And when you try to break the FRAND rules by overcharging your competitor, you get legally ass-fucked.
That's what's happening to Motorola, samsung, et al.
If you actually took a few minutes to read the lawsuits you'd see that Apple is the good guy here, and Motorola/Samsung/Google and the patent office (for giving Apple the handful of silly patents in the first place) are the bad guys.
I'll preface this with: I have little doubt that they're charging $5 because they can, and it goes no further than that.
However! They might be using this as an insurance policy of sorts, follow with me:
- Your number is no different than a celebrities to look at/in their database/etc. - You pay the same for non-listing as does said celebrity - Unlike you, the celebrity could possibly win a lawsuit for a decent chunk of money if the company (through negligence) publishes their number.
So given that accidents happen, humans are prone to error, etc. etc. It is just possible that you're paying $0.50 a month for the actual service, and $4.50 a month for their eventual legal costs due to a fuckup.
As I said above though, when phone companies charge thousands of times reasonable rates for SMS and such I hardly expect that it goes any further than "because they can".
Yeah, you're of course right. Line of sight is a big problem (though not a problem you entirely avoid with their current method either).
There really isn't any shortage of reasons that lasers aren't a good choice (yet). If we can someday get perfect columnization of the light and have no dispersion at all then lasers will be entirely ideal even with the LOS problem, the throughput could be insane and the power requirements very low.
You're using a poor scanner then, or a crap phone (that wouldn't have NFC anyways).
My phone takes maybe half a second to scan a QR code, to the point that I don't even have to actually hold it still... I can *nearly* just wave it in front of the code and have it work, I do have to pause for the half second. By far the limiting time factor is finding the icon and launching the scanner, which would not change with NFC.
Your teenage brother can type things faster than he can read (hint: no)? Because if not, he may get the tinyurl.com out quickly, but the rest he still has to transcribe.
Sitting on the board of Directors of another company while developing a competing project of your own. That's wrong, him (Google) not being legally punished with a fine for every cent he ever had or will make is what is wrong with intellectual property.
Apple fighting samsung completely legally within the confines of the system (and trouncing them because Samsung is a shit company that can't create anything in the consumer space worth owning) is not what is wrong with intellectual property.
- Within 2-3 seconds you know exactly what Apple is marketing with these ads (which is not the computers, but the software and support network surrounding computers).
- There are no god-awful sex appeal tactics
- They get the point across very clearly (when you buy an apple, you can count on a uniform and cultivated support network, and usability out of the box)
- They don't have actors/actresses with horribly annoying catch phrases or voices to try to "stand out".
This ad campaign is completely fantastic. They know they don't need to build the mac brand; they also know that they have to make very clear what makes them special.
When the most popular version of the iPad sell out, it's usually minutes before the rest sell out as well (because people are easily pushed into paying more or in many cases accepting less storage). The true popularity test for the Nexus will be just that.
However, due to Google's piss poor marketing the situation is a little different. Apple nearly always manages to have it's most popular model be the lowest end - so that you never have to settle, only pay more.
I'm watching this with quite a bit of interest. Google has a product here (a physical product) that people actually want, and historically they manage to fuck that up every time.
More interestingly, if the terrorists attacked solely critical care centres and retirement homes the outcry would most likely be greater. But flu works exactly the opposite (it gets less attention because it mostly kills those groups).
I'm not going either direction here, I don't care enough about other people to give a damn which is the "correct" attitude. I just find it quite interesting.
Slashdot Mirror
Careful, your stupid is showing...
Regardless of your opinion of the patents themselves, Samsung did infringe on them and this decision is well deserved for those assclowns
And when you try to break the FRAND rules by overcharging your competitor, you get legally ass-fucked.
That's what's happening to Motorola, samsung, et al.
If you actually took a few minutes to read the lawsuits you'd see that Apple is the good guy here, and Motorola/Samsung/Google and the patent office (for giving Apple the handful of silly patents in the first place) are the bad guys.
I'll preface this with: I have little doubt that they're charging $5 because they can, and it goes no further than that.
However! They might be using this as an insurance policy of sorts, follow with me:
- Your number is no different than a celebrities to look at/in their database/etc.
- You pay the same for non-listing as does said celebrity
- Unlike you, the celebrity could possibly win a lawsuit for a decent chunk of money if the company (through negligence) publishes their number.
So given that accidents happen, humans are prone to error, etc. etc. It is just possible that you're paying $0.50 a month for the actual service, and $4.50 a month for their eventual legal costs due to a fuckup.
