Xenon is easy to ionise - it's a large, diffuse atom with the outer electrons far from the nucleus. It's also inert and heavy, giving you a non-toxic, non-corrosive fuel with a high mass/charge ratio; ideal for an ion thruster.
If only it were cheaper to buy!
It's also not true that "nothing reacts with it". The lower end of group 18 does react with strong oxidisers and you can form (and isolate) crystals of XeO4 and so on. The closest to being truly "noble" gasses are helium and neon.
The hassle of recovery of the gas is entirely based on cost. Helium is routinely recovered and recompressed in research labs and institutions, usually centrally because of the high cost and scarcity - the helium compressor at my university consumes 0.125 MW, by far the single biggest energy sink on the campus, when a critical volume has been recollected ready for purification and reliquification. It's still cheaper doing it this way than just buying more in.
Xenon is relatively easy to extract from the air, despite its low partial pressure.
If a pressure is not given, assume STP. At least, according to IUPAC. Though like many unit cock ups in the past, assumptions can get you in all sorts of trouble. however if it was given in m^3 then it's going to be reasonably safe to assume STP, then you just use the ideal gas law to work out quantity - Xenon is reasonably close to one.
LOL, someone who points out that a device's "feature" or design is a poor one is a hater? You fanbois are hilarious!
You said, quote:
You mindless fanboys (shills?) amuse the hell out of me! You make excuses for a goddamned faceless corporation! WTF? It's a bad design and there's no rational argument to the contrary.
Which is pretty inflammatory, and plain wrong.
No rational arguments to the contrary, other than the ability to fit a bigger battery in the first place since you do not need space for a battery bay or battery door, or a mechanism for attaching the battery contacts. This also results in a reduced size of the device with a more solid exterior. (My friend hates the fact that the battery door comes off the back of her S2 so easily). Not having a battery that pops out of the back also allows you to make it into something other than a square or rectangle if you have space inside the device to fit more or different sized cells.
You just can't admit that there *are* other rational explanations for a built in battery. I provided some, and you have no answer to that.
Yes, I'm going to call you a hater if you dismiss every piece of evidence and claim there is "no rational explanation" for that design choice. I can "admit" (although really, I shouldn't have to be defending this) that I can see the pros and cons of both approaches (built in and non-built in batteries), but because Apple went with built in you simply cannot admit that they might have done it for any positive reason.
While I respect that you aren't necessarily defending Apple... "assholes" sounds about right. By saying that "he should have known better", your basically saying that its ok for Apple to behave the way they did. Legally, sure... they can do that. Business-wise, we all know why they do it. From a customer stance though, it is utter crap, and Apple should be attacked for this.
By blaming the kickstarter guys, you're letting Apple get off the hook. If they had said "fine"... this never would have been a problem.
I'm blaming them both - Apple is shooting itself in the foot here (although as of today they have actually reversed the decision and granted them a licence), but also the project owners who pushed ahead with a business idea, raised funding, developed a prototype etc without making sure that all of their ducks were in a row first. They then pushed all the blame for the project being threatened on Apple, even calling them assholes, because they didn;t plan ahead and just made assumptions.
Apple should never have said no (and has now said yes), but they absolutely should not have gambled on that. They should have got all of that sorted before taking money and going into prototype stage.
Using the term 'hater' to describe an opponent in an argument is a cultish practice.
It's almost always Apple zealots who use the term.
Yeah. Asserting the above makes me a hater. Scientologists use this kind of semantics to keep themselves safely separate from 'the rest of us' too.
It distinguishes them from us "Fanbois".
I gave up on trying to argue that point a long time ago, and they seem to hate the term (ha) "hater" since it has cropped up as a pre-emptive argument winner in someone's sig. Of course, in that poster's comments he's free to throw around terms like "fanboi" and "corporate shill" but if you dare say he's a "hater" he wins the argument! Because he said so!
This thread is a textbook hater classic - the original OP asserted that there were no alternative browsers on iOS, presumably because he believes everything he reads on slashdot and never bothered to actually check. When he is called on it, rather than admit that he's wrong a flurry of posts trying to *redefine what is meant by alternative* appear, to make the criticism of Apple still valid.
