Next-Gen Gorilla Glass: Smartphones Could Have Antibacterial, Anti-Glare Display

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Next-Gen Gorilla Glass: Smartphones Could Have Antibacterial, Anti-Glare Display

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday July 7, 2013 @09:06PM from the coming-to-a-phone-near-you dept.

MojoKid writes "It's not too often that upcoming glass technology is worth getting excited over, but leave it to Corning to pique our interest. During a recent talk at MIT's Mobile Technology Summit, Dr. Jeffrey Evenson took to the stage to reiterate what it is about Gorilla Glass that makes it such an attractive product (something well evidenced given the majority of smartphones out there today implement it), as well as to give us a preview of what's coming. Having pretty much mastered Gorilla Glass where strength, scratch-resistance and general durability are concerned, the company is now looking to improve-upon it (possibly for Gorilla Glass 4) by making it non-reflective and germ-resistant. Imagine your smartphone sporting this — you'd finally be able to see the screen regardless of how bright the sun behind you is. Unfortunately, it appears that it won't be hitting our phones or tablets that soon. The estimate is 'in the next two years.'"

175 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

How about by jkflying · 2013-07-07 21:10 · Score: 5, Insightful

To be honest, what I'd really like is anti-shatter.

--
Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
1. Re:How about by Thanshin · 2013-07-07 22:06 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The losses to the mobile phone industry if that invention was released would be incalculable.
  It would be like creating regenerative cars or eternal batteries.
2. Re:How about by lobiusmoop · 2013-07-07 22:14 · Score: 2
  
  Nonsense. The Nokia 3310 is notoriously resilient, but its Achilles' Heel is that it's obsolete. Same applies to every other phone ever released, Gorilla Glass or not.
  
  --
  "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
3. Re:How about by jkflying · 2013-07-07 23:06 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  The new Sony Xperia Z is waterproof to 1 meter for 30 minutes. Try again.
  
  --
  Help I am stuck in a signature factory!
4. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 23:10 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. plenty of waterproof cellphones out there in the world.
  Heres one. http://www.kyocerasmartphones.com/hydro/ Google tells me it works ok.
  The difference is... It's not your fad popular newest phones. Most people won't pay any extra $ for such a thing.
5. Re:How about by friend+function · 2013-07-07 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  I call nonsense on you. Perfect example: Waterproofing. It would be trivial to make a waterproof (or at least water resistant) phone. Yet there are none. In fact, just having your phone in a overly humid environment will likely ruin it. This is clearly by design.
  Sony's Xperia Z is notoriously water resistant: http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Xperia-z-tablet-water-resistant-tablet-phone,news-42109.html
6. Re:How about by wonkey_monkey · 2013-07-07 23:35 · Score: 1
  
  It would be trivial to make a waterproof (or at least water resistant) phone.
  Have you tried?
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
7. Re:How about by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-07 23:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Galaxy S4 Active is waterpoof and is tested for submersion for 30 minutes.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:How about by dj245 · 2013-07-07 23:47 · Score: 2
  
  I call nonsense on you. Perfect example: Waterproofing. It would be trivial to make a waterproof (or at least water resistant) phone. Yet there are none. In fact, just having your phone in a overly humid environment will likely ruin it. This is clearly by design.
  There are plenty. Casio has a complete line of phones under the Gzone line (Warning- possibly the worst website I have ever seen). Catarpillar makes (or at least specs out and has someone make) one or two also.
  
  The magic google words are "810g phone" (referring to the mil-spec) or "IP67 phone"
  
  --
  Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
9. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 23:53 · Score: 0
  
  To be honest, what I'd really like is anti-shatter.
  And what I'd really like are wings so I can fly. Just thought I'd point that out, since we aren't being realistic.
  To answer you more seriously, what you are asking for just isn't something that's going to happen predictably. They can't just focus on making it anti-shatter. If it ever happens, it's going to be more or less on accident. And even then, unless it's a HUGE breakthrough, you probably wouldn't be satisfied with it. The reason I say that is because look at what we currently have. The closest you'll currently find to what you are asking for is bullet proof glass, and despite the fact that it has no real restrictions for thickness, weight, scratch resistance, or clarity, when it does take a big impact it still leaves a tremendous scar (much like a rock chipping your car's windshield).
10. Re:How about by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-08 00:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  To be honest, what I'd really like is anti-shatter.
  And what I'd really like are wings so I can fly. Just thought I'd point that out, since we aren't being realistic.
  To answer you more seriously, what you are asking for just isn't something that's going to happen predictably. They can't just focus on making it anti-shatter. If it ever happens, it's going to be more or less on accident. And even then, unless it's a HUGE breakthrough, you probably wouldn't be satisfied with it. The reason I say that is because look at what we currently have. The closest you'll currently find to what you are asking for is bullet proof glass, and despite the fact that it has no real restrictions for thickness, weight, scratch resistance, or clarity, when it does take a big impact it still leaves a tremendous scar (much like a rock chipping your car's windshield).
  Arguably, it isn't that 'anti-shatter' is unrealistic; but that it is unrealistic without sacrificing the other things that people want. Your old school, now-downright-shameful Nokia candybar was pretty damn shatter resistant. The screen portion of the outer shell is some sort of plastic(PC or PC+ABS, I think, don't have one in front of me), modestly thick, with a bit of curvature. The relatively soft plastic doesn't have that 'I am a slab of unobtanium carved out of the future by laser robots' thing going, and it scratches and dings pretty easily; but, if dropped, it usually just flexes a bit and dissipates most of the force harmlessly. A nontrivial gab between the outer shell and the (much more vulnerable) LCD also helps(as does the fact that, in their heyday, a replacement for a cracked/damaged faceplate was ~$5 at your local skeezy phone kiosk and could be installed by hand in seconds).
  Once you impose the requirement that the material be substantially scratch/ding resistant(thus demanding a very hard material), and the phone be very thin and the screen very bright(thus, along with the touch-sense requirements, demanding that the screen be packed closely against, or fused directly to, the outer shell, and that the outer shell be dead flat, with no room for strengthening geometry or flexing, even if it were flexible) You want something maybe a mm thick, dead flat, and optimized for hardness, to survive impacts without cracking? Now that is where you get into 'serious breakthrough' territory.
11. Re:How about by heypete · 2013-07-08 00:14 · Score: 2
  
  I have a Samsung B2710 (also available in the US from Amazon) that has a similar rating and is also impact-resistant. (Various tests have been carried out on this phone.) It's great for those who don't need a smartphone.
  Mine has survived a few years of somewhat extreme travel, including meteorite search expeditions in the heat of the desert of Oman.
12. Re: How about by alen · 2013-07-08 00:20 · Score: 1
  
  Otter box is your friend
13. Re:How about by drinkypoo · 2013-07-08 00:27 · Score: 2
  
  The new Sony Xperia Z is waterproof to 1 meter for 30 minutes. Try again.
  One meter? So that's just enough to stand in water up to your head (well, my head, being two meters tall) with the phone in your pocket. But if you should drop it... That doesn't fucking count. That's rainproofing. Supposedly waterproof watches that only claim to resist to 15M or 30M regularly fail in pool environments. I do not believe for one tenth of one second that the new Xperia Z has useful waterproofing.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
14. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 00:39 · Score: 0
  
