Slashdot Mirror

That's probably for a few reasons. First, it costs more than 2.5x more than you are suggesting to build it. Then you also don't understand what it costs to develop the software that runs on it or maintain that software for the (relative to the rest of the industry) excessively long lifespan of Apple devices (the iPhone 6 released in 2014 still runs the latest version of iOS) or the marketing and distribution of those products or the customer support.

So while Apple has the healthiest margins in the industry, no one sells a $140 phone for $1,000.

as a side note, I recently bought a pair of polarized sunglasses and was surprised discovering it obscure my Samsung smartphone OLED screen (super AMOLED on 2017 A5). I have no idea why Samsung put a polarizing filter on an OLED screen, but there is it. So, no cloacking of OLED display seems not an absolute for me.

It is for reducing internal reflections and glare.

There are 2.5 billion smartphones in use. If each of those had two CCD sensors, that's 5 billion.
https://www.statista.com/stati...

245 million CCTV systems were installed in 2014. If that is a yearly estimate, then you could extrapolate over a decade.
https://technology.ihs.com/532...

That's another 2.5 billion.

If you look at a sales figures of digital SLR cameras vs smartphones, digital cameras are in decline:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/...
That puts smartphones at 1.5 billion/year. That could be extrapolated as well.

Possibly 14 billion, but not trillion.

Citation? I don't recall ever hearing of Apple having a Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause in their contracts with App Store developers, even early on. The biggest restriction at launch that they later backed off on was that IAP were only available for paid apps, not free ones, presumably to maintain a strong delineation between for-pay and free apps. It wasn't until later in the life of iPhone OS 3 (back before it was called iOS even) that they opened it up to free apps as well.

Apple has done MFN clauses in contracts elsewhere (most infamously in the eBooks market), but I can't find any evidence that they did so with app developers, nor do I have any memory of it, so if you have any way to reference that tidbit, I'd be keen to get more information.

10x factory price seems a bit high. The BOM breakdowns for flagship phones seem to typically be around 25%-35% of retail (for example), and conventional wisdom is that margins are much bigger for flagship phones than for lesser models, so 3x factory price is probably the upper end of things.

Average age of a car is something like 11 years old. If you assume that this trend continues then if it takes them 1-2 years to finish this standard and 2-3 years to design a car to pass with full marks then this won't be in the average car for something like 14-16 years. Source on average age of cars. http://press.ihs.com/press-rel...

I only found a courve of the "2008 to end of 2010" prices. Which interestingly rose to double the value in the middle, just to be back on the 2008 level in 2010.

https://technology.ihs.com/388...

But one interesting fact seems to be, that spot price for 16GB NAND Flash seems only 19 cents below 32GB NAND Flash (2.79 vs 2.98 ):

http://www.insye.com/dp/NANDFl...

(with 4 and 8GB being *more* expensive, probably because they are not produced in high volumes any more)

Apple sells phones with cheap hardware worth about $100 for $600.

The $649 iPhone 5S costs Apple about $199 to build. And of course, that doesn't account for things like the cost of developing the software, or operating the servers that supply service to these devices.

Yes, but the ISP doesn't want you. They want you to go away. They want your parents. You moving to a provider with a higher cap is a good thing. (at least for now)

They don't actually want my parents over me, they use more internet than I do. I may download a lot, but my parents LOVE netflix and such and manage to rack up more download than me. I tend to download a 5GB game from steam and play it exclusively for 40+ hours.

Second, I didn't move to an ISP with a higher cap. I moved and couldn't get internet service from anybody WITHOUT a cap while paying more money for it to boot. It sucks.

Not even remotely true. Only 1 country on earth has above 50% broadband coverage: Liechtenstein

There's a difference between offering internet service and people taking you up on it, and there's a reason I stuck scare quotes around 'everyone' because there will always be the occasional exception(and boy does it suck to be them sometimes). But if 90+% of the population can get an unmetered double-digit megabit connection for under $50/month, it's pretty universal.

Also, the wiki page isn't saying what you think it says. It's referring to "Fixed (wired)-broadband subscriptions per 100 inhabitants 2012", Dynamic Report, ITU ITC EYE, International Telecommunication Union. Retrieved on 29 June 2013."

