Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Patent Paves Way For iPhone With Full-Face Display, HUD Windows (appleinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the light-emitting-diode dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Apple Insider: Apple on Tuesday was granted a patent detailing technology that allows for ear speakers, cameras and even a heads-up display to hide behind an edge-to-edge screen, a design rumored to debut in a next-generation iPhone later this year. Awarded by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Apple's U.S. Patent No. 9,543,364 for "Electronic devices having displays with openings" describes a method by which various components can be mounted behind perforations in a device screen that are so small as to be imperceptible to the human eye. This arrangement would allow engineers to design a smartphone or tablet with a true edge-to-edge, or "full face," display. With smartphones becoming increasingly more compact, there has been a push to move essential components behind the active -- or light-emitting -- area of incorporated displays. Apple in its patent suggests mounting sensors and other equipment behind a series of openings, or through-holes, in the active portion of an OLED or similar panel. These openings might be left empty or, if desired, filled with glass, polymers, radio-transparent ceramic or other suitable material. Positioning sensor inputs directly in line with said openings facilitates the gathering of light, radio waves and acoustic signals. Microphones, cameras, antennas, light sensors and other equipment would therefore have unimpeded access beyond the display layer. The design also accommodates larger structures like iPhone's home button. According to the document, openings are formed between pixels, suggesting a self-illuminating display technology like OLED is preferred over traditional LCD structures that require backlight and filter layers. Hole groupings can be arranged in various shapes depending on the application, and might be larger or smaller than the underlying component. If implemented into a future iPhone, the window-based HUD could be Apple's first foray into augmented reality. Apple leaves the mechanics unmentioned, but the system could theoretically go beyond AR and into mixed reality applications.

75 comments

  1. Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So basically, Apple have patented holes.

    1. Re:Holes by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      No. They patented the iHole!

    2. Re:Holes by Jason1729 · · Score: 1, Troll

      iHole would be the naming convention under Steve Jobs. Under Timmy, the proper name is the A-Hole. It's a good match for the A-Watch and A-TV.

    3. Re: Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ass Watch - I always wondered why it had curved edges - to properly shove up a butthole.

    4. Re:Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple will do holes right!!!

    5. Re: Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a more appropriate place for an Apple watch than a wrist.

    6. Re:Holes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already had a similar patent years ago. It's not about putting a hole in the display, it's about putting a camera behind the display that can see what's on the other side. When it was reported last time the emphasis was on video calls that didn't have both participants seemingly staring down; put the camera behind the display and they would appear to be looking straight ahead.

  2. Is this worthy of a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuff like this seems obvious enough, though written in a vague enough way that it's open to a lot of abuse. The last thing we need is for Apple to start another round of litigation based on stuff like this. Apple and IBM are ridiculously aggressive patent trolls that need to be put in their respective places by some judges and juries.

    1. Re:Is this worthy of a patent? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Vague, broad patents fall to prior art.

      Specific patents fall to altered details.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Is this worthy of a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing that is patented is not putting holes in a display that are small enough that no one will notice them. It's the method of making a display with said holes in it.

        - It specifically mentions that it must be an OLED screen
        - It specifically mentions that it must have a flexible polymer substrate
        - ...

      It makes a bunch of statements about how you can make such a screen.

      People need to learn that patents are not about their title, they're about the method of achieving that title.

    3. Re:Is this worthy of a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it vague, though? It's simple enough to say 'screen with holes in it for sensors n shit' but I don't see anyone else producing this technology, and it's exactly this kind of thing that patents exist to protect. If Apple gets this patent and does nothing: boo, shame on Apple. But if they get the patent and then make a screen that also acts as a microphone, stereo, IR emitter, etc then why not?

      They're literally inventing a new technology that didn't previously exist, and it's going to require all new fabrication and manufacturing processes that don't exist. Getting the patent helps them recoup some of the investment they're going to put into making these screens by preventing others from mimicking them. If that doesn't deserve a patent, then I don't know what would.

      Apple releases an iPhone without a headphone jack: "They're not even innovating anything!!!"

      Apple invents a new type of screen that integrates sound I/O and other stuff: "Patent trolls!"

    4. Re:Is this worthy of a patent? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      - It specifically mentions that it must be an OLED screen.

      So they don't own OLED screens. They don't own micro-holes. But they get to patent putting micro-holes in an OLED screen. I see...

      They're not really patenting how to make such a screen - they're patenting the idea of having a screen with micro-holes providing access to controls underneath - and then getting a monopoly on the only way to implement such a thing using today's off-the-shelf components, none of which they invented or own. Sounds like a classic 'do A on a B' patent. Rejected (In our dreams).