  Well, reception kinda sucks 30m down, so....
15. Re:How about by drinkypoo · 2013-07-08 00:43 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Well, reception kinda sucks 30m down, so....
  Ha ha, but if I drop my phone in a pool, I want it to still work when I pick it up. 1 meter won't give me that. It's useless, like most Sony products.
  I own a 2011 Xperia Play, which I bought used. I'm $50 into the phone counting a new back, which was needed. Sony abandoned it before providing the promised software update; before that they abandoned the platform in general and didn't release a tenth of the software they implied would be available. Good thing I didn't buy it new, or I'd be pissed. But I know better than to give Sony my money.
  Does anyone make an actually waterproof phone? With useful waterproofing? And no Sony logo?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
16. Re:How about by c · 2013-07-08 00:44 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  One meter? So that's just enough to stand in water up to your head
  It's enough to survive a dunk in the toilet (and subsequent washing in the sink) or a drop into a puddle. In other words, it'd cover 95% of water damage a typical phone might be subjected to.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
17. Re:How about by rvw · 2013-07-08 00:51 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Well, reception kinda sucks 30m down, so....
  Ha ha, but if I drop my phone in a pool, I want it to still work when I pick it up. 1 meter won't give me that. It's useless, like most Sony products.
  Most people don't have to dive deeper than 10cm to pick their phone up - from the toilet.
18. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 00:57 · Score: 0
  
  I believe it is anti-shatter. This article is about besides being strong material it has additional benefits now.
  And BTW, their competition:
  http://youtu.be/dDoJNG_zoCA
  I think both are very strong and anti-shatter, anti-scratch. I haven't seen a head-to-head comparison though.
19. Re:How about by drinkypoo · 2013-07-08 01:00 · Score: 0
  
  Most people don't have to dive deeper than 10cm to pick their phone up - from the toilet.
  Most people are boring. The 2013 Xperia Z... for boring people. I just don't find it that catchy.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
20. Re:How about by bestalexguy · 2013-07-08 01:34 · Score: 2
  
  One meter? So that's just enough to stand in water up to your head
  It's enough to survive a dunk in the toilet (and subsequent washing in the sink) or a drop into a puddle. In other words, it'd cover 95% of water damage a typical phone might be subjected to
  , which would make insurance either unnecessary or very cheap.
21. Re:How about by AJH16 · 2013-07-08 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  Samsung I believe is putting limited waterproofing on the Galaxy S4 Active. I could be wrong on that though as I haven't reviewed the specs in a while.
  
  --
  AJ Henderson
22. Re:How about by DocSavage64109 · 2013-07-08 01:54 · Score: 2
  
  One of my coworkers put her phone right into a cup of water that was in her car's cup-holder. She didn't even notice until several minutes later.
23. Re:How about by PopeRatzo · 2013-07-08 01:56 · Score: 2
  
  Ha ha, but if I drop my phone in a pool, I want it to still work when I pick it up.
  
  And I would like sex with a couple of swimsuit models.
  Well, I thought we were making wish lists...
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
24. Re: How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 02:02 · Score: 0
  
  My Otter box broke.
25. Re:How about by chihowa · 2013-07-08 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  The use of an ever-so-slightly curved face on the Galaxy Nexus seemed to bring some anti-shatter success. I wonder why that wasn't further explored in any subsequent models.
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
26. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  I'll get right on that...spammer. Now fuck off.
27. Re:How about by LordVader717 · 2013-07-08 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Not sexy enough. Unless you're really clumsy it's a problem that's easily avoided anyhow: Use a case. But considering how many people buy iPhones or don't bother with a case I'm guessing people just simply don't care enough. They'd rather just deal with a broken phone every couple of years.
  Scratches and glare on the other hand show more immediate results.
28. Re:How about by slashmydots · 2013-07-08 02:26 · Score: 2
  
  I was about to say the same thing. Apparently gorilla glass is a joke because I've seen every modern smartphone model with a shattered screen at my shop and I don't even fix phones, lol. Wow, the world's toughest screen shatters like glass but looks good doing it due to a lack of scratches. Great.
29. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  I suspect that the GP was referring to the concept of static vs dynamic water ingress, in respect to "water proof up to X meters" testing.
  Water pressure at 1 meters depth is not nearly high enough to penetrate reasonable waterproofing seals, especially if the item was immersed gradually so that pressure builds up smoothly over the entire exterior surface and walls of the major ingress points (i.e. at those pressures and physical dimensions, surface tension effects between the seal and the water are enough to prevent water penetration).
  One might make the point that a phone which is waterproof to 1 meter for 30 minutes has reasonably tight seals and well-fitting exterior surfaces, but that it probably could not handle e.g. being dropped into a shallow puddle - because at the moment of impact of the shell to the bottom of the puddle, it will flex and allow in a bit of water. Or perhaps even deform and lose water proof completely :-)
30. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 02:57 · Score: 0
  
  Caterpillar B15: http://catphones.com/assets/uploads/B15-Full-Spec.pdf or the Samsung Galaxy S4 active. If you don't need a touch screen, check http://www.sonimtech.com/
31. Re:How about by scheme · 2013-07-08 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  The use of an ever-so-slightly curved face on the Galaxy Nexus seemed to bring some anti-shatter success. I wonder why that wasn't further explored in any subsequent models.
  Making and getting the curved glass surface right was apparently a pain in the ass.
  
  --
  "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
32. Re:How about by c · 2013-07-08 03:06 · Score: 1
  
  One might make the point that a phone which is waterproof to 1 meter for 30 minutes has reasonably tight seals and well-fitting exterior surfaces, but that it probably could not handle e.g. being dropped into a shallow puddle
  I'd like to think that waterproofing levels would apply up to the maximum designed impact levels, though. That is, if someone says their phone can handle a 2m drop onto concrete, then it should be able to handle a 2m drop into 20cm of water if it's rated for 1m of submersion.
  
  --
  Log in or piss off.
33. Re:How about by scheme · 2013-07-08 03:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  If you want a surface that is scratch resistant, you need to get something that's really hard. If you want something that is shatterproof, you want something that is soft or can flex enough to absorb impacts. You'll need a breakthrough to find something that's both. Manufacturers went the scratch-proof way because it's more likely that your phone would be in your pocket with keys, coins, etc. than being regularly dropped.
  
