No it's more like all the other MS tablets that have failed for a decade. The price will be around that of an ultrabook so around a $1k.
34 posts • joined 26 Jun 2012
Samsung are required to offer a FRAND license, Apple don't need to negotiate because the license is the same for everyone the ND part stands for "non discriminatory". That means Samsung can't charge different prices to different parties, hence their is no negotiation.
This is the pre-trial Judge, his job is to get everything in order for the trial, from the meaning of certain terms and phrases to what evidence will be presented to working out the trial date. He wont be the trial Judge.
Samsung had every chance to explain why they kept deleting e-mails for over a year but only in Korea while retaining them with their international operations. They couldn't blame the software as they developed it. They couldn't say they didn't understand that they had to retain the e-mails as they got into trouble in the US for doing the exact same thing in another case several years ago. They simply couldn't give a plausible reason for the continued destruction of evidence.
Yeah and added Star Wars holograms and unicorn piss and a coupon for your own mini dragon, oh and kate moss to supply your coke habit. The things you want have to be created before they can be sold, Amazon aren't being dicks for the sake of it, they like everyone else can only produce the possible and at the moment you can't do colour e-ink. It's also probable that with the way e-ink displays are made it is impossible to do colour. 10x faster, yeah that would be nice but probably not going to happen, 3-5 times faster seems doable though. After that, the stuff being done with LCD will probably send e-ink the way of the plasma screen or betamax.
"The validity of the '218 patent has been upheld in previous litigation at the ITC and was affirmed by the US Patent and Trade Office in the face of two separate challenges,"
That would be Samsung and LG, both of who settled before the ITC made a final ruling, the US PTO simply agreed that Kodak had been granted the patent. A patent so obvious that a blind man could see how ridiculous it was. I would explain it but life is just to fucking short and I don't want anyone to cut their wrist in frustration wondering how Kodak got granted the patent.
This is to be expected, China is a developing country and even with cheap labour (not so cheap any more in China) digging up the ground to connect every individual locations to the phone system is always going to be more expensive than a hub and spoke system where you don't have to pay for the spokes. Which is how mobile works. Also in China there is a lot of turnover in jobs and accommodation. Having to get 12 month BB contracts and maybe change that every year or less is just a PITA. Also unless you have fibre even 3G can be faster and lets not even talk about 4G, though living in London I probably won't have to think about that for quiet a few years.
It's clear Moors Law is working on mobile. It's not working on digging up holes in the ground. So China, just like every where else will move to mobile for BB because it's cheaper to roll out the infrastructure and move convenient for the end user.
Now all we need is Apple or Google to say "fuck it, let's become a carrier" and turn the the current carriers into data pipes and see the prices slashed.
That's what I thought, add that it's Wifi and it seems a cheap and easy way to do what used to cost 10K plus per seat. Maintenance is chuck it in the bin or get a special apple-care deal. What I'm wondering about is recharging, I would assume Qantas needs 1 recharging for every 2-3 in use. They should have some good numbers for Apples real life battery technology.
$500 a seat which works out at probably $1 a flight for the first year. But you forget the apps and Apples licensing policy. They could spend $10k per year to add 100 apps per plane. I expect this to catch on in the airline industry, everyone knows Apple has the means and desire to support the iPad which in the enterprise is more important than technology. That $100 billion in the bank is a massive mindfuck saying "you probably won't get fired choosing the iPad or iPhone"
If revenue was slightly up and Motorola counts for 10% of that, then doesn't that mean that revenue would have been down without Motorola? So Google is not "impervious to world's cash drain". Or have I missed something? Also if this:
"The number of clicks on the web giant's search adverts increased by about 42 per cent from the same quarter last year, which offset the 16 per cent cut in cost-per-click."
is true then how can this:
"The company banked revenues of $12.2bn (£7.76bn) in the quarter, up slightly from the same period in 2011"
It's clear from the numbers that most iPhone users have to be Windows users, followed by Mac and Linux. In other words, just the same as every other smart phone user, though probably a higher proportion of Mac users. That's a guess, since I only know 1 Mac user.
The whole article is strangely written, I mean how many people know that Skype is owned by Microsoft? and why would they care after all Office on Mac is supposed to be very profitable. The thing that gets me is that if you have paid AT&T for the data plan. Then why does AT&T care if you use FaceTime over it's network, I would have thought that FaceTime would use data fast which just means more cash to AT&T.
