You are reading the wrong figures. The charger must shut off the current before it reaches 5A, which Note 1 says is for safety reasons. Allowed PD Current Draw from Charging Port is 1.5A (7th row in the table on page 44).
Apple's chargers are not compliant with the USB charging standard. They use a specific resistance across the data pins to identify as capable of high current charging, while the USB charging standard mandates shorted data pins for this purpose. Also, there are two variants of high current charger - 1A for the original iPhone, and 2.1A for iPads and iPhone 4 and later. The USB spec is 1.5A, which is the maximum current that a USB plug is designed to carry.
NFC is very slow for transfering data (that is not its intention). The transfer is being done over either Bluetooth or WiFi Direct, NFC is just used to authenticate each end. There is an app for both iOS and Android called Bump that can do this without NFC, merely using Bluetooth field strength and the sensors in the phone to detect when the phones are touched together.
iPhone is where they dropped Firewire charging altogether. Before that, iPods were able to charge off either USB or Firewire pins (with the latter deprecated) since before the iPod was really popular.
The USB stack is ridiculously complicated. If you want a device to communicated a certain way, it needs a gigantic convoluted controller. There is a pretty good standard for mass storage devices (though remember back in 2005 when USB sticks required driver installation?), but video and audio are still ridiculous.
Audio and Video are well supported by USB class protocols. Audio since 1998 and Video since 2004. Requiring drivers has nothing to do with lack of standards, but a lag in native support by certain popular OS.
You can write low level interfaces which are smart on both sides.
Apple can write low level interfaces which are smart of both sides. Do you really think they are going to release the documentation so Stalks can do it?
I was under the impression that Apple's dock connectors were designed such that they could be plugged into various accessories (speaker docks, etc.) without the need for a lot of processing power to play music and such.
That was the argument used for the old 30 pin connector. It doesn't work though for the lightning connector, as they removed all analog pins from that.
The claim that microUSB can't safely supply 2A seems a bit farfetched
Not really. Full sized USB cannot safely supply 2.1A either according to the USB Implementors Forum (max is 1.5A, same as microUSB), but that does not stop Apple from selling USB chargers that charge iPads and iPhones at that current.
Since the data handling via USB on smartphones is not standardized, meaning that there is not necessarily any interoperability between devices with a particular accessory, you'd still have an industry dedicated to making Apple-specific accessories
MTP, HID and USB-Audio are standardized. An accessory could do a lot with those protocols if manufacturers would support them for their intended purpose.
You do realise that Apple came up with their own standard for high current chargers, so plugging your Apple device into a standard USB charger will only allow the device to charge slowly, and likewise when plugging other devices into Apple chargers.
Yes. The rest of us realise that controlled clinical administration of drugs has no relation to the hysteria surrounding street drugs, regardless of whether the substances are the same.
It leaves the little guy relying on the "and play nice". This is basically what we had in the mobile phone industry between 2006 and 2011 (or whenever Apple kicked off this nonsense). Before 2006, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson and others were all suing each other over 3G patents. They came to a settlement where everyone decided to cross license their patents and offer FRAND licensing so that the little guys didn't get shut out. The problem is that Apple came along and took advantage of the little guy provisions to enter the market, then started throwing patents around which are very much not being offered on FRAND terms ($30 per device for half a dozen UI interaction patents, vs $6 for hundreds of radio and networking hardware patents?).
Nokia posted their research into GSM/EDGE vs 3G battery usage around the time Apple started making excuses for the lack of 3G on the original iPhone.
For standby, there is no difference, except in low signal areas if both 2G and 3G are enabled, due to continuous searching for stronger signals on both 3G and 2G networks instead of just one. Talk time is reduced on 3G, because it uses a 64kbps channel for high quality voice vs GSM's 13kbps. For data, GPRS/EDGE looks better in per minute figures for the same reason, but 3G is about double the efficiency of EDGE in terms of energy usage per bytes transmitted or received (and many times more efficient than GPRS).
I'd expect something similar for LTE - improvements in efficiency in the years since the 3G specs were written should give it better performance per byte, but since it's going through those bytes a lot quicker this makes it look bad on figures that only take time into account.
I think the problem is more likely to be that Alibaba's OS is Android with some minor customizations, but they are not giving proper credit to Google and pretending it is something new and different in violation of the license.
Android designed around this problem from the beginning (although it was an issue with Windows Mobile, before that OS was EoLed).
It wasn't that much of an issue for Windows Mobile, as the Graphics APIs are the same as on the desktop, where developers have been used to handling different resolutions for years. For full screen games with primarily bitmap graphics, yes there was an issue (desktop PCs can switch the video card to VGA resolution, Windows Mobile is fixed to run at one resolution), but on iOS, it isn't unusual to find even purely text apps that are not properly scaled to the screen, and look pixelated on the iPad as a result.
