Wireless charging? Curved glass? AMOLED display? Sounds a lot like Samsung S6 edge...
Apple current iphone has curved glass. Apple Watch has contact charging (I hate wireless charging term) and AMOLED...so, what the hell are you talking about? Bringing technology from Apple Watch to iPhone is nothing about Samsung. First 3-D touch, now, other stuffs.
Perhaps a rumour started by Samsung who already sell a curved AMOLED phone. So they can say "hey, Apple are planning this in two years, and we already have it". In reality, Apple never goes that direction whatsoever because it turns out consumers hate it. I had a friend of mine switch from iPhone to the Samsung S7 last week. I told him he would regret it and come back to iPhone... 3 days later he took it back because he hated the screen,
Cool story. You happen to have a friend who just happens to be one of only three people on this planet who don't like the S7 screen.
You and this special friend are just going to love it if Apple act on their patent.
They also hated the idea of curved screeens so much they thought it would make a cool media player.
May be iPhone 7 ( 2016 ) will be designed with OLED in mind for 2017. As of December 2015, OLED screen on Phones are now cheaper then LCD. And OLED will continue to get cheaper this year and next, due to the way they are fabricated. OLED has pretty much overcome most of its short comings. Of coz, Apple will know better then us, may be the colouring still isn't as accurate, but for most consumers / prosumers, LED LCD doesn't have an edge anymore.
May be, I am guessing there are difficulties to have 3D touch on OLED.
The way I read the point about curved glass was not the screen, but the body of the phone. Instead of flat panels of glass sandwiching the internals...the case would curve similarly to the current aluminum case, but be produced from glass.
That would make sense to me, or to have it be some advanced form of ceramic would be really interesting.
The worries about glass phones breaking when dropped is really no more of an issue than dropping a plastic or metal phone. Things can break when hit just right. But they can also survive falls too. I never broke my 4, although my kids each did, but my kids have broken the glass on just about every, strike that, they have broken every iPhone they've had, but they've also broken feature phones too, totally unrelated to the case material.
Did we see a lot of complaints about 4 and 4S? People were okay then. They should be okay now. Apple may do back and front glass with side metal hump like current camera to protect it from the drop.
I seem to recall a large number of complaints about scratches on the back glass, as well as shattered back panels, and front panels, or both. It was almost impossible to drop that phone without chipping or cracking some glass. Due to antenna-gate, Apple essentially put free cases on most of them, that helped mitigated the problem. Personally speaking, I saw very few uncased 4 iPhones in the wild. Even mine had a leather adhesive backing to help protect the surface that would get the most abuse, and I never use cases.
I still think iPhone Pro may be the one in 2017 with 5.8" screen.
Most probably... MCK traumatized by the lack of the Home button in those photos is trying to recover himself by inventing a "Apple will switch to other biometric" facial iris etc... hoax. We already know that Touch ID may work with 3D Touch as well, no springing physical button is needed.
May be iPhone 7 ( 2016 ) will be designed with OLED in mind for 2017. As of December 2015, OLED screen on Phones are now cheaper then LCD. And OLED will continue to get cheaper this year and next, due to the way they are fabricated. OLED has pretty much overcome most of its short comings. Of coz, Apple will know better then us, may be the colouring still isn't as accurate, but for most consumers / prosumers, LED LCD doesn't have an edge anymore.
May be, I am guessing there are difficulties to have 3D touch on OLED.
OLED's are terrible terrible things. They are designed for, and are only cost effective on the inside of helmets/goggles and things that are meant to be semi-transparant. Hence they are good for AR/VR stuff, but not much else. The screens are washed out in sunlight, and degrade rapidly. This is something that samsung would push on smartphones because their phones barely last 18 months to begin with. Curved "living room" TV's are also pretty stupid because films were not designed for them.
The screen manufacturers want Apple to use their OLED technology as a "stamp of quality", so such rumors keep being suggested every few months, but it has yet to happen, and I don't see it happening. Instead manufacturers are actually backing away from it (eg Sony) and there is a quite a bit of hate for AMOLED on Samsung phones, the higher the resolution, the faster they degrade.
If Apple makes a "curved glass" phone, you can bet that's a nail in the coffin for the iPhone. I don't care what that patent looks like, you're not going to get people using it for anything other than a "dumbphone" and mp3 player with a curved screen. It's just too irritating to use. Look at the kind of noise made about the "leaked" fake Nintendo NX controller. People were yelling up and down how stupid a round screen with virtual buttons is.
