"Explicitly"? Add another word to the list of words that you don't understand.
No. I meant, and I said, that you were making a semantic point that had no real relevance to the argument being made, not that there wasn't any truth whatsoever in what you were saying. If you think otherwise you are imagining I've written something I haven't. Learn to read real words, not imaginary ones.
If someone interjects the special theory of relativity into a discussion about whether cats or dogs are cuter I'd also say they were making a nonsense argument. Not because the special theory of relativity is untrue, but because it's a stupid, irrelevant point to make given the context. That's an absurd example of course, but I genuinely don't think the distinction between implementation and idea was the spirit of the point that you quoted (i.e. you were just being a smart ass), nor do I think it is particularly relevant to this specific example anyway because, as I have challenged you to clarify, I don't think there is much scope for implementations of "speaker behind grill" that are differentiated enough to deserve a patent beyond the obvious ones implied by the idea of such a thing (i.e. I think you're full of crap when you claim there are between dozens and a hundred).
Apple even notes that the addition of a camera flash to the front of the iPhone could be beneficial for more than photos. In the filing, the company says that adding a small light to the speaker slot could serve as a "status indicator," notifying users when a message has been received.
This would be like the flashing light that used to exist on Blackberries, though I think it was red. That would be cool if Apple could take the idea and turn it into the first proper implementation.
I always thought the proxy sensor, at the very least, should be in the same slot as the speaker. Probably the camera too. It doesn't matter on the black models, but I'm surprised Ives had tolerated those scattered black holes on the white models. Just make the slot bigger and line those components all up in a row! There must have been some engineering barrier I can't imagine.
I appreciate the minimalistic nature of the patent. It's one reason I only buy the iPhones with the black face, I don't like seeing the proximity sensor & camera on those with the white face.
Good reason.
I don't know how anyone can live with themselves who buy a white iPhone. The monstrosity of having to see that white facade sullied by two slight dots which you don't notice when you're actually using the phone is too much to bear; in fact, it makes me come out in a rash just to think of it.
I don't know how anyone can live with themselves who buy a white iPhone. The monstrosity of having to see that white facade sullied by two slight dots which you don't notice when you're actually using the phone is too much to bear; in fact, it makes me come out in a rash just to think of it.
Hey, here's a thought. You buy what you like and I'll buy what I like. That ok? I'm pretty sure the point of my post was my own reasoning, no reason for snarky comments.
Did you save that mockup? Post it; let’s see how it looks.
I had deleted it but it was pretty much these variations:
The single line is cleanest because there are fewer shapes but I think it's far too big. It also pretty much requires putting the mesh in front otherwise you'd see the objects inside the shape anyway.
The best way is to try and get the camera behind the display somehow because for one thing it means you finally get eye contact during video chats.
You can't really put a focusing lens + sensor behind the display because the LCD blocks incoming light and the battery is in the way so I think it has to be a different kind of camera. Sensors are made up of photodetectors but they need to distinguish between red, green and blue incoming light so they have a filter in front. They already use RGB components to make the display show color though so if those same components could simply have photodetectors in them, one per RGB component per pixel, you'd have a camera the same resolution as the display, which isn't great but good enough for a front-facing camera. The image it generates might not be very high quality and it has to not affect nor be affected by the display itself.
I gave Apple feedback about the eye contact/lens behind display thing, though I'm sure they've been thinking about it already. It's a good point.
I don't know how anyone can live with themselves who buy a white iPhone. The monstrosity of having to see that white facade sullied by two slight dots which you don't notice when you're actually using the phone is too much to bear; in fact, it makes me come out in a rash just to think of it.
Hey, here's a thought. You buy what you like and I'll buy what I like. That ok? I'm pretty sure the point of my post was my own reasoning, no reason for snarky comments.
So you want to be allowed to reason, but you don't want others to reason different.
Comments
"Explicitly"? Add another word to the list of words that you don't understand.