But iPhones update to new versions of iOS. The only reason that somebody would have an old version of iOS is that for some weird reason they repeatedly tell the phone not to update.
I know a lot of people who are doing just that, because Apple broke Bluetooth interoperability with a lot car radios when they released iOS5.
It'd be interesting to get a look at a sample cached image (but there's no way I'm installing any McAfee software on my own PC to satisfy this curiosity). Is the watermark just an alpha layer that gets ignored by the McAfee viewer for example.
Precisely, it's a borderline useless idea that requires too much integration with a single company for it to catch on.
But its on Facebook, so they've already got the perfect target audience for borderline useless ideas that require too much integration with a single company to catch on.
That's OK, because everyone who is going to install this software has already sent out Facebook status updates asking their friends to unsubscribe them from their feed so they can have privacy on Facebook. So noone without the software installed is going to see the photos anyway.
Time will tell, but being portable device friendly in terms of decode implementation is an important factor.
Note the exclusive use of integer and fixed point math in the reference implementation of the Opus codec. This was designed for embedded use (probably in VoIP handsets, which are even lower powered than media players).
The problem for Apple is that the Qualcomm agreements got torn up when Apple came along refusing to cross-license patents like everyone else in the industry had agreed after the 3G wars in the mid 2000's. That is why Apple quietly switched supplier from Qualcomm to Intel as came out in the Samsung case - Qualcomm had sent them notice that the patent licenses were no longer included in the price of the chips they were buying and they had to go out and negotiate licenses by themselves. The FRAND terms were never intended to enable the sort of behavior we are seeing from Apple today, they were supposed to allow access to the market for small players that did not yet have anything to contribute to the cross-licensing pool.
They think rounded corners and the same number of icons acrossed a screen that has been common since before little computing gadgets had cellular radio antennas in them (that apple didn't invent) is worth $24 per device
Actually, they think their patents (not the design one above which they defend more like a trademark, but the multitouch ones they are willing to license out) are worth $30 per device. And Samsung's patents are worth a total of $6 per device, which is where the $24 came from. But the summary is basically that Apple overvalues its own patent portfolio compared with industry norms. Unfortunately, they are allowed to do that, and the only defense companies like Samsung have is to keep patents outside of FRAND pools.
Samsung has only asked for more from Apple if you accept Apple's overvaluation of their own patents.
Apple was offered the same deal as everyone else - cross licensing of patents and call it even, but refused, claiming that their small handful of patents on trivial UI interactions were worth $30, and Samsung's substantially larger number of patents on 3G technology and mobile networking were worth only $6(since that is the fair value that 3GPP has put on the ones included in the FRAND pool. But not all Samsung's patents are for implementing the 3GPP standards, even if they have been offering those patents to other companies willing to play cross-licensing ball. As a result, Apple's position is that Samsung should pay them $24 per smartphone and Apple should pay Samsung nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
You are reading the wrong figures. The charger must shut off the current before it reaches 5A, which Note 1 says is for safety reasons. Allowed PD Current Draw from Charging Port is 1.5A (7th row in the table on page 44).
Apple's chargers are not compliant with the USB charging standard. They use a specific resistance across the data pins to identify as capable of high current charging, while the USB charging standard mandates shorted data pins for this purpose. Also, there are two variants of high current charger - 1A for the original iPhone, and 2.1A for iPads and iPhone 4 and later. The USB spec is 1.5A, which is the maximum current that a USB plug is designed to carry.
NFC is very slow for transfering data (that is not its intention). The transfer is being done over either Bluetooth or WiFi Direct, NFC is just used to authenticate each end. There is an app for both iOS and Android called Bump that can do this without NFC, merely using Bluetooth field strength and the sensors in the phone to detect when the phones are touched together.
iPhone is where they dropped Firewire charging altogether. Before that, iPods were able to charge off either USB or Firewire pins (with the latter deprecated) since before the iPod was really popular.
Audio and Video are well supported by USB class protocols. Audio since 1998 and Video since 2004. Requiring drivers has nothing to do with lack of standards, but a lag in native support by certain popular OS.
Apple can write low level interfaces which are smart of both sides. Do you really think they are going to release the documentation so Stalks can do it?
That was the argument used for the old 30 pin connector. It doesn't work though for the lightning connector, as they removed all analog pins from that.
Not really. Full sized USB cannot safely supply 2.1A either according to the USB Implementors Forum (max is 1.5A, same as microUSB), but that does not stop Apple from selling USB chargers that charge iPads and iPhones at that current.
MTP, HID and USB-Audio are standardized. An accessory could do a lot with those protocols if manufacturers would support them for their intended purpose.