  --
  "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
34. Re:How about by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-08 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I'd suspect cost.
  Apparently, Corning's 'Fusion draw process' is what they use for LCD-quality glass(to avoid issues with defects on the contact side that the were having with float glass). And with that process you can get any shape you want, so long as it's a rectangular sheet. According to this interview, any shaping is done from the sheet stock, but before the ion-exchange toughening process:
  "FLATOW: Why can't you - I'm sorry, why can't you make it the shape itself beforehand?
  VELASQUEZ: Well, it's much cheaper, more effective, to make these large sheets of glass and then cut it later, as opposed to trying to mold - or mold from molten glass into a small part.
  FLATOW: It's not having to do with maybe the glass being too tough or brittle to work with at that point?
  VELASQUEZ: No, that's a good question, but we - the chemical strengthening process actually happens after our immediate customers have cut the parts down to the size, the shape of the parts."
  So, if that is the case, presumably doing a dead-flat face just requires rounding off the corners a bit, possibly drilling out a speaker grille or front button(if either is within the glass area), and then calling it a day, while doing a 'watch glass' style curve would require starting with thicker sheet stock and grinding and polishing, in a shallow version of lenscrafting, which is presumably a more vexing process.
  Probably doesn't help that(unless you got really fancy, selectively messing with refractive indices in parts of the face or something like that) the curved face introduces slight distortions of the image and makes the phone look thicker.
  I'm not saying that these are sensible in the broad sense(especially given the number of phones I see out and about that were carefully designed and exhaustively manufactured to be slim, perfect, slabs of featureless unobtanium, which their owners promptly swaddle in garish silicone and blurry screen protectors, ending up with something substantially more expensive than, and neither much smaller nor much more attractive than, one of the less tacky discrete-faceplate designs; but that's my guess as to why it is what it is...
35. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 03:18 · Score: 0
  
  but if I drop my phone in a pool, I want it to still work when I pick it up. 1 meter won't give me that. It's useless, like most Sony products.
  Fails one condition != useless. But you knew that. "falls in a pool" is greatly, vastly, hugely outnumbered by "falls in the sink" and "get wet in the rain"
  "Useless" is a pretty stupid conclusion.
36. Re:How about by FatdogHaiku · 2013-07-08 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.att.com/shop/wireless/devices/samsung/galaxy-s-4-active-urban-gray.html
  
  --
  You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
37. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  The Casio G'zOne series of phones are dust, shock and water resistant.
  
  But back to the old Nokia phones. I once found an old Nokia phone that had washed up on the beach. It wouldn't turn on, so I left it sitting out in the sun for a few hours. Once it had dried out, it powered on and worked as if nothing had happened to it. Mind you, this thing had been floating around in the ocean for who knows how long. Not even salt water damaged it.
38. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  For this reason, a 4" screen with light-weight and cheap-feeling plastic construction is the most durable phone possible right now. It's just too bad no one makes a decent one. I had the original samsung galaxy S and dropped it from chest height 2 or 3 times....never shattered. Wait height, 10-15 times...same.... Every premium phone on the market is either too big or uses too-heavy materials. Sad...
39. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 04:18 · Score: 0
  
  Ugh that site design is horribly broken. If they can't even make a simple web page, I wouldn't trust them to be able to make a reliable phone.
40. Re:How about by wed128 · 2013-07-08 04:33 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe not pool environments, but it may be helpful in sink or toilet environments.
41. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 04:34 · Score: 0
  
  Or they just aren't so clumsy? I generally can take care of my stuff. And on the 1:1000 or so chance I mess up it's an excuse to buy the next model. So I consider not using a case a win-win situation.
42. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 05:32 · Score: 0
  
  And just how waterproof is your phone? You talk a lot of shit about the Xperia Z, but I'm willing to bet it's still better than anything you've got.
43. Re:How about by drinkypoo · 2013-07-08 06:10 · Score: 1
  
  And just how waterproof is your phone? You talk a lot of shit about the Xperia Z, but I'm willing to bet it's still better than anything you've got.
  The question was whether anyone made a waterproof phone. Whether my phone is waterproof has no bearing on that whatsoever. Thanks for playing, though.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
44. Re: How about by camperdave · 2013-07-08 08:55 · Score: 1
  
  Otter box is your friend
  That assumes a premeditative dunking; something you'd do if you were inexplicably taking your phone on a canoe trip. What if your "buddy" pushes you into the pool, or off the dock ... or you're walking in the rain and a car splashes you.
  
  --
  When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
45. Re:How about by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 02:20 · Score: 0
  
  If your phone is waterproof, then yes, somebody makes a waterproof phone. The fact you're asking implies it doesn't but is not definitive.
46. Re:How about by slashmydots · 2013-07-09 05:09 · Score: 1
  
  I saw a video on slashdot of a guy firing an arbalast at an LCD monitor and the synthetic sapphire coating didn't nick, scratch, or shatter.
Next step by GeekWithAKnife · 2013-07-07 21:10 · Score: 1

Yeah that's pretty neat, now let's make it optionally reflective so it can double as a mirror (women will kill for this) & smooth enough so skin oils don't smudge.

--
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
1. Re:Next step by LordLucless · 2013-07-07 22:26 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Why use a mirror when you can capture an image with your front-facing camera, digitise it, route it through state-of-the-art computing and image processing trips, break it into millions of pieces and feed it simultaneous to an equal number of tiny diodes.
  So much simpler!
  
  --
  Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
2. Re:Next step by arielCo · 2013-07-07 22:39 · Score: 2
  
  You wouldn't believe how many people haven't thought of that. To some of them, it's like finding the switch that turns off the light in the fridge.
  
  --
  This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
3. Re:Next step by Cryacin · 2013-07-07 22:40 · Score: 2
  
  You know there's an app for that!
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
4. Re:Next step by BrokenHalo · 2013-07-07 23:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but will it ever have the courage to say "Yes, you do look fat in that"?
5. Re:Next step by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 23:57 · Score: 0
  
  Are you suggesting that the light doesn't stay on when I close the door? la-la-la-la-la-I-cant-hear-you
6. Re:Next step by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-08 00:11 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Why use a mirror when you can capture an image with your front-facing camera, digitise it, route it through state-of-the-art computing and image processing trips, break it into millions of pieces and feed it simultaneous to an equal number of tiny diodes.
  So much simpler!
  Kids these days... Don't you realize that you can just scan a mirror and set that as your background?
7. Re:Next step by GeekWithAKnife · 2013-07-08 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  You know, viewing your own image in real time on the phone is not new...BUT it pales in comparison to an actual mirror.
  
  When you can match that quality then it's something of a luxury to feedback a real time image but at least it is just as good.
  
  --
  A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
8. Re:Next step by BluBrick · 2013-07-08 01:11 · Score: 1
  
  Better yet that it says "No, that outfit does not make you look fat. It's all the goddamn donuts that do!"
  
  --
  Ahh - My eye!
  The doctor said I'm not supposed to get Slashdot in it!
9. Re:Next step by Sloppy · 2013-07-08 05:55 · Score: 1
  
  You people are making things too complicated. People who want phones which act like mirrors and resist makeup smudges, really just need their phones to offer stylesheet files to all viewers who gaze upon the user.
  
  --
  As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
However by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 21:13 · Score: 0

However if you want to use your phone outside in the daylight, well you are SOL
Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 21:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

Really... anti-bacterial? I knew Americans had an obsession with bacteria but this is getting ridiculous. The do realize that the rest of the phone, yaknow the part you hold, is not going to be anti-bacterial? What would happen if the average American were to realize that his/her own body contains ten times more bacteria than cells? Ewwww, ewwww bacteria.....
1. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 21:28 · Score: 0
  
  Oh, come on. I think it's amusing.
  Definitely more entertaining than a sitcom.
  Bring it on!
2. Re:Phobia... by ebno-10db · 2013-07-07 21:43 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Really... anti-bacterial? I knew Americans had an obsession with bacteria but this is getting ridiculous.
  For phones it's ridiculous (though possibly harmless) but what about ATM's and other touch screens that can be used by hundreds, possibly thousands, of people each day?
3. Re:Phobia... by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-07-07 21:45 · Score: 1
  
  What would happen if the average American were to realize that his/her own body contains ten times more bacteria than cells?
  Since bacteria are cells, you probably wanted to say "human cells". Also, wasn't the figure something like a thousand, not just ten? The neat thing about bacteria is that they are so small that you can really have a lot of them.
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
4. Re:Phobia... by Neil+Boekend · 2013-07-07 21:46 · Score: 1
  
  My intestinal bacteria have a sitcom. It has been very popular since they installed cable, although it's not very funny IMHO.
  