If Apple wants to bite harder into the games market, that is what the 4.7" and 5.5" screen sizes are for, but the batteries and input options on these are absolute rubbish. Make the screen round, and I assure you people will not buy touch games for it. You need a flat screen to play touch games. If Apple was serious about bringing all kinds of games to the iPhone, they would make it easier to use a bluetooth controller (eg Wii/PS3) with a "phone mount" that gives you an experience closer to a 3DS's upper screen rather than try to shoe-horn "virtual controllers" into every game. The vast majority of "controller" style input does not translate to a touch screen and has to be dumbed down along with the game mechanics.
The most plausible features I could see on a future phone: - Dual lightning connectors, one for charging, one for headphones/game-input, (eg one on the side and one on the bottom) - Dual front/rear cameras for creating stereo-photos, I think we're a long way away from 3D video, but an IR-seeing camera can improve the image still. - Lightfield camera, rather I see Apple selling a "lightfield" camera that uses the iPhone/iPod/iPad as the computer interface, and it's the logical direction after straight HDR. Fitting all the lenses required for this into an iPhone is likely impossible, at least not without making it substantially thicker. (Lightfield cameras have lens systems larger than base DSLR's) - Stereo/surround audio recording. Currently when you record a video, even at 4K, you get a mono 85Kbit AAC stream. I could see this on an iPad, maybe not an iPhone. - microSDXC as a standard feature on the highest capacity model to enable HD/4K editing. Up till now, the devices haven't really been powerful enough to do video editing on-device. If it's to be expected to record a 4K film entirely on an iPhone/iPad, you need to be able to access TB's of data. Right now, there is a SD "camera" adapter, but 1GB = 3 Minutes at 4K. so a 128GB card = 384 minutes. A 128GB iPhone would only be able to use half of it's space, and a 90 minute movie would require 30GB just for the output file. So if you had two layers of 4K video to render, there goes 90GB right there. Kinda hard to share sources if it takes nearly as long to transfer as it does to record.
it'll give you so much more troll material, you'll love it.
The iPhone 4 had two sides to break when dropped. This is a fact. If you cannot handle the truth then I suggest you do a Homer Simpson on it and hide under the covers and hope it all works itself out.
Face recognition is the term used to describe the process of identifying a specific person, such as from a database of known persons (no fly list, for example). This is face recognition.
There's also face detection, which is the process of detecting the elements of a human face within a scene. This is typically a precursor to application of face recognition algorithms, used to identify the owner of a face in a scene.
Then there's facial recognition, which is the process of detecting specific facial expressions (smiling, frowning, sadness, etc). This term is often used in the medical world to characterize specific inabilities of patients to recognize meaning in human faces. Or, I suppose, one could use the term facial recognition to mean the detection of someone who has recently come from a spa treatment appointment. (Kidding.)
Folks who incorrectly use the term facial recognition will find themselves finally corrected once Apple introduces some form of face detection and face recognition on stage in a product introduction. Until that day I'm afraid folks will continue to use the wrong term to describe face recognition.
For an authoritative source, don't take my word for it (even though my brother holds some of the early face recognition patents), see
I honestly have a question; how is that site authoritative? It looks to be just a couple of random people that have compiled information that they feel is useful. And it probably IS useful, but that's very different than "authoritative."
I don't disagree with anything you have said (although I would comment that, as a physician, I've never heard the term "facial recognition" used in the context you mentioned).
Still, it's a useful comment.
---
That site is useful to the discussion because it references most of the current work being done in the field. And you need only pursue that body of work - just the titles of the papers referenced - to see that those conversant in the field universally refer to face recognition, with facial recognition being a subset of the process that resides between the face detection and face recognition tasks.
In the medical realm, the condition known as Prosopagnosia can include elements of both the inability to recognize familar faces as well as the inability to recognize facial expressions and emotions.
Personally, I don't love the curved glass aspect of my iPhone 6. I'm a screen protector user because inevitably I will do something to the phone that would likely scratch the screen. Screen protectors have saved me a few times. But the curved glass makes it harder to get a good fit edge to edge.
And I don't love having a glass back either. It would be nice if the back had some grip for once. I'd love to be able to use an iPhone sans case without worrying about ruining it with one drop.
Did we see a lot of complaints about 4 and 4S? People were okay then. They should be okay now. Apple may do back and front glass with side metal hump like current camera to protect it from the drop.
The design of the iP4's all glass construction remains to this day my favorite. I so wish Apple would bring that design back. The next would be the iP5. I'm not a fan of the curved layout of the iP6's...