You do realise that Apple came up with their own standard for high current chargers, so plugging your Apple device into a standard USB charger will only allow the device to charge slowly, and likewise when plugging other devices into Apple chargers.
Yes. The rest of us realise that controlled clinical administration of drugs has no relation to the hysteria surrounding street drugs, regardless of whether the substances are the same.
It leaves the little guy relying on the "and play nice". This is basically what we had in the mobile phone industry between 2006 and 2011 (or whenever Apple kicked off this nonsense). Before 2006, Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson and others were all suing each other over 3G patents. They came to a settlement where everyone decided to cross license their patents and offer FRAND licensing so that the little guys didn't get shut out. The problem is that Apple came along and took advantage of the little guy provisions to enter the market, then started throwing patents around which are very much not being offered on FRAND terms ($30 per device for half a dozen UI interaction patents, vs $6 for hundreds of radio and networking hardware patents?).
Nokia posted their research into GSM/EDGE vs 3G battery usage around the time Apple started making excuses for the lack of 3G on the original iPhone. For standby, there is no difference, except in low signal areas if both 2G and 3G are enabled, due to continuous searching for stronger signals on both 3G and 2G networks instead of just one. Talk time is reduced on 3G, because it uses a 64kbps channel for high quality voice vs GSM's 13kbps. For data, GPRS/EDGE looks better in per minute figures for the same reason, but 3G is about double the efficiency of EDGE in terms of energy usage per bytes transmitted or received (and many times more efficient than GPRS).
I'd expect something similar for LTE - improvements in efficiency in the years since the 3G specs were written should give it better performance per byte, but since it's going through those bytes a lot quicker this makes it look bad on figures that only take time into account.
Cyanogenmod doesn't give you access to any Google services. You have to separately install the Google apps package from elsewhere.
I think the problem is more likely to be that Alibaba's OS is Android with some minor customizations, but they are not giving proper credit to Google and pretending it is something new and different in violation of the license.
It wasn't that much of an issue for Windows Mobile, as the Graphics APIs are the same as on the desktop, where developers have been used to handling different resolutions for years. For full screen games with primarily bitmap graphics, yes there was an issue (desktop PCs can switch the video card to VGA resolution, Windows Mobile is fixed to run at one resolution), but on iOS, it isn't unusual to find even purely text apps that are not properly scaled to the screen, and look pixelated on the iPad as a result.
I know a lot of people who are doing just that, because Apple broke Bluetooth interoperability with a lot car radios when they released iOS5.
Or the primary competitors are useful for more than just browsing the web.
It'd be interesting to get a look at a sample cached image (but there's no way I'm installing any McAfee software on my own PC to satisfy this curiosity). Is the watermark just an alpha layer that gets ignored by the McAfee viewer for example.
But its on Facebook, so they've already got the perfect target audience for borderline useless ideas that require too much integration with a single company to catch on.
That's OK, because everyone who is going to install this software has already sent out Facebook status updates asking their friends to unsubscribe them from their feed so they can have privacy on Facebook. So noone without the software installed is going to see the photos anyway.
Note the exclusive use of integer and fixed point math in the reference implementation of the Opus codec. This was designed for embedded use (probably in VoIP handsets, which are even lower powered than media players).
The problem for Apple is that the Qualcomm agreements got torn up when Apple came along refusing to cross-license patents like everyone else in the industry had agreed after the 3G wars in the mid 2000's. That is why Apple quietly switched supplier from Qualcomm to Intel as came out in the Samsung case - Qualcomm had sent them notice that the patent licenses were no longer included in the price of the chips they were buying and they had to go out and negotiate licenses by themselves. The FRAND terms were never intended to enable the sort of behavior we are seeing from Apple today, they were supposed to allow access to the market for small players that did not yet have anything to contribute to the cross-licensing pool.
Actually, they think their patents (not the design one above which they defend more like a trademark, but the multitouch ones they are willing to license out) are worth $30 per device. And Samsung's patents are worth a total of $6 per device, which is where the $24 came from. But the summary is basically that Apple overvalues its own patent portfolio compared with industry norms. Unfortunately, they are allowed to do that, and the only defense companies like Samsung have is to keep patents outside of FRAND pools.
Samsung has only asked for more from Apple if you accept Apple's overvaluation of their own patents.
Apple was offered the same deal as everyone else - cross licensing of patents and call it even, but refused, claiming that their small handful of patents on trivial UI interactions were worth $30, and Samsung's substantially larger number of patents on 3G technology and mobile networking were worth only $6(since that is the fair value that 3GPP has put on the ones included in the FRAND pool. But not all Samsung's patents are for implementing the 3GPP standards, even if they have been offering those patents to other companies willing to play cross-licensing ball. As a result, Apple's position is that Samsung should pay them $24 per smartphone and Apple should pay Samsung nothing.