  --
  Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
5. Re:Phobia... by Cenan · 2013-07-07 22:04 · Score: 2
  
  Actually it's not all ridiculous. Most people don't lick their phones, but they don't wipe them off regularly either. That's not really an issue until they have to answer a call and put the phone to their ear. On most smart phones the only thing touching the ear when you use it for a call, is the glass surface, and making that part of the phone anti-bacterial is not a wholly stupid idea.
  Installing a wet-wipe dispenser on the phone, now that would be a stupid idea. Educating people about hygiene would probably be wasted money. Glass that doesn't infect you with your own ass-germs is the sensible middle ground-ish. Granted, if people could be taught to wash their hands once in a while, this would be a non-issue, at least taught to reverse the order of stuffing finger in ass, then in mouth.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
6. Re:Phobia... by bickerdyke · 2013-07-07 22:41 · Score: 1
  
  Uhmm...... I thing that very few infections are passed on through the ears.....
  
  --
  bickerdyke
7. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 22:53 · Score: 0
  
  The problem is that no antibacterial surface is kills 100% of all the bacteria. And the strains that aren't affected simply repopulate the surface free from the others. In the end, the amount of bacteria doesn't change a lot.
8. Re:Phobia... by Cenan · 2013-07-07 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  Antibacterial does not always depend on killing off the bacteria. Creating a surface where they won't be able to stick is equally good.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
9. Re:Phobia... by Required+Snark · 2013-07-07 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Most people don't lick their phones
  
  Are you proposing a new type of user interface?
  
  --
  Why is Snark Required?
10. Re:Phobia... by Canazza · 2013-07-07 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  You've never had an ear infection have you?
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
11. Re:Phobia... by Cenan · 2013-07-07 23:14 · Score: 1
  
  Mouth, nose, eyes and ears are the entrances to your body (top-side at least), people don't tend to lick, sniff or rub their phone in their eyes. The ears however is a different story.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
12. Re:Phobia... by bickerdyke · 2013-07-07 23:31 · Score: 2
  
  But unlike the others, the ear is seperated from your inner body by a watertight seal, as no material needs to be transfered for hearing. (unlike smells and tastes, that need to bring chemicals into contact with receptor cells)
  In general, I'd say the parts of the ear that are exposed to the outside of your body, are at least as well guarded against bacteria as the rest of your body surface (skin)
  That, and you don't put your phone into your ear. I'd be more concerned about those in-ear headphones.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
13. Re:Phobia... by bickerdyke · 2013-07-07 23:38 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  No. I've had luck here so far.
  But I'm quite sure that if I ever will catch one, it won't be from pressing my cellphone display against my ear. I'd me worried much more worried about those earbuds on my mp3-player or touching my keyboard before scratching my ear.
  But it might still be a valid point for ATM-Touchscreens.
  But always keep in mind that exposure to microorganisms is vital to develop a healthy immune system. sanitizing everything is bad for your long-term health. Anyone still thinks long-term at all nowadays?.
  
  --
  bickerdyke
14. Re:Phobia... by BrokenHalo · 2013-07-07 23:59 · Score: 2
  
  When I was younger (much, much younger) I had a girlfriend who liked licking ears. I always found it just a bit creepy, but nowhere near as surprising as when she stuck her tongue in my ass. I had never imagined anyone would do that...
  
  Oops, sorry... :-}
15. Re:Phobia... by BrokenHalo · 2013-07-08 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  But unlike the others, the ear is seperated from your inner body by a watertight seal
  It is, but that membrane and the surrounding tissue are fragile and comparatively prone to infection (a warm, humid environment for bugs to thrive in). However, obviously many of us have grown up accustomed to shared or public phones without having suffered major issues.
16. Re:Phobia... by fgouget · 2013-07-08 00:31 · Score: 2
  
  For phones it's ridiculous (though possibly harmless) but what about ATM's and other touch screens that can be used by hundreds, possibly thousands, of people each day?
  Come on. ATMs, really? Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority? These are all things you puts your hands on that have been touched by thousands other people. So where do you stop then?
17. Re:Phobia... by Xest · 2013-07-08 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  What about them? Humans didn't evolve in a vacuum, we evolved to encounter and co-exist with bacteria. Making ATMs bacteria proof wont magically protect you from them, it'll just mean your body is even less well equipped to cope when you inevitably do encounter harmful bacteria elsewhere.
  Just stick to basic hygiene like washing your hands before you eat and you'll be fine. GP is right, it's like some kind of cultural OCD.
18. Re:Phobia... by jellomizer · 2013-07-08 00:47 · Score: 1
  
  Well we do have uses for this stuff beyond Smart Phones, and Tablets.
  Think of Kiosks where you have hundreds of people touching these things, and only a few think of whipping it out, and some of these people have more than the bacteria that lives on a normal healthy people but bad ones too.
  Health Care would love touch interaction however they are still using a lot of Membrane Buttons for what they are doing because it is better microbial.
  Or other technologies.. Say a digital cutting board. It shows you where to place your cuts with your slab of raw meat on it. Then you can just wipe it down.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
19. Re:Phobia... by jellomizer · 2013-07-08 00:48 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Many Metals have Anti-Bacterial properties to them.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
20. Re:Phobia... by jeffmeden · 2013-07-08 01:05 · Score: 1
  
  What about them? Humans didn't evolve in a vacuum, we evolved to encounter and co-exist with bacteria. Making ATMs bacteria proof wont magically protect you from them, it'll just mean your body is even less well equipped to cope when you inevitably do encounter harmful bacteria elsewhere.
  Just stick to basic hygiene like washing your hands before you eat and you'll be fine. GP is right, it's like some kind of cultural OCD.
  Yes, because it's not like there have ever been problems with spread of bacteria in the past and it also doesn't seem like it will ever be a problem in the future either! Who needs to worry about bacteria! Nature wouldn't make something that could hurt me, would it?
  Hand washing is great, but that doesn't mean reducing bacteria count on contact surfaces doesn't help since hand washing alone is certainly not 100% effective.
21. Re:Phobia... by magic+maverick+ · 2013-07-08 01:10 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have, like, a feed or something, of like, your videos? Your comments make me all hot and bothered. And I really want to watch you fuck some guy in the ass. That'd be hot. Please respond.
  
