"Apple Working on 3D Holographic Projection Displays"

Kaveh · Post by **Kaveh** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 7:37 am

http://www.macnn.com/blogs/?p=503

As expected, even Apple is mis-using the word "Holographic". There are some interesting aspects to the invention, and the fact that Apple is seriously interested in 3D is great, but this is an autostereoscopic system, and they should know better than to misuse the term we love so much!!

Tom B. · Post by **Tom B.** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:12 am

In fairness to Apple, the news headline was created by poo-flinging monkeys with typewriters and press cards (or their basement blogger equivalents) and does not likely correspond to the actual patent title or contents.

Kaveh · Post by **Kaveh** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 10:41 am

Unfortunately they don't give a reference to the patent. I just assumed that with the number of references to "holographic", it would be there in the original application.

Martin · Post by **Martin** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:27 am

Kaveh wrote:Unfortunately they don't give a reference to the patent. I just assumed that with the number of references to "holographic", it would be there in the original application.

It's US patent application 20080068372 (see e.g. http://www.freepatentsonline.com/200800 ... temming=on).
The quintessence of the invention with regards to holography can be given as: “... pseudo-holographic images that mimic a hologram.”

ErichRose · Post by **ErichRose** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 5:18 pm

Oh, there are plenty of companies who make various forms of 3D displays that are all quite happy to describe their smoke and mirrors as holography. Or more often "...yes, it's a holograph." I had a brochure a number of years ago and they used the term "hologramography" (ARGH!) but it was just a big elliptical mirror with a video monitor beneath. It was as big as a pinball machine and they were convinced that everyone would want one. And it ONLY cost $8000. I think at this time I have seen at least 4 or more versions of it, all claiming their own exclusive patent, and all truelly useless. The best part is they approach folks like us here at the Austin Children's Museum thinking we would love to spend that kind of money just because "it's so cool!"

Personaly I like to use "hologram" for the actual product we make, and "holography" for the process. The term "holograph" although correct for the finished product always seemed klunky.

BobH · Post by **BobH** » Fri Mar 21, 2008 8:21 pm

The term holograph is soooo much more correct, but I agree with the "klunkiness" of it. That's only because we started off with "hologram" instead. We holograph a scene when we record it. That usage doesn't feel klunky.

Colin Kaminski · Post by **Colin Kaminski** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 2:55 am

Tom B. wrote:In fairness to Apple, the news headline was created by poo-flinging monkeys with typewriters and press cards (or their basement blogger equivalents) and does not likely correspond to the actual patent title or contents.

Colin Kaminski · Post by **Colin Kaminski** » Tue Mar 25, 2008 4:51 am

Well I have a close friend who writes copy for a radio news show. I could not resist calling her a "Poo flinging monkey" all night. She finally started to think it was funny.