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    5. Re:Is this worthy of a patent? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Apple has sharp teams of lawyers, which has always been one of their strongest points. They've sued their way to success going back to the days when they ran Apple II cloners out of business and sued anybody who came out with a GUI environment. They continued to run GUI vendors out of business, until they ran up against Windows, and thus effectively gave the GUI dominance to Microsoft.

      Thanks, Apple.

    6. Re:Is this worthy of a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow its almost like people have had enough of apple and are sick of them and the crap they pull.

    7. Re:Is this worthy of a patent? by Falos · · Score: 1

      It's hardly just Apple. The way "we" (more accurate word: "they") have built the imaginary property system insanely incentivizes the idea of blasting territory-claim flags as fast as you can shotgun them.

      It's basically the grown-up version of calling dibs. And it's pay-to-play.

    8. Re: Is this worthy of a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, the Apple II cloners that directly stole the ROM, to the point of still having a copyright statement in it?

      That's not cloning in the Compaq sense, that's cloning in the "we're stealing your product" sense. Which is why Apple won against Franklin.

      Idiot.

    9. Re: Is this worthy of a patent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and maybe if apple didnt have their collective heads up their asses they would have opened up or licenced the ROM and they would be where Microsoft is today.

      Moron.

    10. Re: Is this worthy of a patent? by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      Apple was so far ahead on the GUI in the late 80s that if they had just produced "Macintosh" as an operating environment for all the x86 hardware and UNIX workstations on the market, they would be running the Windows operation now and would have owned that for decades. Instead they wanted to sell their proprietary hardware with their GUI bundled on top. And as said above, they sued all of Microsoft's competitors on the 'x86 platform out of the way for them. While at the same time, Microsoft was making a mint selling Word and Excel for the Mac.

      Apple has a long tradition of 'thinking small.' Though they changed that in their new gadget era. Jobs chided Skully about spending his life 'selling sugar water to kids' and ended up selling shiney gadgets himself.

  3. Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That would be a more appropriate headline, here. The phone's integrity was crack-happy enough, now we'll make it thinner, take away the protective borders, and put tiny holes in it!

    Even ST:TNG 'Padd's had thicker borders and were probably encased in neutronium or whatever. And they're hundreds of years in the future!

    1. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me help you out here. Star Track is fantasy. There is no such thing as neutronium. You should not take engineering advice from works of fiction. If you want to live in your parents' basement, eat Cheetos constantly, and watch Star Track all day, that's your business. However, please don't try to use that show as the basis to advise others on how to design and engineer real world products.

    2. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      You do understand the Motorola Star-TAC was DIRECTLY influenced by Star Trek right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I know lots of people working on voice recognition that reference the 'Hello Computer' scene from Star Trek IV.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      --
      Good-bye
    3. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And...let me help you out here. It's Star Trek, not Track. Yes it is fantasy. It is debatable about Neutronium, it's a real thing in some respects, if you count how it refers to the cores of neutron stars. And please do take engineering advice from works of fiction, especially science fiction. The "dreams" of fiction writers for a long time have been the fuel that many scientists, engineers and others have used to create many of the things we have today. Unless you think it makes the world a worse place. YMMV.

    4. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

      You do understand the Motorola Star-TAC was DIRECTLY influenced by Star Trek right?
        I know lots of people working on voice recognition that reference the 'Hello Computer' scene from Star Trek IV.

      Okay, I don't know about that, but Picard was a Jedi, right?

      --
      Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    5. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No but he was a Swordmaster (Gurney Hallek).

    6. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair the holes would be in the underlying display which doesn't provide much strength anyway. Depending on the HUD implementation it could reduce the strength of the rear panel and body, but I suspect a small gorilla glass window on the back would make that minimal.

      Totally agree about the bezel though! It's like they don't understand how tempered glass works...

    7. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Sleeper had awaken!!

    8. Re: Apple Patents even more easily broken phones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know the holes are only in the OLED layer, and not the top glass, right?

      Moron.

  4. Google DayDream or Windows Hololens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One of them must violate the patent.

  5. Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hiding a speaker behind a screen has been done before. Cinemas have been doing this for years for the center channels of their surround sound system.

    1. Re:Prior Art? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      I believe a pinhole camera behind the screen has also been done. Don't recall by who.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    2. Re:Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they been doing it using an OLED screen on a flexible polymer substrate?

      No? Oh, then it doesn't even match sentence one of claim one of this patent.

      The thing being patented here is not "putting speakers behind screens", it's a specific method of making screens that have holes in them that sensors can sense through, but that humans can't see.

      Repeat after me - "patents aren't about ideas, they're about methods for achieving ideas."