  --
  HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
22. Re:Phobia... by bestalexguy · 2013-07-08 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  ATMs, really? Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority? These are all things you puts your hands on that have been touched by thousands other people. So where do you stop then?
  1) Yes. 2) No. 3) At the ATM, to get some cash.
23. Re:Phobia... by Xest · 2013-07-08 01:43 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  "Yes, because it's not like there have ever been problems with spread of bacteria in the past and it also doesn't seem like it will ever be a problem in the future either! Who needs to worry about bacteria! Nature wouldn't make something that could hurt me, would it?"
  So what are you saying exactly, that you believe that if we could just bacteria proof mobile phones, and ATMs and such that nature will no longer produce anything to hurt you? It's precisely that naivety that I'm pointing out the idiocy of. All it means is that we'll end up with bacteria that evolves mechanisms to defeat the anti-bacterial technologies we implement making them even more difficult to deal with.
  I didn't claim that bacteria can't be harmful, but simply that we don't need to go to absurd extremes to try and eliminate all bacteria that we may encounter because that's frankly fucking stupid and nonsensical. There will always be bacteria and there will always be some degree of chance that it will evolve into something very dangerous. Bacteria "proofing" ATMs and so forth without all also wearing masks to stop the spread of airborne bacteria and bacteria proofing our clothes, any handrails we may touch, any food we may eat and everything else isn't going to magically change that at all, there'll still be an ever present threat of a dangerous form of easily spread bacteria however you cut it, the difference is that when it does come it'll have already had to evolve to defeat the low hanging options for dealing with it that we might otherwise have had if we didn't engage in paranoid splashing of said technologies left right and centre to no practical benefit at the time.
24. Re:Phobia... by Zinho · 2013-07-08 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  . . . people don't tend to lick, sniff or rub their phone in their eyes.
  No, but they tend to touch their phones with their fingers. And touch their eyes with their fingers. I'm watching a co-worker poke himself in the eye right now. I'll be generous and assume he washed his hands after using the restroom, but if he's the type to text on the toilet ($DEITY I hope not) I think there's a risk there.
  An anti-bacterial surface (like the titanium dioxide mentioned elsewhere) would be a benefit for a too-large-for-my-comfort segment of smartphone users.
  
  --
  "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
25. Re:Phobia... by GrumpySteen · 2013-07-08 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Neither of the bacteria you mention are spread by contact, so antibacterial surfaces will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on them. Not exactly a good argument for your case.
26. Re:Phobia... by olau · 2013-07-08 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  Many Metals have Anti-Bacterial properties to them.
  Is that before or after receiving a coating of gunk from a human hand?
27. Re:Phobia... by chihowa · 2013-07-08 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority?
  If you have germaphobic tendencies, think of this the next time you're in a public bathroom: what is the last thing touched before you wash your hands and the first thing touched after you wash your hands?
  Brought to you by the Ruining Daily Activities Program...
  
  --
  If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
28. Re:Phobia... by slashmydots · 2013-07-08 02:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Really? Americans? It's a phobia? You ever notice how all major plagues recently started in Asia, where their health standards and practices are summed up by raw meat hanging on a wooden peg on an open street market?
29. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 02:34 · Score: 0
  
  The way I phrase it is, what's the the first thing everyone touches when they feel they have a reason to wash their hands?
30. Re:Phobia... by scheme · 2013-07-08 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority?
  If you have germaphobic tendencies, think of this the next time you're in a public bathroom: what is the last thing touched before you wash your hands and the first thing touched after you wash your hands?
  Brought to you by the Ruining Daily Activities Program...
  Screw, that. It turns out that keyboards have more germs than toilets.
  
  --
  "When you sit with a nice girl for two hours, it seems like two minutes. When you sit on a hot stove for two minutes, it
31. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 03:24 · Score: 0
  
  I think you are off by several orders of magnitude ;)
32. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Phones, tablets etc are being increasingly used by the medical community in hospitals where you want to keep all your tools as germ-free as possible.
  Many phones have anti-oil/anti-fingerprint coatings on the screen that is destroyed by alcohol-based sanitizer. Many of the existing anti-bacterial films/cases you can put over a tablet reduce the responsiveness to touch and the visibility. If they can make the screen itself more anti-bacterial there is a very large industry which might be interested.
33. Re:Phobia... by Grizzley9 · 2013-07-08 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  For phones it's ridiculous (though possibly harmless) but what about ATM's and other touch screens that can be used by hundreds, possibly thousands, of people each day?
  Come on. ATMs, really? Wouldn't door knobs, faucet and toilet knobs, stair railings and cart handles be a much higher priority? These are all things you puts your hands on that have been touched by thousands other people. So where do you stop then?
  Those are all nice but the subject at hand is screens and uses for anti-bacterial glass. I guess you could make it into those things but many metals have built in anti-bacterial properties.
34. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 04:23 · Score: 0
  
  "Anyone still thinks long-term at all nowadays?"
  I'll commision a report if you're interested... no.
  If you're sincere then I'll have it for you in 6 months ;-)
35. Re:Phobia... by phoenix_rizzen · 2013-07-08 04:42 · Score: 2
  
  So? Being exposed to a variety of bacteria is actually GOOD for the immune system. How can you fight off what you've never been exposed to?
  This whole germ-a-phobia is what's making the world sick!
36. Re:Phobia... by IndustrialComplex · 2013-07-08 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  Last thing before washing: The faucet handle
  First thing after: The paper towel I prepared for drying my hands, turning off the faucet, and opening the restroom door.
  Or in the case of my current office: The paper towel I prepared for drying my hands as the faucet is automatic, and the door opens out and has a kickplate.
  Clever janitors have realized that most people do this, and have placed a wastebin next to the restroom exit door for 'door opener towels'
  
  --
  Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
37. Re:Phobia... by jeffmeden · 2013-07-08 06:23 · Score: 1
  
  >
  I didn't claim that bacteria can't be harmful, but simply that we don't need to go to absurd extremes to try and eliminate all bacteria that we may encounter because that's frankly fucking stupid and nonsensical.
  
  Who claimed that we should "go to absurd extremes to try and eliminate all bacteria that we may encounter"? Not me. Not TFA. You did, as a straw man for your bizarre pro-bacteria agenda.
38. Re:Phobia... by jeffmeden · 2013-07-08 06:24 · Score: 1
  
  Neither of the bacteria you mention are spread by contact, so antibacterial surfaces will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on them. Not exactly a good argument for your case.
  OK, if you don't like analogues, here is the example right out of TFA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus
39. Re:Phobia... by jeffmeden · 2013-07-08 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  No. I've had luck here so far.
  But I'm quite sure that if I ever will catch one, it won't be from pressing my cellphone display against my ear. I'd me worried much more worried about those earbuds on my mp3-player or touching my keyboard before scratching my ear.
  But it might still be a valid point for ATM-Touchscreens.
  But always keep in mind that exposure to microorganisms is vital to develop a healthy immune system. sanitizing everything is bad for your long-term health. Anyone still thinks long-term at all nowadays?.
  Don't worry, you will still get plenty of germs in you even if every cellphone and ATM you ever touch is germ-free. TFA points out how this type of glass is effective at killing MRSA, which means that one more commonly touched thing in hospitals can prevent infection instead of harboring germs. Unless you want to get MRSA just so your immune system is "healthy", in which case please don't reproduce.
40. Re:Phobia... by CCarrot · 2013-07-08 06:40 · Score: 1
  
  Glass that doesn't infect you with your own ass-germs is the sensible middle ground-ish.
  
  you're doing it wrong
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
41. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  While that is a no-brainer when it comes to most forms of bacteria, try exposing yourself to something like Hepatitis A and see how well your immune system fights it off.
42. Re:Phobia... by denbesten · 2013-07-08 09:31 · Score: 1
  