The problem with those reverse screens is they have never really sold in numbers even when compared to the anaemic Windows tablet sales, so you get a higher price due to the small production run. Then the twisting screen just adds more to the price and of course the base adds weight so it's not a good tablet. Really the worst of all worlds except for some niche markets.
At $699 retail it's hard to see where the money is. Well Intel and MS will make money, the component suppliers of course, but can anyone else? Id say not know, in a couple of years maybe but there will always be the problem that you can get a better tablet or conventional laptop. Hell just get a tablet and throw in a blue-tooth keyboard and/or a docking station.
"don't like it? pull the app from ios. no big deal."
Yes that is a wonderful idea, spend money developing an App, spend more money to create in App content, have a Russian hacker work out a way to rip off your hard work. Pull the App because that's no big deal. What other bright ideas do you have? Get burgled, no big deal, give away everything you own, problem solved!
The problem is that there is no proof for your claim. All this is, is another bit of evidence that the theory that the Americas were first inhabited around 11,000 years ago is wrong. There has been evidence for over 3 decades that humans have been in South America for at least 20,000 years, it's just not talked about in "PC" society. Probably because it would give a kick in the goolies to the theory that humans caused the extinction of the American mega-fauna and thereby upset a lot of enviro-nutters.
The problem for you is that computer manufactures did exactly what Apple does. That is make the hardware and software. Here's a few examples :
Atari (Atari 400/800/ST) , Commodore (PET, VIC-20, Amiga) Sinclair (Spectrum, QL), Acorn (BBC model B, Archimedes), Next (Next box) Sun, Dragon, Oric, Amstrad
And those were just some of the ones sold in the UK. The difference between Apple and those other companies is that Apple didn't go bankrupt or get taken over. If someone wants to build a computer with their own OS, they can, it's not illegal and never was. It's just very risky. Apart from Apple the only major computer manufactures from the 80's that are still in business and spring to mind are IBM, HP, Dell and Fujitsu. The default in computers wasn't, someone build the hardware, someone else build the OS. It was "you do it all in one". The only reason the PC industry developed the was it did was because IBM didn't think the PC would sell much and so never gave the PC designers the time or budget to do the normal "all in-house". That and a sloppy license deal with Microsoft.
"Even now if Microsoft went to a closed system (like Apple is) the courts would make them open up."
Yet the Xbox, Xbox 360, Zune (RIP) and Windows Phone 7.5 are all closed and the courts have remained silent. For that matter every single counsel since the NES has been closed and the court have never cared.
I can't see how a loss of $518 million can be anything but bad. At the rate they are burning cash they will be broke in 15 months tops. I don't expect to ever see a Blackberry 10 phone but then I don't expect RIM to go broke. This time next year RIM are in software and services or they're dead. They just don't have the time and money to play catch up.
If Apple are running out of ideas, Samsung never had any to start with. You are also missing a very important point, the Nexus is running "stock Android". Apple got a ban, not on "look & feel" or "design patent" but on a technical patent. The real story here is that if Samsung loses in court, Apple can get a ban on every Android phone. This isn't Apple v Samsung, it's really Apple v Google with Samsung as the middle man.
Samsung can use the own OS or licence MS or just buy RIM, Google have bet the house on Android and with all the court cases they are facing along with the antitrust & FRAND abuse cases, the next 12 months are going to be very interesting.
Samsungs lawyers when asked by the judge, could not tell the difference between the Galaxy Tab and a iPad. That's why Samsung lost the court case and why Apple got a ban. What you didn't mention is that Apple didn't sue HP over the TouchPad, RIMM over the Playbook, Asus over the Transformer or Amazon over the Kindle Fire but of course those tablets aren't blatant rip-offs.
Do you see the problem?
Possibly not, considering your entire argument seems to be that nothing good came from Apple. That's possibly the most insane and ridiculous argument anyone can make. It's the literal definition of cultic behaviour.
"Looks like about 2/3 IOS and 1/3 everything else for tablets. Almost all of "everything else," of course, would be Android. Not a complete rout, then."
Yes it is when 5" screen phones are called tablets. Just look at Samsung, their GALAXY Note takes up 2/3 of all their tablet sales and if anyone counting was honest, it would be counted as a phone. In the real world the iPad is outselling the Kindle Fire 10 to 1 with the Nook in third place and the Nook is outselling every Android tablet combined.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021