    3. Re:Prior Art? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      No, but if it has been done repeatedly with multiple other kinds of screens, there's a good chance that it fails the non-obvious test, unless the means for making those holes is something particularly complex.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    4. Re: Prior Art? by backslashdot · · Score: 2

      Apple patented magnetic connectors which Japanese appliance manufacturers had been doing for years. The Japanese had been putting magnetic connectors on Rice Cookers, Toasters, and Irons for a few years, then Apple patented the idea of putting using it on a laptop.

      In the early 90s, IBM had patented finger scrolling web pages on touchscreen monitors. Apple filed for a patent on finger scrolling on a touchscreen only smartphone display and got it.

      My suggestion is that someone patent the idea of putting magnetic connectors on a laptop that contains an ultra high resolution screen or more than 2 TB of SSD.

      I can prove that in 2005 (two years before the iPhone launched) I stated on slashdot that touchscreen phones with large displays would sell. Needless to say everyone thought it was a dumb idea, except maybe Steve Jobs. âhttp://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=163341&cid=13644457â

      I am still waiting for my check from Apple and Samsung.

    5. Re:Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not true at all - if all the times it's been done in other screens, it's been done in a different way, then this method does not in any way fail the obviousness test.

      The obviousness test is about is the method of doing it explained in the patent obvious, not about is the idea that you're trying to achieve obvious.

      It's "If you asked a bunch of engineers... 'sooo, you want to put holes in a screen that's gonna get mounted on a phone that let sensors sense, but that people can't see, how would you do it?' would they all say exactly what this patent says?", not "is putting holes in a screen an obvious way of allowing sensors to sense through it?".

      Repeat after me - "patents aren't about ideas, they're about methods for achieving ideas"

    6. Re:Prior Art? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      I covered that possibility when I said, "unless the means for making those holes is something particularly complex." If they have a unique way of growing a crystalline lattice with a hole in it, that's novel. But unless the mechanism for creating the hole is novel, the entire patent is likely obvious. After all, routing traces around a hole is basic circuit design, fudging the brightness of adjacent subpixels to hide dead ones is a trivial extension of how digital cameras deal with dead sensor pixels, etc. (I'm assuming that they are doing those things; I haven't read the patent.)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    7. Re: Prior Art? by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      > The Japanese had been putting magnetic connectors on Rice Cookers, Toasters,
      > and Irons for a few years, then Apple patented the idea of putting using it on a laptop.

      So basically, Apple patented "doing it on a computer".

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    8. Re: Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple patented an implementation of a magnetic power connector. You are free to patent a different implementation, but it will not work with Apple's MagSafe enabled laptops. There are a few magnetic power adapters appearing for USB-C laptops. If you have ever seen a tear down of Apple's power adapter you will understand why their implementation is more advanced than the ones used in small home appliances.

    9. Re:Prior Art? by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      Y'know what the problem really is with this. They're coming up with an arguably new screen technology, getting a patent monopoly on it, and then applying that monopoly to the whole device, so that only Apple can build 'micro-hole OLED' smartphones.

      I could see them being granted a patent on the screen manufacturing process - and collecting royalties from anyone who wants to build such a screen. Or even insisting on being the sole source for such screens. But when they then limit the universe of available devices using those screens to themselves, the patent system has started going overboard.

      Imagine if Apple had invented fingerprint scanning - or if Samsung had. Then no other device could use a fingerprint scanner - because Apple or Samsung wants to maintain a monopoly on smartphones with that useful feature, not just the fingerprint scanner monopoly the patent office granted them. Whoever invented the fingerprint scanner has come up with a true invention, which they arguably have the right to collect payments on. But when you start letting them dictate who they'll sell that invention to and how that invention may be used, you're limiting innovation instead of encouraging it.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    10. Re:Prior Art? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0

      Imagine if that was the entire point of patents, going back hundreds of years! Oh wait, it is. Licensing is a relatively new application of patents. You're a narcissistic ass who deserves to go his entire life without technology.

    11. Re:Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just what kind of ass are you? Oh and pro-apple anti-technology ass. That kind.

    12. Re: Prior Art? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      This logic invalidates basically anything that comes after 1940. Using your awesome reasoning, nothing about LTE should be patentable, because voice and data transmitted over radio waves has been done since the 1920s.

      Details matter.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    13. Re: Prior Art? by torkus · · Score: 1

      If memory serves, Apple didn't patent magsafe. The licensed it, exclusively, in the the laptop market. The basic tech isn't new at all and the patent has since expired - clearly since there's at least a dozen kickstart/indegogo/etc. crowd funded magnetic connectors for phones and laptops floating around at the moment.