In other words, it's preferable to twist the argument and change the definition of words than admit they were wrong about Apple. If "apple hater" isn't an accurate term for that then what do you suggest? Reality Denier? Ignorant? Muppet?
Oh I've heard of Chrome. It just doesn't exist on iOS. All you get on iOS devices is a skin that looks like Chrome which uses iOS's built-in Webkit API.
This is not an alternative browser, just like putting a shiny little red green blue yellow start button on KDE and calling it Lindows did not make it a Windows platform instead of a Linux platform.
Actually this entire thread is a fun read. Either you're really in "lalala" mode or you completely and utterly missed the point I was trying to make and are refusing to let yourself be corrected. Either way it's an entertaining way to start the first day after the end of the world.
No, I didn't miss your point. Your point is intellectually dishonest.
Chrome and Safari on iOS are two different browsers. That is the argument. The share a common rendering engine. This doesn't matter. Fedora and Ubuntu share the same kernel. Does that make them the same product?
So, what you;re saying is that it's a different browser? Thus fulfilling the OP's request for, quote:
Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. Why do you persist in this stupidity when it's clear you didn't interpret what I said the way I meant it (most probably because you don't have a clue as to the arcane restrictions Apple places on apps).
You can't download any Gecko, or Presto engine browsers. You can't download any Webkit engine browsers that differ in Webkit from the Safari versions (Chrome webkit != Safari webkit).
All I get is a skin from another browser that inherits Safari's rendering bugs.
No, you didn't "mean it" honestly. You are attempting to make the argument that two different browsers are the same browser because they share a common rendering engine. I am calling that argument what it is: nonsense.
The only reason you're sticking to this ludicrous argument is because an apple hater troll made the argument that there were no competing browsers on iOS (clearly having not done any research on the topic), and you're now desperately twisting in the wind trying to manufacture evidence and redefine words to lend that troll some faint credibility. It's not working.
Other than the new iPod nano and the iPad, you can replace all of the batteries in Apple products. Sure there's no battery door, but it's as easy as popping the back off with a screwdriver and swapping out the battery. I've done it in about 10 minutes on a couple of iPhones, a MBP, etc.
Nothing I own that has batteries in it takes more than ten seconds to change and none need any tools whatever to do it.
You mindless fanboys (shills?) amuse the hell out of me! You make excuses for a goddamned faceless corporation! WTF? It's a bad design and there's no rational argument to the contrary.
So, 10 minutes every 2 or 3 years vs 10 seconds.
For that I get a machine with no battery door and a bigger battery? Worth it.
No "excuses", simply a different design philosophy.
You haters simply can't exist without something rage against to define yourselves. It must be exhausting.
We get that you're a slimy corporate shill already. Enough. You think Apple can do whatever the fuck they want with no consequence to acting monopolistically, and that's OK. It just makes you a complete fucktard in the eyes of the general tech community.
But good for you for standing up for your iConvictions.
You should not have to ask permission to create interoperability.
Why not?
It's the choice of the owner of the spec/code/device/widget.
In that case, can I take some GPL code and add it to my device to make it interoperate with some other thing, and make the code closed source. Oh, licences? Forget that. I don;t need to ask permission or anything like that!
Because then it's no different from many of the other "universal chargers" out there? Add to that that people pledged for a product/w a lightning connector, and well... would you pledge for a universal charger when so many already exist?
That's the point when it all boils down to it. There was no lightning connector when this project started, and they simply assumed they could add one when it was announced. They were wrong.
It is trying to be a very expensive charger in a market saturated with cheaper ones (even if those cheaper ones are not as good). If they wanted a USP they could use, they probably should have confirmed with Apple that they would be able to get a licence before promising it.