As I said above though, when phone companies charge thousands of times reasonable rates for SMS and such I hardly expect that it goes any further than "because they can".
Yeah, you're of course right. Line of sight is a big problem (though not a problem you entirely avoid with their current method either).
There really isn't any shortage of reasons that lasers aren't a good choice (yet). If we can someday get perfect columnization of the light and have no dispersion at all then lasers will be entirely ideal even with the LOS problem, the throughput could be insane and the power requirements very low.
If only that applied to the first comment.
Being a dumbass is being a dumbass... Pretending you didn't mean it later just makes it look even worse.
Good readers show you the URL before you click through.
And TinyURL is just as bad, FYI... If anything QRCodes allow for *more* transparency.
You're using a poor scanner then, or a crap phone (that wouldn't have NFC anyways).
My phone takes maybe half a second to scan a QR code, to the point that I don't even have to actually hold it still... I can *nearly* just wave it in front of the code and have it work, I do have to pause for the half second. By far the limiting time factor is finding the icon and launching the scanner, which would not change with NFC.
Your teenage brother can type things faster than he can read (hint: no)? Because if not, he may get the tinyurl.com out quickly, but the rest he still has to transcribe.
Long story short: stop being a dumbass.
I think you meant invasions, there has to be an opposition for there to be a war...
Two reasons:
1 - the bands they're using aren't stopped by clouds. lasers (as in light) are.
2 - A 50-kW laser shooting a drone out of the sky:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2hs9vmlEd-A
Interesting given that iOS has a far greater number of apps, and nearly all of them are of better quality.
It's good that there are still a few intelligent people that post on slashdot...
It's getting less common by the day it seems.
What, exactly, is a non data-fed monitoring system? What exactly would it monitor if not data?
a) that doesn't mean they aren't a shit company. Microsoft labs creates amazing tech (kinect anyone?).
b) You'll notice I said consumer, not commercial. Their displays are fine, their TVs are shit.
Apple could sell a lot more phones if they didn't bother making money too.
You must be an idiot.
Sitting on the board of Directors of another company while developing a competing project of your own. That's wrong, him (Google) not being legally punished with a fine for every cent he ever had or will make is what is wrong with intellectual property.
Apple fighting samsung completely legally within the confines of the system (and trouncing them because Samsung is a shit company that can't create anything in the consumer space worth owning) is not what is wrong with intellectual property.
Your ignorance and stupidity aside, you know perfectly well they you're wrong here. That means this conversation is over.
You make the self-righteous mistake of assuming they were talking to you.
You think wrong.
Apple customer support is generally regarded as some of the best in the world, and most definitely the best in tech.
- Within 2-3 seconds you know exactly what Apple is marketing with these ads (which is not the computers, but the software and support network surrounding computers).
- There are no god-awful sex appeal tactics
- They get the point across very clearly (when you buy an apple, you can count on a uniform and cultivated support network, and usability out of the box)
- They don't have actors/actresses with horribly annoying catch phrases or voices to try to "stand out".
This ad campaign is completely fantastic. They know they don't need to build the mac brand; they also know that they have to make very clear what makes them special.
I would believe you if Apple hadn't sold so many $600+ iPhones unlocked direct from Apple.com/ca/retail stores
The real problem with Google selling phones in the past is that
a) not that many people wanted them*
b) they fucking suck at it (read the horror stories of buying the nexus online direct from Google)
*Keeping in mind, that although android has a large portion of the US market share, any given phone has very little
Simple fact is lots of people bought the most popular iPhone direct from Apple, then proceeded to move up the chain until they were all sold out.
When the most popular version of the iPad sell out, it's usually minutes before the rest sell out as well (because people are easily pushed into paying more or in many cases accepting less storage). The true popularity test for the Nexus will be just that.
However, due to Google's piss poor marketing the situation is a little different. Apple nearly always manages to have it's most popular model be the lowest end - so that you never have to settle, only pay more.
I'm watching this with quite a bit of interest. Google has a product here (a physical product) that people actually want, and historically they manage to fuck that up every time.
More interestingly, if the terrorists attacked solely critical care centres and retirement homes the outcry would most likely be greater. But flu works exactly the opposite (it gets less attention because it mostly kills those groups).
I'm not going either direction here, I don't care enough about other people to give a damn which is the "correct" attitude. I just find it quite interesting.
You need to read what you write before hitting submit