      There may have been something unique about the magsafe method as well which separated it from the appliance usage of similar tech.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    14. Re: Prior Art? by torkus · · Score: 1

      Guess I should have googled. Correcting myself and answering your 'question'.

      The basic concept of MagSafe is copied from the magnetic power connectors that are part of many deep fryers and Japanese countertop cooking appliances since the early 2000s in order to avoid spilling their dangerously hot contents.[2][3][4] Apple was granted US Patent No. 7311526 on MagSafe ("Magnetic connector for electronic device", issued in 2007) as MagSafe was deemed to be a sufficient improvement due to the connector being symmetrical and reversible, and the fact that magnets within a connector are arranged in opposing polarities for improved coupling strength.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
  6. Need explanation of expected benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Admittedly I'm probably missing something fundamental here but what is the real expected benefit to users? Consider that we have to hold on to these things (an 'iPhone'/smartphone) or set them in a holder (tablet) when using them and would thus naturally be expected to obscure some portion of the screen. In other words in just looking at my Samsung phone, while I could see some room for increasing the screen size relative to the bezel around the screen I really don't get the 'usability' of an 'edge-to-edge' screen. So even if it's technically feasible to do without a bezel I would still expect some portion of the case to not be the 'screen' just so I can hold the damn thing. Can someone tell me why I'd want an 'edge-to-edge' screen without a bezel vs just having a larger screen in the same size case with a smaller bezel?

    1. Re:Need explanation of expected benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Edge to edge has one "benefit". You have a greater chance of accidentally clicking on some ad and being dumped to a web page asking for all your info.

    2. Re:Need explanation of expected benefit by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. It has two benefits. You also have a greater chance of dropping the phone while trying to hold it in a way that doesn't cover up part of the screen. It's pretty obvious why zero-bezel cell phones are good for manufacturers. I have yet to see any reason why they are good for users.

      Now a zero-bezel laptop screen... that would be useful....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re: Need explanation of expected benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am holding a smartphone right now, if it was edge to edge it I don't see how my fingers would cover the display.

    4. Re: Need explanation of expected benefit by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Or worse, unintentionally clicking something in the on-screen minefield of 'like', '+1', and 'buy now with one click & no subsequent confirmation' that now plagues daily use.

    5. Re: Need explanation of expected benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      those ad banners will truly be living on the edge. ... of our touchscreens where we hold the bloody thing.

    6. Re: Need explanation of expected benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, you guys have confirmed that I'm not totally out of lunch here in scratching my head wondering 'who exactly have they tested this with that thinks its a good idea?

    7. Re: Need explanation of expected benefit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair instead of 'obscure' I probably should have just said 'touch' since as a touch screen any touch from any portion of my hand may activate something on the screen. I have a plastic case on my Galaxy Note II that is maybe 1mm think around the edges & I can comfortably hold it without touching any part of the phone, so 1 mm would be about the smallest bezel I would expect to be 'comfortably usable' without fearing my hand is activating something on the screen without my conscious choice to do so, or alternatively me having to consciously think about how I'm holding it. And even though I have a 'phablet' there are times I try to use it 1 handed and as such I could easily see the phone thinking there was 'multiple touch input' other than from my thumb with an edge-to-edge screen.

      Perhaps I'd think differently if I went to try one but currently I'm viewing this as 'seems cool but hardly something that would provide significant benefit as far as I can tell' and given the size of the Note II you can imagine I appreciate 'screen real-estate'.

  7. Apple: Everything old is new again! by Zenin · · Score: 0

    This "invention" is identical to what movie theaters have been doing with screens since the first talkies replaced silent films. Why does it deserve patent protection?

    It reminds me of their "innovative" magnetic power plug...that was technologically identical to the magnetic plugs on electric frying pans dating back to at least the 1940s.

    Everything old is new again...

    --
    My /. uid is better then your /. uid
    1. Re:Apple: Everything old is new again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that apple patents are now a PR tool to make them look innovative, not to actually innovate. It's amazing how effectively they have used their design patents to make people think they invented the smartphone. The distance people will go to attribute things to apple is really absurd. The NPR spot on the iphone anniversary attributed the proliferation selfies to the iphone, ignoring the fact that the first iphone had no front-facing camera. Apple certainly deserves credit for a lot of things, but the amount of things that they get credit for that others were already doing, especially outside the American market, is stunning. But they like it that way.

    2. Re:Apple: Everything old is new again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't see how that is very novel. If i wanted to put the mic behind screen I would add a few small holes, just like my old phone and the plastic case....but GLASS!

    3. Re: Apple: Everything old is new again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? 1940s theaters were using OLED touchscreen displays with cameras embedded in them? I had no idea.