All the garbage you posted here is totally missing the point. The point is that Apple is still REFUSING to license it to them. That is the point. Apple is still REFUSING to grant them a license. None of the crap you posted is relevant to the point at hand but I suppose thats your job eh? Winging on and on about when the project was started as oppsed to when the new connector became available is a desperate attempt to deflect the spotlight from Apple's egregious and despicable practices in the marketplace. I Won't be recommnending them or their products to anyone until they change their behaviour in the marketplace.
So?
Apple has the right to do that. They are under no obligation to license their connector. Whether you agree with that or not isn't the point.
They assumed Apple would say yes. Apple said no. Project starter throws hissy fit.
Way to link to something just under 1/5th the capacity and with inferior electronics that pushes out a maximum 1amp, you know, a little under half what's required to charge the iPad at regular charging speed. But yeah, it's cheaper.
That's my point. There are much cheaper products that do "well enough" what this very expensive ($150) device does. It's no different to Apple vs PC (expensive vs cheaper for similar tasks) or Mercedes vs Ford, but the crucial difference is that market research has been done in the latter cases.
In the former case, he overpromised on something he had no guarantee he could deliver, at a high price, without checking with Apple first. He assumed that Apple would say yes. A dangerous thing to assume with Apple who are not known for their easygoing nature with third party vendors.
Yes lets use multiple posts here to deflect the blame from your beloved Apple with the same damn talking points propogated in other forums. The point is not whether they should have checked first. The point is that this is yet another example of Apple's anticompetitive culture. Your relentless advocation for this destructive behaviour in the marketplace is sickening. You don't happen to work for Burson-Marsterller do you?
I wish I did. Alas, the chemistry lab pays far less than industry lobbyists. Don;t have to wear a suit though, so that's a plus.
This is not a demonstration of Apple's anticompetitive culture (we all knew the Lightning connector was proprietary), as much as it;s a demonstration of not planning ahead in business and making promises you cannot guarantee because it relies on assumptions made about what Apple will agree to before even talking to them. Then, when it doesn't go your way, calling them assholes officially.
If you note, I'm not defending Apple's decision here - I personally think it's asinine - what I'm talking about is someone making business decisions and making promises that he cannot deliver based on assumptions, which is bad at the best of times but when it relates to something involving Apple it's even more absurd.
Then when Apple turns out to be inflexible and obtuse (how unexpected) getting all pissy and calling Apple "assholes" in an official quote.
That doesn't come into it. The simple fact is they promised something they couldn't deliver because they didn't even approach Apple about licensing until late on. They simply assumed.
Making assumptions in business is generally a bad idea.
Apple can have any number of unreasonable restrictions - then it's down to the 3rd party vendors if they want to play in that market. Simply assuming Apple will be reasonable is a risky proposition.
They cancelled it because without the lightning connector, although still useful to many people, it would not be the device people pledged money for.
How could they pledge money for a device promising the Lightning connector when the connector had not been officially announced when the project began?
Were they pledging for a rumoured product? I guess they can receive a rumour in the mail after paying up.
While some (many in the tech community) share your complete lack of scruples, apparently Mr. Siminoff does not and did the morally acceptable thing which is to not take someone's money when he cannot deliver what he promised.
Ah, yes. The moral highground of a guy promising to deliver a feature that he does not have a licence for, gambling that he will get one late in the product design stage.
I'm not seeing how this is Apple's fault...... they gambled that it would be smooth sailing with the as-then-unannounced connector and pushed ahead with product development without having all of their ducks in a row.
That's the kind of statement that might make sense if Apple and its connector was some kind of inherently unpredictable thing, like a hurricane or an earthquake or the results of cutting edge research. But it's not. It's an electronics company. They deliberately chose to make Lightning proprietary even though it's nothing more than a cable, and then kill this product for, apparently, no reason at all. How is this not Apples fault? Can you come up with any scenario in which you would accept that something was Apples fault?
Yes, there are a number of times where Apple has been at fault, but this is not one of them.
The connector *did not exist* when this product was conceived. They chose to make the new connector proprietary, but with a licensing scheme for third party manufacturers. The project starters gambled on what they thought those terms would be (and gambled that the connector would even be used at all, based on leaked product details) and then collected venture capital *without having everything nailed down*.
