“On October 17, 2013, the US Patent & Trademark Office published a patent application from Apple that reveals that their 2012 ultrathin iMac was manufactured by using a very sophisticated robotic force,” Jack Purcher reports for Patently Apple.
“The insane design precision didn’t come about by accident. Apple’s latest patent application describes a robotic solution created by Apple for the iMac and beyond,” Purcher reports. “Apple’s iMac webpage as noted above states that Apple re-imagined everything, re-engineered everything about the iMac and today’s patent filing proves that out. This is Apple’s second robotic invention. Apple’s first design was for a robotic arm for manufacturing the iPhone that we covered back in January.”
Purcher reports, “Lastly, we present you with a secondary patent published today titled “Cosmetic Defect Reduction in Anodized Parts.” It’s Apple’s new “finishing” bath designed to degrease, de-smut, anodize and chemically polish the iMac and other future iDevices until they reflect Apple’s aesthetically insane finish so that they can give it their official stamp of approval.”
Read more, and see Apple’s patent application illustrations and diagrams, in the full article here.
Continuing the tradition of insanely great!
One of things I do not like about PatentlyApple is that they put their logotypes on pictures that are accessible to everyone on UPSTO site — as if it something exclusive.
Not true. When PA combines patent figures in one graphic, it’s not something that is readily available at USPTO. Secondly, USPTO doesn’t highlight features, name features or color code patent figures for clarity. So PA provides a nice edge to some patent figures that takes them time to produce. With copycats everywhere, good for them for branding their graphics that end up on Google images.
Why is this guy even complaining? If he could get the pictures from the patent office, why complain? But looking at this report, the guy puts four graphics together in a nice single one for his report that isn’t available at the patent office. So why shouldn’t they put their name on it so Google heads can’t easily copy their arrangement? It’s only common sense.
No comparison to the Apple Fit & Finish of their products. Those cloners are not even close, but close enough to fool the uninformed int buying it. Too bad.
Meanwhile, Samsung buys a boatload of shoe polish.
Just one step closer to eliminating the need for masses of low-wage workers to assemble Apple products in China and other less than ethical countries. Countries that steal Apple’s Intellectual Property. Bring the manufacturing back to the USA!
How in the world do they make the Apple TV remote? It has no seems, only buttons and a battery cover. First world life mysteries.
On the subject of manufacturing in the USA, which has a 35% corp tax rate, the country to its north has a 15% rate, down from 22%. Provincial taxes are on top of that, vary by province.
It is hard to imagine how a country with such a high rate of corporate tax can expect to prosper in a world economy, but it’s easy to understand when one watches Messrs. Levin & McCain pontificate against companies such as Apple Inc. The fact is that high corp taxes cost investment and thus jobs, which otherwise would bring added income tax revenue. As well, dividends to shareholders are paid out of after tax income, and a higher rate of corp tax reduces the scope for dividends, and thus reduces income tax on dividends that otherwise would have been paid. It is absolutely astounding that the US federal government maintains such high corp tax rates and expects the economy to grow. Apple should manufacture in Canada, not the US; even better it should move its corporate headquarters there, say to Waterloo Ontario.
Have you seen the size of the federal debt? It takes everyone’s participation to manage this fiscal and economic cancer. Now be quiet and pay up, like a good citizen.
Germany and Japan do!!!
If you are saying they have high corporate tax rates and thrive, I would argue that Japan has had a static economy since the 1980s, for essentially 20 years. They have had a “rolling recession” where they have a few quarters of growth followed by retraction, over and over. They need to do some rethinking of how they run their economy, and certainly not what the US would want to copy.
Hmm, illustration looks like an early model Cyberdyne Series T-100 model.
Can’t innovate, my ass!!!