There was something about the heft, the scratch-resistance and the overall feel of a quality, old-school Leica.. just as Steve Job's said. I can appreciate that.
Face recognition is the term used to describe the process of identifying a specific person, such as from a database of known persons (no fly list, for example). This is face recognition.
There's also face detection, which is the process of detecting the elements of a human face within a scene. This is typically a precursor to application of face recognition algorithms, used to identify the owner of a face in a scene.
Then there's facial recognition, which is the process of detecting specific facial expressions (smiling, frowning, sadness, etc). This term is often used in the medical world to characterize specific inabilities of patients to recognize meaning in human faces. Or, I suppose, one could use the term facial recognition to mean the detection of someone who has recently come from a spa treatment appointment. (Kidding.)
Folks who incorrectly use the term facial recognition will find themselves finally corrected once Apple introduces some form of face detection and face recognition on stage in a product introduction. Until that day I'm afraid folks will continue to use the wrong term to describe face recognition.
For an authoritative source, don't take my word for it (even though my brother holds some of the early face recognition patents), see
I honestly have a question; how is that site authoritative? It looks to be just a couple of random people that have compiled information that they feel is useful. And it probably IS useful, but that's very different than "authoritative."
I don't disagree with anything you have said (although I would comment that, as a physician, I've never heard the term "facial recognition" used in the context you mentioned).
Still, it's a useful comment.
---
That site is useful to the discussion because it references most of the current work being done in the field. And you need only pursue that body of work - just the titles of the papers referenced - to see that those conversant in the field universally refer to face recognition, with facial recognition being a subset of the process that resides between the face detection and face recognition tasks.
In the medical realm, the condition known as Prosopagnosia can include elements of both the inability to recognize familar faces as well as the inability to recognize facial expressions and emotions.
This discussion is rather irrelevant regarding the iPhone.
The most succesful implementation of facial recognition and tracking was the Amazon Fire phone, known with its spectacular failure. Apple will never duplicate someone else's mistake. People are not identified by their mugshot but their fingerprints. Apple has already a mature fingerprint scanning technology, why would it dismiss that and adopt a fictitious biometric project?
That patent phone diagram looks completely horrific.
People have made some 3D mockups of these designs, the first one would be a lot thinner and the volume slider wouldn't work on either:
Apple used these shapes for the iPod nano:
(^ it would be nice to have iPhones in these colors)
The reason to not have split glass panels like the iPhone 4 is that nothing internal can be attached to them. To not require added fixtures for the internals, the glass would have to go all the way round or be fused to the back. This way the internals slide in and it just needs the bottom end to screw on to keep everything in place:
All round glass would be slippery, not just to hold but in a pocket and would be more likely to fall out of pocket sitting down. It would be almost impossible to take a photo with it (it would be like holding a bar of soap) but if they allow you to take landscape photos/videos while holding it upright then there would be less risk of dropping it.
The following news article mentions this AppleInsider article but throws in liquid metal for some reason:
"The news comes two months after the tech firm revisited a patent filed in 2013, which proposed a curved 'glass' case made from an intricate fusion of metals melted together.
The design - made from Bulk Amorphous Alloy, which is a mix of titanium, nickel, copper and zirconium melted together - is said to have the smooth texture of glass and the rigid sturdiness of rubber."
Apple submitted a patent for fusing liquid metal to glass or sapphire:
They must have wanted to use sapphire on a larger scale with GTAT. I'd be surprised if they reverted to a glass back but it's been a while since they started getting involved with liquid metal and haven't used it much. A shape like the second iPod nano above with liquid metal on the back and fused, curved sapphire front would look ok and perhaps the top and bottom ends/caps would be a radio-transparent material like their old remotes:
We always get these crazy suggestions every time a new design is due and then it ends up being an evolution of the old one.
I don't think they are intending to keep shaking up the design for the sake of it. Their other products evolve into a design that best suits the product's purpose. The iMac design for example isn't likely to change significantly going forward. The 12" Macbook design also probably won't change much.
Face recognition is the term used to describe the process of identifying a specific person, such as from a database of known persons (no fly list, for example). This is face recognition.
There's also face detection, which is the process of detecting the elements of a human face within a scene. This is typically a precursor to application of face recognition algorithms, used to identify the owner of a face in a scene.
Then there's facial recognition, which is the process of detecting specific facial expressions (smiling, frowning, sadness, etc). This term is often used in the medical world to characterize specific inabilities of patients to recognize meaning in human faces. Or, I suppose, one could use the term facial recognition to mean the detection of someone who has recently come from a spa treatment appointment. (Kidding.)