Had they waited and gone to Apple, and Apple would say no (as it has now), you can say "that sucks Apple!", but when you press ahead and promise to deliver features that you have not managed to officially secure the licence for then you are gambling. That gamble did not pay off.
If Apple had agreed to the inclusion of the port, and then changed the terms of the agreement after the fact, then that would be Apple's fault.
As it was, they did not approach Apple for a licence (or even the terms of the licence, since it did not exist at the time) until after they had promised they could deliver the feature.
No, you can't find a 25k maH one for $20... but you can find 5,000 aH ones.
The price differential makes the big one a bad deal. It doesn't have to be identical, it just has to attempt to fill a niche that other products already do *well enough* for less.
Look, I'm not claiming it's without merit - I use an Apple device, which is the definition of a more expensive product in a market where there are many other cheaper competitors that work "well enough" - just that if that is your business model, you have to be realistic about your expectations and be *totally sure* your market research and product details are bullet proof.
Ah yes, the kickstarter project that began before the official release of the connector, that also features powered USB ports for charging "other devices with incompatible ports" and yet somehow the inability to roll in the Lightning port to a product that was begun before Apple even acknowledged it exists is "doomed".
I wonder, what's to stop iPhone 5 users from plugging in a Lightning cable into one of the powered USB ports on this device? Nothing? So why the need to cancel it?
Very odd.
$99 for a fucking USB hub? What the fuck is wrong with you? Not even Apple fans would be fooled by that garbage. Without a lightning cable built in to it, there is no point in buying one, period. End of story. If you want to buy a $99 USB hub, I will be happy to sell you one (that i snatch off of Amazon for $9.) Their high capacity battery option isn't bad but those too are very cheap (despite their claims) and I can easily get one for under $50 while they want $150 for the kickstarted version.
This is a clear cut example of Apple deciding to screw over consumers so they can be the only one to pillage their loyal base. Get over it.
I think you just accurately made my point for me.
The price of the device was the whole problem, since you can buy cheaper USB-compatible high-capacity chargers from Amazon for much less.
No one was complaining about the price of it - you brought that up - but the difference between the device with a built in Lighting cord and one without... is simply the USB>Lightning cord that comes with the iPhone.
ie, if it's a bad deal without the port then it was a bad deal to begin with. I think that realisation hit the owners of the project given that their original shipping date is around now. The product simply isn't viable.
Now the project owner has thrown his toys out of the pram because apparently the built in USB ports on the device will simply make it totally useless and non-viable because Apple denied them a licence for a connector that didn't exist at the start of the project.
Apple didn't "kill a kickstarter project" - the originator of the kickstarter project killed a kickstarter project.
Read the actual kickstarter page referenced in the summary. He promised it would work with the iphone 5 - it was a reasonable assumption given Apple's terms for licensing the connector for the iphone 4. When he found out he could not live up to his promise - i.e. he could not fulfill his kickstarter contract he had no choice but to cancel the project and start over.
Your characterization of his decision to not unilaterally change the terms of the kickstarter contract, something that might well get him sued by the people who gave him money under the original terms, as throwing "toys out of the pram" is ridiculous. It was the only responsible choice he had.
It has USB ports on it, so it would still work with the iPhone 5.
His choices were a) to ship it as it was originally designed (ie, with no Lightning connector because it didn't exist at the time) and provide the promised iPhone 5 compatibility via the USB ports that were always there, or b) cancel the project and go on record calling Apple "assholes", or c) cancel the project and go back for redesign and don't burn bridges with the technology giant that you want to licence a connector from.
I had presumed that Apple wanted to have tight control over the lightening connector - that is to say, they wanted to maximize their profit - but geesh!
Way to act like Veruca Salt!
In what way? Their terms for licensing the "lightening [sic] connector" are well known, and this project started before the iPhone 5 was even released. Somehow it has become a deal breaker for the project, despite the connector not being officially announced when the project began.