No. I meant, and I said, that you were making a semantic point that had no real relevance to the argument being made, not that there wasn't any truth whatsoever in what you were saying. If you think otherwise you are imagining I've written something I haven't. Learn to read real words, not imaginary ones.
If someone interjects the special theory of relativity into a discussion about whether cats or dogs are cuter I'd also say they were making a nonsense argument. Not because the special theory of relativity is untrue, but because it's a stupid, irrelevant point to make given the context. That's an absurd example of course, but I genuinely don't think the distinction between implementation and idea was the spirit of the point that you quoted (i.e. you were just being a smart ass), nor do I think it is particularly relevant to this specific example anyway because, as I have challenged you to clarify, I don't think there is much scope for implementations of "speaker behind grill" that are differentiated enough to deserve a patent beyond the obvious ones implied by the idea of such a thing (i.e. I think you're full of crap when you claim there are between dozens and a hundred).
Apple even notes that the addition of a camera flash to the front of the iPhone could be beneficial for more than photos. In the filing, the company says that adding a small light to the speaker slot could serve as a "status indicator," notifying users when a message has been received.
This would be like the flashing light that used to exist on Blackberries, though I think it was red. That would be cool if Apple could take the idea and turn it into the first proper implementation.
I always thought the proxy sensor, at the very least, should be in the same slot as the speaker. Probably the camera too. It doesn't matter on the black models, but I'm surprised Ives had tolerated those scattered black holes on the white models. Just make the slot bigger and line those components all up in a row! There must have been some engineering barrier I can't imagine.
Ives? Burle Ives? That's the only Ives I know.
Also Charles Ives, the composer.
I appreciate the minimalistic nature of the patent. It's one reason I only buy the iPhones with the black face, I don't like seeing the proximity sensor & camera on those with the white face.
Good reason.
I don't know how anyone can live with themselves who buy a white iPhone. The monstrosity of having to see that white facade sullied by two slight dots which you don't notice when you're actually using the phone is too much to bear; in fact, it makes me come out in a rash just to think of it.
Good reason.
I don't know how anyone can live with themselves who buy a white iPhone. The monstrosity of having to see that white facade sullied by two slight dots which you don't notice when you're actually using the phone is too much to bear; in fact, it makes me come out in a rash just to think of it.
Hey, here's a thought. You buy what you like and I'll buy what I like. That ok? I'm pretty sure the point of my post was my own reasoning, no reason for snarky comments.
Did you save that mockup? Post it; let’s see how it looks.
I had deleted it but it was pretty much these variations:
The single line is cleanest because there are fewer shapes but I think it's far too big. It also pretty much requires putting the mesh in front otherwise you'd see the objects inside the shape anyway.
The best way is to try and get the camera behind the display somehow because for one thing it means you finally get eye contact during video chats.
You can't really put a focusing lens + sensor behind the display because the LCD blocks incoming light and the battery is in the way so I think it has to be a different kind of camera. Sensors are made up of photodetectors but they need to distinguish between red, green and blue incoming light so they have a filter in front. They already use RGB components to make the display show color though so if those same components could simply have photodetectors in them, one per RGB component per pixel, you'd have a camera the same resolution as the display, which isn't great but good enough for a front-facing camera. The image it generates might not be very high quality and it has to not affect nor be affected by the display itself.
I gave Apple feedback about the eye contact/lens behind display thing, though I'm sure they've been thinking about it already. It's a good point.
Good reason.
I don't know how anyone can live with themselves who buy a white iPhone. The monstrosity of having to see that white facade sullied by two slight dots which you don't notice when you're actually using the phone is too much to bear; in fact, it makes me come out in a rash just to think of it.
Hey, here's a thought. You buy what you like and I'll buy what I like. That ok? I'm pretty sure the point of my post was my own reasoning, no reason for snarky comments.
So you want to be allowed to reason, but you don't want others to reason different.
Got ya.