Folks who incorrectly use the term facial recognition will find themselves finally corrected once Apple introduces some form of face detection and face recognition on stage in a product introduction. Until that day I'm afraid folks will continue to use the wrong term to describe face recognition.
For an authoritative source, don't take my word for it (even though my brother holds some of the early face recognition patents), see
I honestly have a question; how is that site authoritative? It looks to be just a couple of random people that have compiled information that they feel is useful. And it probably IS useful, but that's very different than "authoritative."
I don't disagree with anything you have said (although I would comment that, as a physician, I've never heard the term "facial recognition" used in the context you mentioned).
Still, it's a useful comment.
---
That site is useful to the discussion because it references most of the current work being done in the field. And you need only pursue that body of work - just the titles of the papers referenced - to see that those conversant in the field universally refer to face recognition, with facial recognition being a subset of the process that resides between the face detection and face recognition tasks.
In the medical realm, the condition known as Prosopagnosia can include elements of both the inability to recognize familar faces as well as the inability to recognize facial expressions and emotions.
This discussion is rather irrelevant regarding the iPhone.
The most succesful implementation of facial recognition and tracking was the Amazon Fire phone, known with its spectacular failure. Apple will never duplicate someone else's mistake. People are not identified by their mugshot but their fingerprints. Apple has already a mature fingerprint scanning technology, why would it dismiss that and adopt a fictitious biometric project?
---
As I said, and is demonstrated in macplusplus' comment, people will continue to erroneously use the term facial recognition until someone with a big marketing budget (I was using Apple as an example of such) comes along and sets everyone straight that the proper term in this context is face recognition.
This discussion is rather irrelevant regarding the iPhone.
The most succesful implementation of facial recognition and tracking was the Amazon Fire phone, known with its spectacular failure. Apple will never duplicate someone else's mistake. People are not identified by their mugshot but their fingerprints. Apple has already a mature fingerprint scanning technology, why would it dismiss that and adopt a fictitious biometric project?
---
As I said, and is demonstrated in macplusplus' comment, people will continue to erroneously use the term facial recognition until someone with a big marketing budget (I was using Apple as an example of such) comes along and sets everyone straight that the proper term in this context is face recognition.
Comments
You and this special friend are just going to love it if Apple act on their patent.
They also hated the idea of curved screeens so much they thought it would make a cool media player.
May be, I am guessing there are difficulties to have 3D touch on OLED.
That would make sense to me, or to have it be some advanced form of ceramic would be really interesting.
The worries about glass phones breaking when dropped is really no more of an issue than dropping a plastic or metal phone. Things can break when hit just right. But they can also survive falls too. I never broke my 4, although my kids each did, but my kids have broken the glass on just about every, strike that, they have broken every iPhone they've had, but they've also broken feature phones too, totally unrelated to the case material.
The screen manufacturers want Apple to use their OLED technology as a "stamp of quality", so such rumors keep being suggested every few months, but it has yet to happen, and I don't see it happening. Instead manufacturers are actually backing away from it (eg Sony) and there is a quite a bit of hate for AMOLED on Samsung phones, the higher the resolution, the faster they degrade.
If Apple makes a "curved glass" phone, you can bet that's a nail in the coffin for the iPhone. I don't care what that patent looks like, you're not going to get people using it for anything other than a "dumbphone" and mp3 player with a curved screen. It's just too irritating to use. Look at the kind of noise made about the "leaked" fake Nintendo NX controller. People were yelling up and down how stupid a round screen with virtual buttons is.
If Apple wants to bite harder into the games market, that is what the 4.7" and 5.5" screen sizes are for, but the batteries and input options on these are absolute rubbish. Make the screen round, and I assure you people will not buy touch games for it. You need a flat screen to play touch games. If Apple was serious about bringing all kinds of games to the iPhone, they would make it easier to use a bluetooth controller (eg Wii/PS3) with a "phone mount" that gives you an experience closer to a 3DS's upper screen rather than try to shoe-horn "virtual controllers" into every game. The vast majority of "controller" style input does not translate to a touch screen and has to be dumbed down along with the game mechanics.
The most plausible features I could see on a future phone:
- Dual lightning connectors, one for charging, one for headphones/game-input, (eg one on the side and one on the bottom)
- Dual front/rear cameras for creating stereo-photos, I think we're a long way away from 3D video, but an IR-seeing camera can improve the image still.