IE Monaco has 45.5 wired broadband connections per 100 people. If you average 2 people per house, that's 91% availability.
The USA averages 2.61 people per household, translating to 73% of people having broadband in the USA. This tracks pretty well with other sites.

It's expensive and difficult. Local municipalities could start doing it but they're going to have to buy back the franchise agreements they sold to the ISPs (what you call a monopoly)

Yep. It'll get better eventually, but we need to get the current set of technology ignorant congresscritters out of office. Call it 20 years before you get a supermajority that 'grew up' with computers.

You make a good point. However, this isn't universal. First of all, as the proverbial fat guy at an all-you-can-eat buffet, I've already chosen pay a higher price for significantly more bandwidth than my neighbors. I have an expectation that I have full access to that. I am also lucky enough to have a choice in ISP's where I live. I cancelled my capped service for a more expensive (and even faster) uncapped service. It's not a hard-and-fast rule, but I'm willing to pay more for a bigger plate - I just don't want to be gouged by my ISP for that plate. I'm not saying that they can't say "no" to that either - it's their network. I just know what I want as a consumer, and my hope is that I live in a place where competition is great enough that I have that choice.

Another thing that is rapidly changing is the ease of access to streaming for the masses. It used to be that only geeks like me would build a dedicated media PC tied to a TV for streaming video. Now, streaming appliances are ubiquitous. Streaming for Netflix (and related services) is available on dedicated devices (like a Roku) for $100. It's built into TiVo, and it's even integrated into most TV's and Blu Ray players. My parents stream internet video, and they're in their 70's. If that isn't a litmus test for the masses streaming internet video, I don't know what is.

The other thing that you mention is that the vast majority of ISP's do not offer any TV service at all. I am not sure where you're getting your numbers on this (and it could be that you're talking about the amount of ISP's versus the amount of subscribers). I presume that you're referring to residential broadband internet. Most Americans choose between Cable and DSL, and some can get FTTH. According to this report, as of late 2013, over 50% of American residential broadband internet is delivered via Cable. DSL is at 34% and is trending downward. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match here, as you make a good point, but what I'm saying is that most customers purchase internet connectivity from providers who do sell TV service. Given this information, it's no surprise that it's not in the best interest of the largest type of ISP to be entirely friendly to streaming video service. This is even more poignant given that the cable and FTTH providers are all trying to sell their own competing streaming service to us. Finally, remember that the AOL/Time Warner merger, while an utter failure, was (in large part) supposed to merge internet and video service to dominate the VOD marketplace. Again, it didn't work, but this has been on the mind of big companies for a very long time.

I'm not arguing against what you suggested that I'm the fat guy at an all-you-can-eat buffet. I totally am that guy. But things are changing. The average consumer is streaming internet video, and the whole content industry is shifting in that direction (e.g. 95% of the HBO-produced shows will shortly become available on Amazon Prime Instant Video). The writing is on the wall, and many of these companies are trying to milk returns from their legacy investments for as long as they can. I can't fault them for it, as these are expensive networks to build and maintain. However, they need to tread lightly, because given the lack of competition in most marketplaces, anything viewed as abuse will make these ISP's ripe targets for federal regulation.

But make no mistake about it - the S4 does *NOT* cost $150, and only a fucking moron thinks it does.

Nope, it doesn't cost $150. It costs $244, including the manufacturing.

but you have to admit that apple does *not* treat it's customers well at all.

So please explain how Apple treats its customers badly but yet and still Apple has become the world's largest cell phone manufacturer (by revenue and profit) in less than four years?

Customers seem to be pretty happy with iTunes making it the largest seller of music word wide.

If customers are so upset with Apple and wanted "freedom" then why is the Apple app store outselling the Android market 17 to 1?

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/product-design-supply-chain/apple-maintains-dominance-mobile-application-store-market-

That's not really true any more. Android got a reputation for that early on because its high proportion of geeks and lack of general consumer marketshare. In the last year that has changed radically

So did that change radically since the end of 2010?

http://press.ihs.com/press-release/product-design-supply-chain/apple-maintains-dominance-mobile-application-store-market-

Apple app store revenue -- $1,800 Million
Android Market -- $103 Million

Here's another example.

