Saturday, October 6th 2007
Apple Exploring Pressure-Sensitive Touchscreens, Touchpads
Seeking to improve its portable devices, Apple has applied for a patent that could lead to touch-sensitive Macs or handhelds which react to the level of force, rather than just contact. Originally submitted in March of last year but only published on Thursday, the patent for a "Force Imaging Input and Device System" describes today's touchscreens and touchpads as limited by their relatively simple input, which tracks just the location of the finger or stylus on the surface. A method of detecting the strength of the user's input would add a new element of control, according to Apple. The patent's inventors Brian Huppi and Steven Hotelling have suggested lining touchpads with a set of traces joined together by a sandwich-like spring membrane layer underneath the surface. Touching the pad would deform the traces and create a capacitive image in circuitry, indicating where contact has been made. But unlike traditional capacitive or resistive touch surfaces, the membrane would help create a second image that recognizes just how much pressure has been applied at a given point; the harder the user pushes, the closer the membrane reaches conductive elements inside the layer and the more force would be registered with each press. Computers, phones, PDAs, and control panels are listed as candidates for the technique, although Apple is not obliged to manufacture any products using its invention.
Source:
AppleInsider
28 Comments on Apple Exploring Pressure-Sensitive Touchscreens, Touchpads
EDIT: Or is that the pen that is pressure-sensetive?
The same as a 8800 ultra costs more than a 8800 gtx...
As far as another company coming out with pressure sensitive devices, that may be true. However, I think we all see that Apple's invention will still be the best of the crop.
I'm sure A LOT more people would buy their products if they were a little cheaper and not stuck to Itunes :toast:.
However, with this new dimension added, it would make it hassle free. type in yer number, push a little sterner for ok, push a little sterner for what code you are working under and also for hitting ok to clock in and out. I love this.
Have I gone to bed and woken up in an alternative reality or something. LCD touch displays that can sense the pressure supplied have been available for many years, who knows maybe decades, it is one of the main features for signature recognition. I can calibrate my Tungsten W touch screen with light touches, so that I can scroll down menus with an light slide of my finger, just like you can on the Iphone.
Something is amiss here, maybe it applies to an particular type of screen technology.
I tend to independently come up with the same ideas as Apple years ahead of time, despite of how many engineers they have, and they have come out with just the sort of phone I envisioned in the 90's, Apple is nothing extra special.
On this other thread, it is claimed that gateway is releasing the first quad HD 30 inch LCD, funny thing is, that Dell and Apple have had these things for quiet some time. So maybe the alternative reality thing happened the night before. But then again, the previouse night there was an game show on, called the Mint, that couldn't add up, even after they gave an ridiculously wrong answer to an simple puzzle (after having raked in heaps of cash from people over an hour or so) they corrected themselves and gave an even more ridiculously wrong answer. So, maybe the alternative reality thing started the day before. Reminds me of an episode of "Myth Busters": I reject your reality and substitute my own.
forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=41296
On the pressure sensitive note, I think this would only confuse users further and alienate less-technologically saavy individuals. And I can see it being very expensive, because it has to be fairly sturdy to standup to the pressure some individuals will use on it.
iPods support all kinda formats out of which only mp3 is useful. I wish they had .ogg and .flac support at least.
Apple has been good at seeing how much it can get away with in redefining what encroaches their IP. I forget what the eventual outcome of the famous look and feel case (in the 80's that had the rubbish bin thing, or was that "waste paper basket") but I think MS did an deal, but it might have been overturned. What was just as worrying, was another companies attempt to copyright individual words in an menu (I.E. like the word "save").
Laws need to clearly define the limits to what can be claimed, rather than this subjective wondering as to how much can be claimed for profit. This also goes in hand with fair use terms.
In legal circles everything is up for grabs, until the courts/government finally say no (then governments can be bought to change the law again, and more trials further "refine" what is the law in an desirable way). The other biggest way is "bluff" and "money", you legally challenge somebody (say an website with an take down order) or put an exploratory ceasure on their files for evidence. In ceasure the target party might have all sorts of personal information and extraneous, but vital, equipment ceased, and not realise you can challenge the extent of the order, or that whatever they are claiming is not right, in whatever jurisdiction that applies to, and that they can't really carry through very far with the threat. The target party caves in because they a) don't want legal action, or b) don't want to even pay an lawyer to find out if it is right or not. Of course, this sort of behaviour is immoral (swell as waving "boiler plate" clauses at somebody, that are invalid because the law overrides them) with laws/rules against some of it depending on jurisdiction, but this depends on you knowing that, having the time resources and money to take action and follow it through against all sorts of threats and obstructionism. The other consideration, is that they are cashed up and can send you broke with litigation hurdles over time. In legal circles even the representative "safeguards" of more lawyers, can be biased against you. This does not touch on lawyers who do illegal things, or support others that do illegal things, and stand over people they do it too, in order to get way with it. Hence forth, some reason why people hate politicians, layers, and big business.
Having said all that, the above paragraph is only an generalisation of things that happen in the broader community, and I am not implying that Apple does that. I am not aware of any case where Apple has acted in the way described in the above paragraph, and am unaware of how they act.
However, none of the above should be regarded as an legal opinion, or legal advice, professional opinion, or valid in any way, and proper legal advice should be sort instead.
However, I am increasingly frustrated with the way that people are throwing the term "Clone" around in concern of anything Apple, that you can squint really hard in an dark room and it looks similar. An prime example of this is the Meizume Minione, or M8. It is too early to say how far look and feel issues will go with the phone, but it looks similar to an Iphone and claims to do as much or more, with rival software from Microsoft. Some screen shots I have looked at have some small amount of similarity in form, though not really in detail. As it does not have the same software, and most likely not the same Apple data structures, or run MacOSX programs, have the same specification chips and general circuits copied, it rather like calling every popular, slightly tanned, tall dark haired, singer, and clone of Elvis Presley. Or imagine if the inventor of the car, or Henry Ford himself, said, "Stuff Patents, trademarks etc, I will rely on copyright, to stop anybody making anything that looks like an car, or has wheels". The debates on copyright in times past, sort of reminds me of this sort of unreasonable excessive stretch of logic.
But the problem with actual cloning, in an way that fakes an product identity, complete compatible circuits duplication, or encroaches on actual copyright, is seriously on the rise. Popular Science has an good article on it, and the Meizume MiniOne in the September issue, where they are not only cloning every part in an car, or products passed of as originals, but whole companies, and even companies attempting to trade as an original company. This is the sort of stuff the law needs to worry about sorting out.