Do you think Samsung is saying, "hey, we got $10M worth of IP in exchange for this license from other licensees--please give us $10M or the equivalent"? Because that's not what is happening.
Samsung is asking for IP which Apple values in the billions (i.e., the rights to make iPad copies) in exchange for a license to technology which Samsung previously agreed to offer under F/RAND terms as part of an industry standard, Apple wants to pay the same in absolute value as the other licensees.
What if those terms include things like "you must assign to me all revenue you make from selling anything with a fruit-based logo on it"? Motorola and Nokia will happily agree because the cost to them for that term is $0, for Apple the cost is $100 Billion. Are those FRAND terms?
Nope? what's the difference?
Samsung may have signed some cross-licensing agreements with other companies for IP reasonably valued at millions, and now they want Apple to hand over IP reasonably valued at billions--that's not non-discriminatory.
FRAND exists to enable industry standards. Companies agree to subject a subset of their intellectual property to FRAND in order to make that technology part of a standard--those companies get money from licensing fees for those technologies from other manufacturers (who *must* use that technology in order to implement the standard). Some of the licensees might choose to sign cross-licensing agreements in lieu of some of that money, just like they might choose to pay in frequent flyer miles or beer.
Having some technology included in a telecommunications standard (like GSM/LTE/etc.) doesn't somehow give you free license to every other piece of intellectual property from every licensee. Put simply, owning the patent on some nuance of GSM shouldn't give Samsung the right to make nearly identical copies of iPads. That's not how the system works or has ever worked for anyone ever in the history of mankind ever. It is clearly stupid and if the situation was reversed then you would be screaming bloody murder.
But the situation isn't reversed, because Apple owns technology on multiple standards (firewire, thunderbolt, etc.), you never see them insisting on cross-licensing in order for someone to implement those standards.
until they learn that Apple's secret isn't "marketing".
Apple is quite happy for you to continue to rattle away about iSheep and marketing because as long as you do, you will NEVER threaten their market share. So, yeah, have fun with that.
It's just wildly, unbelievably stupid to think it would cost that much to manufacture them in the US. There's no basis for that. It's retarded. How could it cost more to manufacture an iPad than it does to manufacture a car? There are cars which are made in the US and sell for under $14,000.
I suspect the myth comes from some idiot taking the ratio of the average American manufacturing wage to that of the average Chinese manufacturing wage and then multiplying the price of the finished product by that ratio.
You are either technically incompetent or a liar if you got a new Mac in 2006 and couldn't get TCP/IP to work on it. It's been standard on every new Mac sold for the last 12 years.
There is no standard connector that could have replaced the iPod dock connector, at least not at the time. Can you name one? (which supports video out, audio both ways, lightweight interface to USB/Firewire)
Apple has generally been a good corporate citizen in terms of supporting open standards where they have no value-added differentiation--that's about all you could hope for out of a business, frankly. Firewire is a standard, so is Thunderbolt, they have one of the most standards compliant web browsers out there and they put it on every product they make.
Is it possible you just don't understand technology, but you've adopted some sort of anti-Apple stance out of pure dogma?
The question isn't whether $500+ for a tablet is feasible in the market--it has been 100% proven that this is a feasible price point because Apple is selling tens of millions of iPads. The question is why can't anyone else replicate what Apple is doing with tablets?
I think part of the problem is that Apple has an even larger headstart on tablets than they had on smartphones. It also seems that the 'ecosystem' is an even more important differentiater for tablets than for smartphones. I expect Android tablets to slowly catch up in terms of hardware/software quality (just like they are slowly catching up in smartphones) and ecosystem (although this ramp is even slower).
The real question is what the next plateau will be; will it be like smartphones where Apple is happy to have 50% of the industry-wide profit (and let everyone else fight over the scraps)?
> If you have bridge company A and bridge company B who make "uncollapsible" bridges do you really care who made the bridge? What is that with you and Apple engineers? Do you think that Apple engineers are the only good ones in the world? Do you think they are better then RIM, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, LG,... engineers?
Have you compared a Motorola Xoom to an iPad2? One of them is a collapsed bridge and the other isn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you think Samsung is saying, "hey, we got $10M worth of IP in exchange for this license from other licensees--please give us $10M or the equivalent"? Because that's not what is happening.
Samsung is asking for IP which Apple values in the billions (i.e., the rights to make iPad copies) in exchange for a license to technology which Samsung previously agreed to offer under F/RAND terms as part of an industry standard, Apple wants to pay the same in absolute value as the other licensees.
What if those terms include things like "you must assign to me all revenue you make from selling anything with a fruit-based logo on it"? Motorola and Nokia will happily agree because the cost to them for that term is $0, for Apple the cost is $100 Billion. Are those FRAND terms?
Nope? what's the difference?
Samsung may have signed some cross-licensing agreements with other companies for IP reasonably valued at millions, and now they want Apple to hand over IP reasonably valued at billions--that's not non-discriminatory.
