenna, twice but they might have found an engineering solution for it in the 5. Who knows?
Anyway, I agree with you. I don't doubt that there is a very good reason for Apple signing exclusive rights to the material and that they could push the cost of production way down despite the material being on license from 3rd party.
Hopefully my next iPhone won't look like roadkill after a few months of sitting in pockets and won't shatter from being thrown around or used out in the cold.
Cheers
It would teach them to jump the gun (who really wants a case before the phone is out?) and might make them wary about other information that was leaked.