- Lightfield camera, rather I see Apple selling a "lightfield" camera that uses the iPhone/iPod/iPad as the computer interface, and it's the logical direction after straight HDR. Fitting all the lenses required for this into an iPhone is likely impossible, at least not without making it substantially thicker. (Lightfield cameras have lens systems larger than base DSLR's)
- Stereo/surround audio recording. Currently when you record a video, even at 4K, you get a mono 85Kbit AAC stream. I could see this on an iPad, maybe not an iPhone.
- microSDXC as a standard feature on the highest capacity model to enable HD/4K editing. Up till now, the devices haven't really been powerful enough to do video editing on-device. If it's to be expected to record a 4K film entirely on an iPhone/iPad, you need to be able to access TB's of data. Right now, there is a SD "camera" adapter, but 1GB = 3 Minutes at 4K. so a 128GB card = 384 minutes. A 128GB iPhone would only be able to use half of it's space, and a 90 minute movie would require 30GB just for the output file. So if you had two layers of 4K video to render, there goes 90GB right there. Kinda hard to share sources if it takes nearly as long to transfer as it does to record.
I don't disagree with anything you have said (although I would comment that, as a physician, I've never heard the term "facial recognition" used in the context you mentioned).
Still, it's a useful comment.
---
That site is useful to the discussion because it references most of the current work being done in the field. And you need only pursue that body of work - just the titles of the papers referenced - to see that those conversant in the field universally refer to face recognition, with facial recognition being a subset of the process that resides between the face detection and face recognition tasks.
In the medical realm, the condition known as Prosopagnosia can include elements of both the inability to recognize familar faces as well as the inability to recognize facial expressions and emotions.
http://prosopagnosiaresearch.org/index/information
The most succesful implementation of facial recognition and tracking was the Amazon Fire phone, known with its spectacular failure. Apple will never duplicate someone else's mistake. People are not identified by their mugshot but their fingerprints. Apple has already a mature fingerprint scanning technology, why would it dismiss that and adopt a fictitious biometric project?
Apple used these shapes for the iPod nano:
(^ it would be nice to have iPhones in these colors)
The reason to not have split glass panels like the iPhone 4 is that nothing internal can be attached to them. To not require added fixtures for the internals, the glass would have to go all the way round or be fused to the back. This way the internals slide in and it just needs the bottom end to screw on to keep everything in place:
All round glass would be slippery, not just to hold but in a pocket and would be more likely to fall out of pocket sitting down. It would be almost impossible to take a photo with it (it would be like holding a bar of soap) but if they allow you to take landscape photos/videos while holding it upright then there would be less risk of dropping it.
The following news article mentions this AppleInsider article but throws in liquid metal for some reason:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3511506/Apple-s-iPhone-7-set-feature-curved-glass-LIQUID-metal-tough-scratch-resistant-insiders-claim.html
"The news comes two months after the tech firm revisited a patent filed in 2013, which proposed a curved 'glass' case made from an intricate fusion of metals melted together.
The design - made from Bulk Amorphous Alloy, which is a mix of titanium, nickel, copper and zirconium melted together - is said to have the smooth texture of glass and the rigid sturdiness of rubber."
Apple submitted a patent for fusing liquid metal to glass or sapphire:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/embedded-sapphire-and-liquidmetal-could-arrive-in-iphone-6/
They must have wanted to use sapphire on a larger scale with GTAT. I'd be surprised if they reverted to a glass back but it's been a while since they started getting involved with liquid metal and haven't used it much. A shape like the second iPod nano above with liquid metal on the back and fused, curved sapphire front would look ok and perhaps the top and bottom ends/caps would be a radio-transparent material like their old remotes:
We always get these crazy suggestions every time a new design is due and then it ends up being an evolution of the old one.
I don't think they are intending to keep shaking up the design for the sake of it. Their other products evolve into a design that best suits the product's purpose. The iMac design for example isn't likely to change significantly going forward. The 12" Macbook design also probably won't change much.
The most succesful implementation of facial recognition and tracking was the Amazon Fire phone, known with its spectacular failure. Apple will never duplicate someone else's mistake. People are not identified by their mugshot but their fingerprints. Apple has already a mature fingerprint scanning technology, why would it dismiss that and adopt a fictitious biometric project?
---
As I said, and is demonstrated in macplusplus' comment, people will continue to erroneously use the term facial recognition until someone with a big marketing budget (I was using Apple as an example of such) comes along and sets everyone straight that the proper term in this context is face recognition.