Idiot.
Perhaps you shouldn't hang out on a tech website?
> Apple just re-release stuff with Apple logos and claim they invented it
What they hell are you talking about?
FRAND exists to enable industry standards. Companies agree to subject a subset of their intellectual property to FRAND in order to make that technology part of a standard--those companies get money from licensing fees for those technologies from other manufacturers (who *must* use that technology in order to implement the standard). Some of the licensees might choose to sign cross-licensing agreements in lieu of some of that money, just like they might choose to pay in frequent flyer miles or beer.
Having some technology included in a telecommunications standard (like GSM/LTE/etc.) doesn't somehow give you free license to every other piece of intellectual property from every licensee. Put simply, owning the patent on some nuance of GSM shouldn't give Samsung the right to make nearly identical copies of iPads. That's not how the system works or has ever worked for anyone ever in the history of mankind ever. It is clearly stupid and if the situation was reversed then you would be screaming bloody murder.
But the situation isn't reversed, because Apple owns technology on multiple standards (firewire, thunderbolt, etc.), you never see them insisting on cross-licensing in order for someone to implement those standards.
until they learn that Apple's secret isn't "marketing".
Apple is quite happy for you to continue to rattle away about iSheep and marketing because as long as you do, you will NEVER threaten their market share. So, yeah, have fun with that.
Apple has been destroying the free market and it isn't because other companies aren't able to release competitive products due to litigation.
just like you would start to tune me out if I called you a racist. See how that works?
BTW: Racist.
and they cost upwards of $1 trillion.
"Obama has had three full years to deal with the economy"
Now we know you are not serious about having any kind of thoughtful discussion.
Do you have any idea how much vacation time GWB took? Good lord you are retarded.
Good post.
It's just wildly, unbelievably stupid to think it would cost that much to manufacture them in the US. There's no basis for that. It's retarded. How could it cost more to manufacture an iPad than it does to manufacture a car? There are cars which are made in the US and sell for under $14,000.
I suspect the myth comes from some idiot taking the ratio of the average American manufacturing wage to that of the average Chinese manufacturing wage and then multiplying the price of the finished product by that ratio.
who "puts environmental and social rsponsibilities" first.
No? Then shut up.
Does that make any sense to you at all?
There are cars made in the US which cost less than $14,000. Do you believe everything you read on the internet?
Most things do.
http://www.usb.org/developers/vendor/
You are either technically incompetent or a liar if you got a new Mac in 2006 and couldn't get TCP/IP to work on it. It's been standard on every new Mac sold for the last 12 years.
if you don't understand tech, as evidenced by your irrational post, then you shouldn't be here.
There is no standard connector that could have replaced the iPod dock connector, at least not at the time. Can you name one? (which supports video out, audio both ways, lightweight interface to USB/Firewire)
Apple has generally been a good corporate citizen in terms of supporting open standards where they have no value-added differentiation--that's about all you could hope for out of a business, frankly. Firewire is a standard, so is Thunderbolt, they have one of the most standards compliant web browsers out there and they put it on every product they make.
Is it possible you just don't understand technology, but you've adopted some sort of anti-Apple stance out of pure dogma?
Less impact than SJ's announcement. Lame.
Does GE make it easy for you to reprogram your microwave? Lookup appliance in a dictionary.
It clearly is worth it for millions of people; so that's not the reason that the HP tablet failed.
The question isn't whether $500+ for a tablet is feasible in the market--it has been 100% proven that this is a feasible price point because Apple is selling tens of millions of iPads. The question is why can't anyone else replicate what Apple is doing with tablets?
I think part of the problem is that Apple has an even larger headstart on tablets than they had on smartphones. It also seems that the 'ecosystem' is an even more important differentiater for tablets than for smartphones. I expect Android tablets to slowly catch up in terms of hardware/software quality (just like they are slowly catching up in smartphones) and ecosystem (although this ramp is even slower).
The real question is what the next plateau will be; will it be like smartphones where Apple is happy to have 50% of the industry-wide profit (and let everyone else fight over the scraps)?
Since you are ignoring all the component and manufacturating costs that it actually takes to make these things--what the hell? why not go all the way.
They have 50% of all the profit in the smartphone industry. They are printing money. How does that equate with getting their clock cleaned?
during that same period of time?
Most companies would really like to have that kind of rapid erosion.
but you said it in kinda an obnoxous & condescending tone and I strongly suspect that you are a dick.
> If you have bridge company A and bridge company B who make "uncollapsible" bridges do you really care who made the bridge? ... engineers?
What is that with you and Apple engineers? Do you think that Apple engineers are the only good ones in the world? Do you think they are better then RIM, Nokia, Motorola, Samsung, LG,
Have you compared a Motorola Xoom to an iPad2? One of them is a collapsed bridge and the other isn't.