Well, my apologies. I stand corrected. Baffled, but corrected. It's terrible news. If anybody's actually paying those rates they can't compete, which shuts out non patent-holders. That those rates would be considered "fair and reasonable" is both awful and disheartening. Maybe the whole system needs to go.
Again, I apologize, especially for my tone at times. You could have won a pretty good sized bet from me had we been in person:-)
Surely you don't think the difference between the two is only the price. What do think, that Apple should sell at cost? Like *any* retailer, they set the price at what they think produces the best result. If you had a business you'd do that too. If you didn't you would fail.
Amazon seems Hell bent on not making a profit on anything they do. If they were selling the Fire conventionally it would be priced at $260 or so. And then one could look at the two and see that the iPad mini has enough value to be obviously worth the difference in price.
The only reason the build costs are so close is because Apple has invested enormously and relentlessly in its production capabilities. Nobody else could come close to building the mini for what it costs Apple.
Apple has spent more than $8B in just the last year on manufacturing and equipment. That's a staggering amount of money.
No, no, no. Where do you get this from? Your arguments don't even make sense. What in the world does paying someone else to build it have to do with anything? What is this arbitrary "component" exclusion?
The price of the entire device is not the basis for FRAND royalties. It's just plain stupid. Seriously. Do you have any idea just how many essential patents are involved? A percentage of the total price is impossible.
In 2009 the USPTO listed the number of essential patents for these categories:
Multiplex Communication - 225
Telecommunications - 193
Pulse or digital communications - 144
speech signal processing and audio compression/decompression - 48
etc.
Any device is going to use more than an handful of those. A percentage of the total cost is absurd. Why would price even be considered?
No it's not. That's just silly. If, say, Boeing uses some FRAND parts do you really think they owe 1-3% of the price of the entire plane? It makes no sense at all. And again, cross-licensing has nothing to do with FRAND rates.
Not for FRAND. The licensor my choose to accept an alternate form of payment, such as a reciprocal license, but that does not determine the rate. That goes against the whole idea of FRAND.
Ignoring? I asked a reasonable question. Why would you imply I read that but somehow chose to ignore it?
However, I can see why Apple would not accept those terms. I think long term it was the right decision, and maps have been quietly getting better.
Turn by turn was not even available in Thailand, where I live. Last week I had to drive to some place I'd never been. For several years (long before I ever had a smart phone) I've used a dedicated Garmin box for that. I wasn't able to find the location in it, so I decided to settle for getting driving directions ahead of time using the iPhone. I found the place, got a choice of reasonable routes, selected one and jumped in my car. To my surprise the phone started giving me spoken directions, and the display tracked my driving.
I later learned that Apple had quietly added turn by turn for many countries that were not initially supported. They've got a long way to go, of course, but they're getting it done.
As a bonus, the entire trip consumed no cellular data. Because the maps are vector-based the mapping for the entire trip was loaded before I left.
It had an 80Mbyte HD, 40 of that was used by the OS. It sounds bad, but if what remains can do useful work then so what?
16GB is 4,000 times as large as 40MB. Both Apple and Android tablets use much much less than 16GB for the OS and essentials. It's an indication that Microsoft had to throw up its hands and simply cram Windows onto it. It's likely that they simply too many interwoven dependencies to permit trimming away the fat.
FRAND patents are typically a % of either manufacture or retail costs of the device, in any industry.
No they aren't. That's ridiculous. In the 2.5% example, that would mean any device using more than a handful of essential parts would be impossible to sell at any price.
I think the idea is that MotoMobility/Google are asking for a higher rate due to a lack of reciprocal FRAND patents.
Reciprocity has nothing to do with FRAND. In fact the whole point of FRAND is that in exchange for being part of the standard the company promises fair and reasonable and non-descriminatory rates. Hence the name. You are suggesting the opposite.
They're not even avoiding much. They expect about a 25% tax rate for 2012, and from Apple's form 10K filing: The Company's effective tax rates were approximately 24.2%, 24.4% and 31.8% for 2011, 2010 and 2009
Some countries give companies tax incentives, and so that's what Apple pays in that country. But Apple pays plenty of tax overall.
They consider only the direct costs. Selling things has many costs beyond the parts and labor. If they are only just barely covering parts and labor they are surely losing money on the deal.
But if you like, if the contractor doesn't care about profit then you'll be able to build quite a few more than if he did. Surely you understood the point.
Can someone clued into the legal situation here fill me in on why they can't just get a new trial if both sides wants one?
They both want a new trial, but they don't want the same new trial. The defense wants to retry only the one guilty verdict. The state, of course, wants the XOR of that. Or at least a do-over.
They earned more than 8 billion dollars profit in the quarter. That's two RIMs. Short-term fluctuations and manipulations in the stock don't matter in the long run. The stock is not priced on hype, it's priced on earnings. It'll get to 1,000 and beyond.
The (real) next gen consoles will help spur on the adoption.
There won't be any real next gen consoles. As hand-held computers become good enough, especially the tablets, all you need is a couple of wireless controllers and a TV set.
The life cycle of console is *way* too long, and they'd be obsolete much too quickly.
Maybe, but I didn't take it that way. The point as written simply rails against partisanship.
