Comment by 0xWTF
19 days ago
So, a friend of mine happens to be a very senior high energy laser engineer in the Valley and knows way more about optics than any reasonable person. If I shared his bone fides, it would out him, but suffice to say we had a chat about the XDR screen one time, mainly in comparison to the Dell, and he uses Windows while I use a Mac or Linux. With the utter confidence of someone who has better things to think about he said "Oh, the texture is created by exposing it to hydrofluoric acid. That's just the only way you do this." And then went back to talking about the lack of physical controls, which is what ultimately led him to buy the Dell.
All that to say, this Jon.Bo statement "Basically, it’s a coating" is false. It's not a coating. When you're looking at a nanotexture screen, you're just looking through glass.
Since I'm sure someone will challenge me, I looked it up. Here's Apple's patent: https://patents.google.com/patent/US20220326413A1/en
and the key section from paragraph 0117:
"The surface of the glass cover member may then be chemically etched. Chemical etching techniques for glass cover members may involve using a suitable acid or base (e.g., a hydrofluoric acid-based etchant)".
I love their little redirections, like "a suitable acid or base".
Also: don't try this at home kids. Quick notes from our friend Gemini:
Safety & Dangers of HF Vapor
* Extreme Hazard: HF vapor is highly corrosive, toxic, and can cause severe burns, blindness, and systemic poisoning, even at low concentrations.
* PPE Required: Full protective gear, including chemical suits, respirators, and face shields, is essential.
* Ventilation: Must be done in a dedicated, high-flow chemical fume hood with water access.
That same paragraph also describes ways in which it can be accomplished other than chemical etching ("...chemical etching, laser ablation, mechanical removal of material, mechanical pre-treatment followed by etching, lithography in combination with etching, and combinations thereof.").
There are also paragraphs describing applying "a plurality of inorganic dielectric layers".
Like most patents, it's hard to understand what has actually gone into production here. Could be done in a variety of ways consistent with the patent. The inorganic coatings are mentioned in claim 1, so the actual new aspect is probably the combination of etching and specific coatings.
Patents are supposed to protect the inventor’s interest. The trick is to divulge enough details to get protection, but not enough that competitors can just copy. So if a patent says “a hydrofluoric acid-based etchant” you can almost be sure that ingredients other than HF will be necessary in a fashion that’s not immediately clear until it is tried. The actual formulation will be a trade secret. What’s also unsaid is of course, the concentration of HF, the duration of exposing the glass to HF, the temperature at which this is done, the method of applying HF to the glass and the method to remove residue HF, etc.