In the petroleum industry, companies use expensive instruments lowered down a well to take all sorts of readings of the physical properties of the surrounding rocks. The raw numbers (i.e. the measurements) are copyrighted by the company that collected the data, as are the original paper plots of the values (a particular presentation). The companies that record this stuff charge hundreds of thousands of dollars. However, much of the well data must be released publicly after a period of time, and even though copyright is still retained by the collector of the data, the public release gives you new options. If you sit down and digitize the paper plots to generate your own numbers from them (i.e. deriving an approximation of the values on the graphical plot), you have merely copied the "facts", and you aren't infringing. There is a whole industry based on this principle.

See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.

We were not talking about total energy, we were talking about oil.

THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.

And finally, from HERE:

Again, we were not talking about total energy consumption or fossil fuel consumption, your original statement ("US demand has been flat") was in reference to oil, not generic energy. I posted a graph of US oil consumption to refute that statement. Stats showing total energy use do not contradict my assertion that the US petroleum demand has not been flat.

Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.

[citation needed]

Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:

I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.

And THIS one:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

I am aware of peak oil theories, but nowhere have I seen a theory that predicted "that we would be out of oil by now" (your words). Where are these predictions? Simply typing "peak oil" onto Google does not yield any predictions that the oil will be gone by 2008. You are just beating up your own strawman. Where are these predictions?

Flat in comparison to what? Here [indexmundi.com] is a graph of US oil consumption for the last 25 years, sure doesn't look flat to me. It looks like we have increased our consumption nearly every year.

See the graph titled Us Energy Consumption 1949-2003. The graph shows that our consumption is relatively flat from 1973 on, especially when compared to the projections or price of oil.

THIS table shows that our use of fossil fuels has actually decreased from 2004 to 2006.

And finally, from HERE:

A report from the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) shows that U.S. energy consumption (as measured per dollar of economic output) will be slashed by the end of 2008 to half of what it was in 1970 from 18,000 British thermal units (Btus) to about 8,900 Btus.

Moving along...

Also, I've heard many predictions that we would be out of oil by now.

[citation needed]

Google "Peak Oil" for all the citations you need.
Compare those stories to THIS one:

I am advised by real experts that BP, BG, BHP and others, are making massive investment decisions in the oil and gas sector of this country that have as much as a 25-year horizon. They are the real experts who put their money where their mouths are, and they know that we will not be running out of gas (or oil) in the near future.

And THIS one:

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., November 14, 2006 â" In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels -- three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theoryâ(TM)s proponents -- and that the âoepeak oilâ argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.

As is usual whenever electric cars comes up, it's time for some mythbusting.

No, they don't increase pollution and overload the grid; precisely the opposite (more specifically, the only pollutant that goes up is particulate matter, and it's displaced away from population centers. NOx and SOx remain the same, CO2 drops, and CO and VOCs are nearly eliminated; the grid gets to make use of its surplus off-peak capacity and, with smart charging, can eliminate the supply/demand fluctuations that are currently so troublesome).

Yes, they are far more energy efficient than their alternatives.

No, modern batteries don't take forever to charge. The phosphates, titanates, modern spinels, and others can all charge in 5-20 minutes, given sufficient power.

Yes, fast chargers exist. The SAE J1772 standard covers Level 3 charging at hundreds of kilowatts. Yes, chargers as strong as 250kW exist. Yes, there's already a network of 60kW Level 3 chargers in place around Oahu. Install one yourself.

No, the batteries are not toxic. Current li-ions are only mildly toxic, and this only because of their cobalt-based cathode. The phosphates and spinels eliminate this cathode in favor of nontoxic elements.

No, lithium is not running out.

Yes, the batteries last a long time. The phosphates last 7000+ gentle cycles, having only 20% capacity loss after 1000 abusive cycles. The titanates? 20,000 cycles. Accelerated aging tests suggest LG Chem's packs will last 40+ years in typical use.

Yes, both rapid charging stations and EVs make financial sense.

Hmm, did I miss any?

You've probably been using the wrong tools.