  Really... anti-bacterial? I knew Americans had an obsession with bacteria but this is getting ridiculous.
  One immediate benefit I can see is in restaurant kitchens and in hospitals. U.S. health laws require minimizing cross-contamination in both. Smooth surfaces are popular in these cases because they are easy to clean. If you are going to introduce a bumpy anti-glare surface, it is probably best that it have anti-bacterial characteristics. Think employee phones, cardiac monitors, register screens, electronic record computers, etc.
43. Re:Phobia... by RivenAleem · 2013-07-08 22:46 · Score: 1
  
  And now think about just how many of them there are. Their immune system is likely off the charts.
44. Re:Phobia... by slashmydots · 2013-07-09 05:07 · Score: 1
  
  Immune is a misnomer. They're clearly not "immune" to SARS or H1N1. A virus strong enough just has to be mutated due to awful health practices and tada, is spreads among unsanitary people like a plague (because it is a plague lol).
45. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 05:48 · Score: 0
  
  That which does not kill us makes us stronger?
46. Re:Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-09 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  Who uses a smart phone for making phone calls?!? Sheesh!!!
47. Re:Phobia... by phoenix_rizzen · 2013-07-11 08:32 · Score: 1
  
  Hepatitis is a virus, not a bacteria. We're discussing bacteria here. Viral infections are a whole other ball of wax.
resistance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 21:32 · Score: 0

won't this just create resistant strains?
1. Re:resistance by Cenan · 2013-07-07 22:09 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The article isn't clear on what the antimicrobial coating does, but I'd hazard a guess that it is not an antibiotic but a surface that is too slippery for bacteria to attach to. An antibiotic agent would be pretty stupid and would degrade rapidly compared to the lifetime of the device (think: ATM), as opposed to a surface where bacteria just doesn't stick.
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
2. Re:resistance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 22:43 · Score: 1
  
  (think: ATM)
  Dude, ass to mouth? What is this, mobile phones for the porn industry?
3. Re:resistance by Cenan · 2013-07-07 22:54 · Score: 2
  
  Why can't porn actors ever have nice stuff? The glass does have uses outside pop culture you know, like an ATM, or any other automated service that requires user input. Why should I suffer your germs on my fingers, just because you don't wash your hands after sodomizing your sheep?
  
  --
  ... whatever ...
4. Re:resistance by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-07 23:11 · Score: 1
  
  The article isn't clear on what the antimicrobial coating does, but I'd hazard a guess that it is not an antibiotic but a surface that is too slippery for bacteria to attach to. An antibiotic agent would be pretty stupid and would degrade rapidly compared to the lifetime of the device (think: ATM), as opposed to a surface where bacteria just doesn't stick.
  This is an equally uninformed guess; but it could also be something similar to the Titanium dioxide photocatalytic coatings that they sell for, or bake into, certain classier construction materials.
  Reasonably tough, and not 'used up'(except by sheer mechanical weathering/abrasion); but when sunlight hits them, anything vulnerable to oxidizers; be it living or dead, gets chewed up pretty brutally.
5. Re:resistance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 23:49 · Score: 0
  
  worth noting they're using silver:
  http://ceramics.org/ceramic-tech-today/biomaterials/corning-prepping-new-anti-microbial-glass-product
6. Re:resistance by BrokenHalo · 2013-07-08 00:13 · Score: 1
  
  ...or it could include just about any heavy metal, e.g. Cu or Al. Lots of bacteria are inhibited by these, so this kind of treatment might lend itself quite well to such a broad-brush application (which is how your deodorants containing aluminium-based compounds work).
7. Re:resistance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 05:56 · Score: 0
  
  I think it might be a type of prickly surface that actually pierces bacterial cells. So while they can hang out there, they will not enjoy it.
8. Re:resistance by RivenAleem · 2013-07-08 22:47 · Score: 1
  
  Unless there are some sick, sick bacteria that are in to that sort of thing.
Bah. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 21:37 · Score: 0

Yeah, wonderful. More crap to make strains of bacteria stronger and the human immune system weaker.
1. Re:Bah. by John.Banister · 2013-07-08 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  Y'know, I think that business about antibiotics breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria applies more to the antibiotics that are safe for a mammal to ingest than to cell phones, hand soap & such. Bleach has been used for antibiotic purposes for a lot of years, but I have yet to hear of a super strain of bleach resistant bacteria (although this article comes close).
Incredible - non-reflective displays! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 21:50 · Score: 0

What an AMAZING idea! If only somebody had thought of that before, then you wouldn't have to see the sun reflected behind you...
Oh, wait...
1. Re:Incredible - non-reflective displays! by BrokenHalo · 2013-07-08 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  What an AMAZING idea! If only somebody had thought of that before, then you wouldn't have to see the sun reflected behind you...
  I think I might be in a minority in not being a big fan of reflective screens, but I would have thought Apple in particular would be grumpy about the latest/best glass not being shiny any more.
2. Re:Incredible - non-reflective displays! by Lazere · 2013-07-08 01:48 · Score: 1
  
  True, but I doubt they're going to coat something you put up to your face in something so harsh.
Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by hankwang · 2013-07-07 21:54 · Score: 4, Interesting

Anti-reflection coatings by themselves are nothing new. AR coatings that are scratch-resistant might be more tricky. But I would be really impressed if they can make it anti-reflective even when covered with fingerprints.
AR coatings are based on thin layers with thicknesses tuned and accurate to 20 nm or less and well defined refractive indices, matched to the refractive index of the air on one side and the glass on the other side. It's hard if not impossible to make a coating that keeps working even with an undefined number of micrometers of skin grease on top.
My glasses (eyewear) have a very nice AR coating, but fingerprints turn it into a colorful reflector.

--
Avantslash: low-bandwidth mobile slashdot.
1. Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by jamesh · 2013-07-07 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  Anti-reflection coatings by themselves are nothing new. AR coatings that are scratch-resistant might be more tricky. But I would be really impressed if they can make it anti-reflective even when covered with fingerprints.
  AR coatings are based on thin layers with thicknesses tuned and accurate to 20 nm or less and well defined refractive indices, matched to the refractive index of the air on one side and the glass on the other side. It's hard if not impossible to make a coating that keeps working even with an undefined number of micrometers of skin grease on top.
  My glasses (eyewear) have a very nice AR coating, but fingerprints turn it into a colorful reflector.
  It probably doesn't matter so much. Almost everyone seems to insist on putting a screen protector on which mucks the whole thing up anyway.
  (the only useful thing i've seen a screen protector do is hold the fragments together when it cracks, but that's like wrapping yourself in bandages all day so your guts don't fall out in the unlikely event that you get hit by a car)
2. Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by gl4ss · 2013-07-07 22:36 · Score: 1
  
  I wonder where they lose the light if it's supposed to make the screen visible in sunlight.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
3. Re: Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by AvitarX · 2013-07-08 00:53 · Score: 1
  