From what I can tell, anybody who really thinks either candidate is "the answer" is not thinking clearly.
I'm not sure I understand. The angle of the bat I don't think is the question. It's what happens at impact. If the ball strikes the tip of it then the center of the bat bulges forward, stretching the wood. If it stretches too much it breaks.
In some of the pictures, the bat looks like it is actually bent forward, toward the ball, when the ball hits it. Does anyone have an explanation for that? It's especially evident in the pic of the breaking bat.
If the end of the bat is pushed backward then the middle would naturally bulge forward. The article addresses your question.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I apologize, especially for my tone at times. You could have won a pretty good sized bet from me had we been in person :-)
Amazon seems Hell bent on not making a profit on anything they do. If they were selling the Fire conventionally it would be priced at $260 or so. And then one could look at the two and see that the iPad mini has enough value to be obviously worth the difference in price.
The only reason the build costs are so close is because Apple has invested enormously and relentlessly in its production capabilities. Nobody else could come close to building the mini for what it costs Apple.
Apple has spent more than $8B in just the last year on manufacturing and equipment. That's a staggering amount of money.
The price of the entire device is not the basis for FRAND royalties. It's just plain stupid. Seriously. Do you have any idea just how many essential patents are involved? A percentage of the total price is impossible.
In 2009 the USPTO listed the number of essential patents for these categories:
Any device is going to use more than an handful of those. A percentage of the total cost is absurd. Why would price even be considered?
Nobody pays FRAND royalties like that.
I tried this with my wife during labor. She was in agony and I kept yelling "Honey, use the apostrophe!!"
She was not amused.
Well yeah, that's what Im saying. You seemed to be asserting the opposite.
No it's not. That's just silly. If, say, Boeing uses some FRAND parts do you really think they owe 1-3% of the price of the entire plane? It makes no sense at all. And again, cross-licensing has nothing to do with FRAND rates.
Not for FRAND. The licensor my choose to accept an alternate form of payment, such as a reciprocal license, but that does not determine the rate. That goes against the whole idea of FRAND.
However, I can see why Apple would not accept those terms. I think long term it was the right decision, and maps have been quietly getting better.
Turn by turn was not even available in Thailand, where I live. Last week I had to drive to some place I'd never been. For several years (long before I ever had a smart phone) I've used a dedicated Garmin box for that. I wasn't able to find the location in it, so I decided to settle for getting driving directions ahead of time using the iPhone. I found the place, got a choice of reasonable routes, selected one and jumped in my car. To my surprise the phone started giving me spoken directions, and the display tracked my driving.
I later learned that Apple had quietly added turn by turn for many countries that were not initially supported. They've got a long way to go, of course, but they're getting it done.
As a bonus, the entire trip consumed no cellular data. Because the maps are vector-based the mapping for the entire trip was loaded before I left.
It has to be a restaurant now? Damn Apple and its walled Olive Garden.
16GB is 4,000 times as large as 40MB. Both Apple and Android tablets use much much less than 16GB for the OS and essentials. It's an indication that Microsoft had to throw up its hands and simply cram Windows onto it. It's likely that they simply too many interwoven dependencies to permit trimming away the fat.
No they aren't. That's ridiculous. In the 2.5% example, that would mean any device using more than a handful of essential parts would be impossible to sell at any price.
Reciprocity has nothing to do with FRAND. In fact the whole point of FRAND is that in exchange for being part of the standard the company promises fair and reasonable and non-descriminatory rates. Hence the name. You are suggesting the opposite.
Really? I have seen any evidence of that. Do you have a link? (I'm not doubting you, just genuinely surprised.)
Some countries give companies tax incentives, and so that's what Apple pays in that country. But Apple pays plenty of tax overall.
But if you like, if the contractor doesn't care about profit then you'll be able to build quite a few more than if he did. Surely you understood the point.
They both want a new trial, but they don't want the same new trial. The defense wants to retry only the one guilty verdict. The state, of course, wants the XOR of that. Or at least a do-over.
Sometimes it's convenient.
See what I mean?
Especially if you can build at a profit something the contractor is willing to sell at a loss. That's a great market.
They earned more than 8 billion dollars profit in the quarter. That's two RIMs. Short-term fluctuations and manipulations in the stock don't matter in the long run. The stock is not priced on hype, it's priced on earnings. It'll get to 1,000 and beyond.
You didn't see the part about flying cars?
There won't be any real next gen consoles. As hand-held computers become good enough, especially the tablets, all you need is a couple of wireless controllers and a TV set.
The life cycle of console is *way* too long, and they'd be obsolete much too quickly.
Maybe, but I didn't take it that way. The point as written simply rails against partisanship.
From what I can tell, anybody who really thinks either candidate is "the answer" is not thinking clearly.
(no, I'm not the AC.)
I'm not sure I understand. The angle of the bat I don't think is the question. It's what happens at impact. If the ball strikes the tip of it then the center of the bat bulges forward, stretching the wood. If it stretches too much it breaks.
If the end of the bat is pushed backward then the middle would naturally bulge forward. The article addresses your question.
You made try to reread the OP in a way that makes it fit the song. I failed. :-)