Of course you're going to have problems with the video from the floor being copyrighted if laws themselves are copyrighted!
See this article from LawMeme. A nonprofit website in Texas attempted to include area building codes that had been written by a company called SBCCI. SBCCI sued, saying that their copyright had been violated by this publication of the laws, as they made $72 per copy sold by them. A judge ruled in their favor, allowing them to restrict the public laws, saying that $72 was "sufficiently free" for citizens' access.

(This isn't the only instance, but searching for "copyrighted law" returns more chaff than wheat, thanks to arguments over copyright law in general. Bonus points for more citations, as I'm interested in this.)

Yergin is well-spoken, but frankly I've heard him have his ass kicked so many ways already, I don't really bother with him anymore. His standard tactic is to basically question his opponent's data in a debate. He doesn't question the idea of an oil peak, but puts that date in the very distant future, "when it won't matter anymore".

Do a search for Yergin on EnergyBulletin.net and you'll see what I mean.

Its also worth noting that CERA is now owned by IHS Energy.

"CERA was acquired by IHS Energy in 2004. . . . Some of the company's largest clients include international energy companies, governments, utilities, and financial institutions."

http://www.answers.com/topic/cambridge-energy-rese arch-associates

"IHS is one of the leading global providers of critical technical information, decision-support tools, and related services to customers in the energy, defense, aerospace, construction, electronics, and automotive industries. We have developed a comprehensive collection of technical information that is highly relevant to the industries we serve ."

http://www.ihs.com/About-IHS/

I use the following example because it would never work as a terrorist plot but it illustrates my point. Compare the effectiveness of this video of two absolute idiots to the following proceedure from TFA:

TATP is relatively easy to detonate. But you must make enough of it to crash the plane, and you must make it with care to assure potency. One needs quality stuff to commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale," as Deputy Police Commissioner Paul Stephenson put it. While it's true that a slapdash concoction will explode, it's unlikely to do more than blow out a few windows. At best, an infidel or two might be killed by the blast, and one or two others by flying debris as the cabin suddenly depressurizes, but that's about all you're likely to manage under the most favorable conditions possible.

Is available from IHS Global here for $50.
The standard you seek is EIA RS-310-C: CABINETS, RACKS, PANELS, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.

We don't have enough good old-fashioned Mad Scienists in America anymore. If we don't do something to increase the ranks of Mad Scientists soon, we're going to fall behind Europe in the Mad Science Race.

Fortunately, I have no doubt that Dr. Richard Steiner will make a fine example of an American Mad Scientist. According to his biography, he's devoted the last seven years of his professional life to replacing a hunk of metal with a hunk of metal surrounded by a two-story high machine! Even the project's name is brilliant in its silliness. Imagine meeting this guy at a party:

You: So, what do you, Richard?
Richard: I'm building the ELECTRONIC KILOGRAM! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Igor, fetch me a drink!

Mark my words: In ten years, he'll be swinging from a balcony on the side of the Electronic Kilogram screaming "At the Academy, they called me mad! Mad? I'll show them!", as superstitious anti-Metric villagers storm the lab.

I, for one, feel better about America knowing we have men like Richard Steiner and his colleagues on the job. After all, even cold fusion and Raelian clones pale in comparison to the might of the ELECTRONIC KILOGRAM! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Well, I recently found a site with a copy, and it also has 13818-3, MPEG2 audio, and many other useful standards... but not 802.11. I'm debating if I should post a link from this slashdot article.... probably not, but you can find the site if you go to Peter Kovacs's mp3projects site and follow links to various people's projects (mine is the third on the list, and I don't host any copies of these standards).

I was originally going to try to build a mp3 player with a low-end microcontroller and use a FPGA to implement a little engine that would use DMA and perform the polyphase filter and IMDCTs (approx 95% of the computation for mp3 decoding), and of course stream the data to a DAC. That would have been a lot of work, and when I started adding up the number of CLBs needed in the FPGA, it turned out to be less expensive to just buy the STA013 MP3 decoder chip, which also has the advantage of having the mp3 royalties rolled up into the price of the chip.

It certainly does suck that these standards are so expensive for students and hobbists.