Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent Could Herald Interchangeable iPhone Camera Lenses
concertina226 (2447056) writes with this excerpt from IBTimes: "Apple has been granted a patent for interchangeable camera lenses — which could be used on the up-coming iPhone 6. The application was granted by the US Patent and Trademark Office in remarkably quick time, according to Patently Apple. Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad. A bayonet mount is a fastening mechanism which is typically seen on cameras, used to attach lenses to the camera body. At the moment, there is no adjustable camera lens system in existence for smartphones, although there are lots of third party macro lens products that consumers can buy to clip onto their smartphone."
When apple wins a patent for "bayonet attachment mechanisms", why would you assume it would be used for camera lenses?
This is an interesting variation of the camera lens bayonet mount that includes a "breakaway mode" if it is dropped that allows the lens to snap out without damaging the device or the mount. With a normal DSLR lens mount, that doesn't happen and the lens will remain firmly attached until one of the mounts breaks, whereas this one will release instead of breaking.
The bayonet mount of my camera does not need to protude out of it. And neither did it, but having it protuding out of the body is certainly not an improvement, nor really innovative :)
Patent No. 8,687,299 has been granted to Apple today for 'Bayonet attachment mechanisms,' i.e. a bayonet mount that is able to securely attach lenses to an iOS device, such as an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad.
Great.
Stick a black synthetic stock and a large capacity SD card on that bad boy, and Diane Feinstein will demand it be banned.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Why? Because patents don't necessarily mean ANYTHING. Here's one from a DOZEN YEARS AGO about an Apple patent on color-changing cases. Still waiting for those...
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Apple receives patent #999666 for "power adaptor allows handheld device to be charged from AC mains" and patent #666999 for "Handheld device User-interface buttons".
I hope this is an April Fools joke. How long have cameras had a bayonet lens mount?
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
I'm sorry but this has existed in one form or other on hundreds of different cameras for many decades! Simply adding one more camera to the list (iPhone) does not make it a new and patentable device! Clearly this is prior art and the patent should have been rejected by the patent office.
Each different type of bayonet mount will be patented - eg. Nikon F mount, Pentax K mount, Canon EF mount. Apple patenting a set of specifications for a mount is a perfectly understandable concept - they're not trying to patent a completely generic mount...
A bizarre comment, since the whole point is NOT to be stuck with the tiny lens. As for the shitty sensor, like it or not but smartphones get the newest and best sensor technology first because that is the mass market, for example the iPhone 4 was one of the first consumer products with a backside illumination sensor. The old conventional wisdom was that "physics is physics" so nothing mattered by sensor size; that has been disproven.
I don't know why Apple would ever add a bayonet mount to a camera, it really messes with the smooth look they go for and makes for something really easy to break on a camera. Also anything recessed on a camera is going to get really dirty, and be very hard to clean - so this would mess with the camera for most people who never wanted to attach other lenses.
Instead I would expect them to do something like a magnetic mount - they could easily place a steel ring around the lens opening, even just under the surface, that lenses could clamp onto via magnets. External lenses don't need to be mounted in any particular orientation, just straight over the camera lens...
Also why is the story talking about adjustable lenses? That's not what the patent is about. It's only about the mount. Its not like I cannot already buy an iPhone case that has such a mount and attach lenses as it is.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I think the patent is for lens mount that decouples itself in the event that the phone is dropped-- potentially reducing the damage to the phone and lens.
More like the Nikon F...wait...no, looks like it goes on clockwise...like a Canon and every *other* bayonet mount in the history of photography, then. Seriously, except for the scale, how is this novel and non-obvious?
"The attachment mechanisms may release from one another in a drop event or other incidence of force applied thereto by allowing a bayonet to radially move outwardly out of contact with a corresponding bayonet of the second attachment mechanism."
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
when you can't tell whether an Apple patent story is serious or an April Fools joke.
Apple's patent was pretty specific - and probably intended to prevent third-party manufacturers from making attachable lenses for iJunk without cutting Apple in for a slice of the pie. If somebody were to devise a (similar but different) mechanism for a non-Apple smartphone, it would almost certainly differ sufficiently from Apple's mechanism to be allowed (but only after Apple attempted to sue and get an injunction, of course). Again - *Sigh*.
Let's also remember one other point - All the iPhones in existence were made by Apple, to the best of my knowledge. There are many manufacturers of Android devices. Apple may well be able to standardize their bayonet mount (their bat, their ball, their rules), but within the Android ecosystem such an item would require cooperation and buy-in from a majority of Android device manufacturers. Ever seen a horse designed by a committee? We call it a 'camel'.
"And two seconds later you conflate the terms again."
If you can't tell the difference in meaning by the difference in phraseology, I seriously don't know what to say.
"I didn't notice anyone arguing about a photographers artistic ability except you. The argument seems to be specifically about the technical merits of smaller optics and sensor versus larger optics and sensor."
Look at the title of this subthread. Seriously.