Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by samzenpus on 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.'"

45 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. How about by jkflying · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 AmiMoJo · · 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
    5. Re:How about by dj245 · · 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.
    6. Re:How about by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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.

    7. Re:How about by heypete · · 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.

    8. Re:How about by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
    9. Re:How about by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
    10. Re:How about by c · · 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.
    11. Re:How about by rvw · · 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.

    12. Re:How about by bestalexguy · · 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.

    13. Re:How about by DocSavage64109 · · 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.

    14. Re:How about by PopeRatzo · · 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.
    15. Re:How about by slashmydots · · 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.

    16. Re:How about by scheme · · 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
  2. Phobia... by Anonymous Coward · · 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 ebno-10db · · 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?

    2. Re:Phobia... by Cenan · · 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 ...
    3. Re:Phobia... by bickerdyke · · 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
    4. Re:Phobia... by bickerdyke · · 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
    5. Re:Phobia... by BrokenHalo · · 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... :-}

    6. Re:Phobia... by fgouget · · 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?

    7. Re:Phobia... by jellomizer · · 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.
    8. Re:Phobia... by Xest · · 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.

    9. Re:Phobia... by slashmydots · · 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?

    10. Re:Phobia... by phoenix_rizzen · · 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!

    11. Re:Phobia... by IndustrialComplex · · 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
  3. Anti-reflective with fingerprints? by hankwang · · 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.
  4. Anti-Glare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    That'll stop people glaring at me when my phone rings during the pianissimo of Haydns Surprise Symphony.

  5. But what about the telephone cleaners? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Funny

    What are we going to do with them now?

  6. Re:resistance by Cenan · · 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 ...
  7. Re:Next step by LordLucless · · 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
  8. Seeing the sreen in the sun by Zorpheus · · 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 AmiMoJo · · 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
    2. Re:Seeing the sreen in the sun by drinkypoo · · 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.'"
  9. Re:Next step by arielCo · · 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.
  10. Re:Next step by Cryacin · · Score: 2

    You know there's an app for that!

    --
    Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
  11. Re:resistance by Cenan · · 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 ...
  12. Re:Next step by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · 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?

  13. Antiglare vs sun by Dcnjoe60 · · 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.

  14. Antbacterial? by azav · · Score: 2

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

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  15. Antibacterial? But what about all of the by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · 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
  16. Why not just make the screen easier to replace? by timkosem · · 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.