  I've scratched five dollar screen protectors and 90 dollar screens, the protector was easier to replace too. Now I just make sure the phone is separate from keys to protect the screen, but the protector wasn't worthless.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
4. Re: Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by LordVader717 · 2013-07-08 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  If you replace the screen protector that's an extra 10 dollars you paid. Screen protectors also scratch much easier than gorilla glass, and most people don't bother replacing them when they do get scratched anyway.
5. Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by swb · 2013-07-08 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  I find screen protectors invaluable. I replace mine about every five months because the gouges and scratches in the protector get so bad you can't see the screen well.
  I've used PowerSupport screen protectors but needed a new one on short notice and bought a new Belkin that seems even clearer and thus far has resisted pocket scratches from keys, etc.
  After seeing the beating my screen protector takes and other people's non-protected screens with scratches, I'm just not willing to gamble with a $100 smart phone repair.
6. Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by Alastor187 · 2013-07-08 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  AR coatings in 'ruggedized' military and avionic displays is very common, the coatings are durable. Likewise, when used on a touchscreen an oleophobic (repels oil) coating can be used on top of the AR coating to minimize smudges and finger prints.
  Also, it should be kept in mind that the cover-glass is only accounts for the 'first' reflection in the 'lamination stackup'. In order for an anti-reflection technology to work all subsequent air gaps need to be removed or similarly index matched to prevent secondary reflections. So while this is a step in the right direction for 'sunlight readability', the entire laminated assembly has to be optimized concurrently.
7. Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by Alastor187 · 2013-07-08 05:49 · Score: 1
  
  You don't 'lose' the light. When light waves strike the AR coating some of the light is immediately reflected towards your eye. While the remaining light passes through the AR coating and is then reflected off a secondary surface towards your eye. However, as it passes through the AR coating the phase of the light is changed so that it 'destructively interferes' with the reflected light that did not pass through the AR coating, and therefore you see the reflection at a lower 'intensity'.
  The goal is to get the 'intensity' of the reflected light well below the 'intensity' of the light from the device back-light. The greater the difference between these 'intensities' (e.g. the higher the back-light output with respect to the reflected light) the greater the 'sunlight readability'.
8. Re:Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by CCarrot · 2013-07-08 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Anti-reflection coatings by themselves are nothing new. AR coatings that are scratch-resistant might be more tricky. But I would be really impressed if they can make it anti-reflective even when covered with fingerprints.
  AR coatings are based on thin layers with thicknesses tuned and accurate to 20 nm or less and well defined refractive indices, matched to the refractive index of the air on one side and the glass on the other side. It's hard if not impossible to make a coating that keeps working even with an undefined number of micrometers of skin grease on top.
  My glasses (eyewear) have a very nice AR coating, but fingerprints turn it into a colorful reflector.
  It probably doesn't matter so much. Almost everyone seems to insist on putting a screen protector on which mucks the whole thing up anyway.
  (the only useful thing i've seen a screen protector do is hold the fragments together when it cracks, but that's like wrapping yourself in bandages all day so your guts don't fall out in the unlikely event that you get hit by a car)
  Actually, if you get right kind of screen protector, it does much more than that.
  Every touch device I have, this is the first thing I put on. It's great: no more annoying reflections and a greatly reduced quota of smudgy fingerprints. You still get some (it's not chicken-wing-sauce proof, that's for sure), but it is a vast improvement over the typically glossy, shiny, have-to-wipe-them-down-after-every-single-use bare screens. The protection from accidental screen scratches is simply a side benefit.
  
  --
  "I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
9. Re: Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by AvitarX · 2013-07-09 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  This is why I stopped using them, well, after my G1 anyway, that thing had a crappy screen that scratched super easy.
  
  --
  Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Anti-Glare by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 21:59 · Score: 4, Funny

That'll stop people glaring at me when my phone rings during the pianissimo of Haydns Surprise Symphony.
1. Re:Anti-Glare by Cryacin · 2013-07-07 23:02 · Score: 1
  
  Is your ringtone Haydns Surprise Symphony?
  
  --
  Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
2. Re:Anti-Glare by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 00:08 · Score: 0
  
  The humor award of Monday goes to you.
But what about the telephone cleaners? by SuricouRaven · 2013-07-07 22:06 · Score: 3, Funny

What are we going to do with them now?
1. Re:But what about the telephone cleaners? by NIK282000 · 2013-07-07 22:53 · Score: 1
  
  Send them ahead to the next planet so all the phones will be clean by the time we arrive!
  
  --
  Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
Seeing the sreen in the sun by Zorpheus · 2013-07-07 22:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

My Nokia 5630 had a transflective LCD. This was always readable in the sun and even when the backlight was turned off. It works by having a partially reflecting layer between the LCD matrix and the backlight.
I really miss that feature on today's phones. I think they stopped selling this kind of displays because they look less good in the light conditions that you have in shops, since the partially reflecting layer also reflects some of the backlight.
1. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by MrHanky · 2013-07-07 23:03 · Score: 1
  
  Nokia's 'ClearBlack' technology uses some kind of polarizing wizardry to achieve daylight readability. It works. My old Nokia N9's AMOLED was much more sunlight readable with the brightness turned all the way down than my current Nexus 4's IPS is with the brightness turned all the way up. They still use it in their Lumia devices.
2. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-07-07 23:15 · Score: 1
  
  My Nokia 5630 had a transflective LCD. This was always readable in the sun and even when the backlight was turned off. It works by having a partially reflecting layer between the LCD matrix and the backlight.
  I really miss that feature on today's phones. I think they stopped selling this kind of displays because they look less good in the light conditions that you have in shops, since the partially reflecting layer also reflects some of the backlight.
  You are probably one of those commerce-hating commies who thinks that 'Retail Thermonuclear' isn't a valid display ICC profile, and that some technobabble involving 'Hz' and 'linearity' is more important to audio performance than 'Best Buy Car Audio bootay-thump' is...
3. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by AmiMoJo · 2013-07-07 23:45 · Score: 2
  
  I had one of those and it was really cool being able to see the clock displayed all the time without the backlight being on. The few tens of microamps needed to maintain the image didn't affect the battery life in any noticeable way.
  The problem was that when the backlight was on the colours were not that good. Compared to an AMOLED or high end LCD it wasn't up to much.
  Sharp still make such displays, but they are mostly for ultra low power devices rather than phones.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
4. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by drinkypoo · 2013-07-08 00:30 · Score: 2
  
  My 2011 Xperia Play has a transflective LCD, and it's a near-4" phone. It's really quite hilarious, because you must get every iota of grease off of the phone to see it in sunlight, and then you still have to deal with the scratches on the screen protector. The screen protector is not optional, users who remove it and do not replace it reliably experience digitizer failure. However, once you wipe the screen well, it really does show up perfectly as long as you orient yourself correctly to the sun...
  My take is that transflective LCDs went out of favor because of these factors. You still can't just take your phone out of your pocket and use it, you have to wipe it first. Do you carry a lint-free cloth? Do you want to?
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
5. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 02:50 · Score: 0
  