      Retard.

  8. iGoatse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If ever there were a time...

  9. harder to cover your camera by Doke · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's going to make it a lot harder to cover your camera. The spooks will love it.

    1. Re:harder to cover your camera by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      That's going to make it a lot harder to cover your camera. The spooks will love it.

      Impossible, I'd say. Because the problem with video chat that any off-spectrum engineer has been trying to solve since the inception of video chat is, how do you make it look like a face to face conversation? How do you establish eye contact in video chat?

      The obvious answer to any skilled practitioner of the art has always been to embed the camera in the display itself. For an oblong display that is most frequently used vertically, embed the camera 1/3rd of the way down from the upper short edge, exactly in the middle of the long edges. Right where people already habitually frame their eyes when video chatting. For a tablet, sometimes used for video chat in landscape mode with groups, embed two cameras: one in the position most suited for vertical orientation, and the corresponding one 1/3rd of the way down from the upper long edge, exactly in the middle of the short edges, so it looks right in either orientation.

      That assumes you want a discrete camera. If you want the best possible flexibility, you want two complete grids of elements in the display: pixels and phoxels. Picture elements and photo elements. The pixels are OLEDs. The phoxels are pinhole cameras. Millions of them.

      The patent is the usual obvious bullshit, because the eye contact problem has been with us since the days when webcams were a thing. Remember those? Same problem. Same blindingly obvious solution as soon as a display tech amenable to it exists.

      So the camera(s) aren't reasonably blockable at all, because they're not where they are today, near an edge. Near an edge, they could be covered, and you just use software that avoids using the pixels near that edge. You've lost some screen real estate, but the device is still reasonably usable with a blocked camera. But if the camera(s) are in the best positions for video chat, you're out of luck. They're far away from the edge, smack in the middle of the part of the display that more or less always has something important on it. Impossible to block and still use the device. Or there's millions of them, and the entire surface of the display is also a camera.

      In a Panopticon world, with only discrete cameras, there's a third camera, dead center of the display, that is never accessible or enumerable by userspace software on the device. That one is for the spooks.

  10. iWindows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iPhone with Windows sure to be full of holes.

  11. Should require working prototype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This kind of patent should require a working prototype at least. If apple can build it then might be worth considering a patent. If it is beyond their technology then it is really blocking other people who could develop it first.
    I also need to get my patent in for FTL drive, teleporter and replicator etc.

    1. Re:Should require working prototype by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      If Apple builds it using parts from Samsung, then who should actually get the patent?

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  12. HUD Windows? by safetyinnumbers · · Score: 1

    The patent describes the HUD as being a transparent display over a hole/window in the device. I can't see that being very likely in the near future. Either the hole is too small to see much through, or the window takes up a big portion of the phone. You can't hold a small window up to the eye and still focus on the display, unless it uses some sort of lightfield display. AR isn't as simple as a see-through display.

  13. Down with title case by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Apple Patent Paves Way For iPhone With Full-Face Display, HUD Windows

    Not "Windows," but "windows," of course.

    Title case is a pointless, arbitrary, and confusing tradition. Let it die.

    No-one Writes Anything Else Like This, So Why News Headlines?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re: Down with title case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's a title.
      Damn, that was easy. Have you tried thinking?

  14. I just want an AR motorcycle helmet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    .. So I don't have to look down at my instrument cluster when trying to navigate traffic. Fuck you, skully.

  15. Openings by PPH · · Score: 2

    One. 3.5mm. For a headphone. And I'll go away satisfied.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  16. Full-face display? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

    Now that's innovation

  17. As opposed to what? by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 1

    "technology that allows for ear speakers"

    As opposed to what, nose speakers? Toe speakers? Speakers in suppository form?

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
    1. Re:As opposed to what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Speakers in suppository form?

      I find your ideas fascinating, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

  18. "...that allows for ear speakers" by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Ear Phones! Brilliant!

    1. Re:"...that allows for ear speakers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who says apple cant innovate

  19. How do I hold the damned thing? by mmell · · Score: 1

    At best, I'll cover some small bits of the display at the edge. More likely, I'll be accidentally doing a multi-touch long-press.

    1. Re:How do I hold the damned thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, exactly! My Samsung S5 has this problem - everytime you try to pick the thing up, you've chosen something, pressed a button, moved something somewhere.

      My previous phone was more basic and crappy, but at least it supported "being picked up" and "making phone calls" (old phone was shaped like the edge of a face, so mic was near mouth - not so on big flat phones).

      Going backwards...

  20. "Apple leaves the mechanics unmentioned" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because some other company hasn't figured it out for them yet.