  No, the primary reason transflective LCDs aren't common these days is because the high pixel density of modern displays blocks too much light for them to be practical. In the days of old when QVGA was the norm the pixels were large enough that a reasonable amount of light still got through to the reflective portion of the transflective display. Now with 1280x720 and 1920x1080 pixel displays in the 4-5in form factor the pixel matrix absorbs too much light for a transflective display to be useful.
6. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Transflective displays have horrible contrast in low light and indoor situations. They also can't be back lit, and require a thick "frontlight" optical layer if you want to lite them, which hampers display clarity.
  Remember the original Gameboy advance and it's universally panned display? They switched to back lit LCD in a hurry. I had an old ipaq CE handheld that had one too. Don't miss it a bit.
  They do, however, work better than anything else in bright outdoors situations. They work the best in direct sunlight, where all other color LCD types perform their very worst and are for the most part completely undredable. They're also pretty rugged. You'll see them in lots of sports or outdoors electronics, and in outdoor video displays like fast food drive through menus. My new garmin bike GPS has one.
7. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by cliffjumper222 · 2013-07-08 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  No, they stopped selling them because transflective displays are limited by resolution. You can still get cheapy phones with them in Asia, but smartphones with HVGA or greater screen resolution don't have the space for the extra reflective part of the pixel that is required. One compromise is to use monochrome for the reflective part, which is what you see on the MotoACTV and WIMM smartwatches.
8. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by Zorpheus · 2013-07-08 16:48 · Score: 1
  
  Just saw that they build the partially reflective layer by using mirrors with holes. Yes, this requires some space, but why do they not just coat the backside of the display with 10-15nm Chromium? That will reflect about 50% of the light uniformly, and not take any space.
germ resistance by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-07 23:07 · Score: 0

ut oh, superbug!
Anti-reflective Imprint on Surface by Metabolife · 2013-07-07 23:41 · Score: 1

Maybe they're planning on imprinting the anti-reflective properties directly on the surface of the glass vs just using a coating? This has been possible with silicon for a few years now.
Here's an irony by houbou · 2013-07-07 23:47 · Score: 1

It is believed that we are 10 times more microbial cells on and in our bodies than there are human cells.

With a ratio of 90% microbial and 10% basically there is an estimated 100 times more microbial genes than the genes in our human genome. So, we are in essence both human and bacteria. I hope this new anti-microbial glass doesn't have any nasty side effects...
Yawn by codeButcher · 2013-07-08 00:15 · Score: 1
Wake me up when they have:
- Fingerprint-proof screens
- Waterproof screens (and phones)
- Shatterproof screens
- Sunlight-readable screens
Yes, I know, I know - it has been done already. So why isn't it in the latest and greatest?
--
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
Antiglare vs sun by Dcnjoe60 · 2013-07-08 00:27 · Score: 2

It isn't the glare that keeps me from seeing my smart phone screen in direct sunlight, it is the relatively dim backlight compared to the bright sunlight that keeps me from seeing my smart phone screen. Actually, I see the screen just fine. It's the lcd crystals that are the problem.
nano silver by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 01:23 · Score: 0

Normally nano silver is used today to make surfaces antimicrobial: it's on clingfilm, and may even be in your underpants. However, bacteria are very adaptive: http://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-technology/bacteria-adapt-and-evade-nanosilver%E2%80%99s-sting
Antibacterial? by Smurf · 2013-07-08 02:03 · Score: 1

Antibacterial?
Finally, an iPhone screen made for the dirty-old-man in all of us!
Antbacterial? by azav · 2013-07-08 02:18 · Score: 2

Great. Another chance to make bacteria resistant to something else.

--
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
1. Re:Antbacterial? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 04:31 · Score: 0
  
  You do know that, for example, Silver is a anti-bacterial. That metalic stuff that's existed $forever (for given values of $forever).
  I think you're raging about the (over) use of Anitbiotics. Wrong thread but nice try.
2. Re:Antbacterial? by cliffjumper222 · 2013-07-08 07:11 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, like bleach.
Antibacterial? But what about all of the by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-07-08 02:26 · Score: 2

telephone sanitizers who will be put out of work?
And one unexpectedly dirty phone could doom our society....

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
What about Self Cleaning? by BetaDays · 2013-07-08 02:30 · Score: 1

I really hate seeing the oils of my skin on the screen.

--
Paul: Father... father, the sleeper has awakened! - Dune
anti germ hysteria by p51d007 · 2013-07-08 02:50 · Score: 0

I for one, don't care for all the anti-germ and germphobia going on. Personally, I think all this obsession with germs is going to do us more harm than good. We live in a country (USA) where at the first sign of a sniffle, we run to a doctor for "a pill" to cure us. We eat preprocessed food, and obsess on using alcohol based or anti-bacteria soaps to clean us. "Getting sick" is our bodies way of dealing with it, and will cause antibodies to ward off the invaders in our system, to protect us against another attack. Eating food right out of the ground, before who knows what is done to it when it is processed, gives us the minerals & vitamins to heal us when we do get sick. One of these days, this anti-germ phobia is literally going to bite us in the ass.
Apple Will Add Glare Anyway by BrendaEM · 2013-07-08 03:32 · Score: 1

They think that its more important to look at their products--than into them.

--
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
coatings come off by Causemos · 2013-07-08 03:36 · Score: 1

Unless they have some new miracle system, coatings tend to come off over time. If it's anything like glasses, you'll start to see it coming off around the edges and slowly working towards the inside. You'd certainly lose that non-reflective goodness if you had to use a screen protector to avoid this.
No antibiotics by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 03:45 · Score: 0

Learn basic biology.
Why not just make the screen easier to replace? by timkosem · 2013-07-08 04:27 · Score: 2

Because the odds of cracking screens on smart phones are so high, why don't the device makers design the phones so that they can be more easily replaced? I replaced my wife's iPhone 4 screen after she dropped the phone on its edge. My kid also cracked his iPod Touch 4 screen the same way. Replacing the iPhone screen wasn't horrible, but it could have been easier if Apple just sold a replaceable screen/button assembly that just plugged into the rest of the phone. The iPod Touch replacement seems like more of a nightmare. You need to take the motherboard out of the case to unplug the screen from the bottom of the motherboard. What a stupid, stupid design.
Do non-Apple smart phone screens crack as often as iPhone screens? The iPhones sure look cool with their screens running right up to the metallic edge; but in reality I would think that this would make them much more susceptible to cracking screens by landing on their edges. My old Moto and current Samsung GS3 phones had plastic edges that absorb shock that would otherwise be transmitted to the digitizer, cracking it.
We need unbreakable, not just antibacterial. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 06:37 · Score: 0

If it's "Gorilla Glass", then why was my 1-yr-old granddaughter able to break one merely by tossing it across the room? And why was the vendor unable to fix it? They could only sell a new one.
Two Years? by Khyber · 2013-07-08 06:44 · Score: 1

I could have it done now. Just 'matte' the glass surface with nano-pillars of silicon dioxide. We have the tech now.
Now whether or not it stands up to the pressures that 'Gorilla Glass' can supposedly withstand is another issue entirely.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Sapphire - Corning's Nemesis by cliffjumper222 · 2013-07-08 07:08 · Score: 1

Corning's on a marketing offensive against sapphire, which is up and coming as a cover glass material. It's massively stronger than Gorilla (TM) Glass and so can offer better protection for the same thickness from impacts (although Corning will argue the opposite). The main problem has been that it's been expensive, but for some applications it's perfect (I'm looking at you smart watches) and the price is coming down, down, down.
I am the only one... by Livius · 2013-07-08 09:29 · Score: 1

who thought this was about Google Glass for gorillas on the first glance?
unnecessary by Anonymous Coward · 2013-07-08 21:36 · Score: 0

Germs on a phone screen are no problem, as long as they are not eating it. People don't die of it. Our body is made to fight germs and does so extremely well. All we will get from that is resistances, so that tech no longer works where you really need it: hospitals.