Now the project owner has thrown his toys out of the pram because apparently the built in USB ports on the device will simply make it totally useless and non-viable because Apple denied them a licence for a connector that didn't exist at the start of the project.
Apple didn't "kill a kickstarter project" - the originator of the kickstarter project killed a kickstarter project.
How biased do have to be to post this? You keep saying over and over again that the connector was not announced when the project was announced. So what? The connector exists today. Apple denied them a license because they do want their connector to coexist with another connector because in their special universe, only apple products exist.
This level of arrogance is staggering. On top of it, you are not only supporting their arrogance but also trashing a bunch of guys that just wanted to make a simple combo connector. Dude that is pathetic. Apple is a company that makes some great products but are also filled with hubris, and I don't know why you can't let these two thoughts coexist in your head.
Right! you're getting it!
* The connector did not exist. The project began, promising support for this non-existent connector, such that denial of use of this non-existent connector is crucial for the product to succeed.
* The connector was announced.
* The project promised to add it.
* Finally, deep in development they discuss licencing with Apple, despite already promising they will include the connector.
* Apple said no.
* Project cancelled.
* Project starter calls Apple "assholes" in official quote.
Professional, guys. Really professional.
The only arrogance here is the project owners, who promised something that they could not deliver because they designed and developed something that they did not seek the licences to use until late in the game (or they simply tried to roll the Lightning connector in late in the product cycle),
Either way it is not Apple's fault that they released a new connector while this project was ongoing. Had they released it later on, would it still be Apple's fault they they changed the connector and now the product is obsolete (despite it having powered USB ports on it)?
Apple did not "kill" this project - they simply didn't licence a connector design *that did not exist when the project began*.
They cancelled it because without the lightning connector, although still useful to many people, it would not be the device people pledged money for.
How could they pledge money for a device promising the Lightning connector when the connector had not been officially announced when the project began?
Were they pledging for a rumoured product? I guess they can receive a rumour in the mail after paying up.
Slashdot Mirror
Xenon is easy to ionise - it's a large, diffuse atom with the outer electrons far from the nucleus. It's also inert and heavy, giving you a non-toxic, non-corrosive fuel with a high mass/charge ratio; ideal for an ion thruster.
If only it were cheaper to buy!
It's also not true that "nothing reacts with it". The lower end of group 18 does react with strong oxidisers and you can form (and isolate) crystals of XeO4 and so on. The closest to being truly "noble" gasses are helium and neon.
The hassle of recovery of the gas is entirely based on cost. Helium is routinely recovered and recompressed in research labs and institutions, usually centrally because of the high cost and scarcity - the helium compressor at my university consumes 0.125 MW, by far the single biggest energy sink on the campus, when a critical volume has been recollected ready for purification and reliquification. It's still cheaper doing it this way than just buying more in.
Xenon is relatively easy to extract from the air, despite its low partial pressure.
If a pressure is not given, assume STP. At least, according to IUPAC. Though like many unit cock ups in the past, assumptions can get you in all sorts of trouble. however if it was given in m^3 then it's going to be reasonably safe to assume STP, then you just use the ideal gas law to work out quantity - Xenon is reasonably close to one.
LOL, someone who points out that a device's "feature" or design is a poor one is a hater? You fanbois are hilarious!
You said, quote:
You mindless fanboys (shills?) amuse the hell out of me! You make excuses for a goddamned faceless corporation! WTF? It's a bad design and there's no rational argument to the contrary.
Which is pretty inflammatory, and plain wrong.
No rational arguments to the contrary, other than the ability to fit a bigger battery in the first place since you do not need space for a battery bay or battery door, or a mechanism for attaching the battery contacts. This also results in a reduced size of the device with a more solid exterior. (My friend hates the fact that the battery door comes off the back of her S2 so easily). Not having a battery that pops out of the back also allows you to make it into something other than a square or rectangle if you have space inside the device to fit more or different sized cells.
You just can't admit that there *are* other rational explanations for a built in battery. I provided some, and you have no answer to that.
Yes, I'm going to call you a hater if you dismiss every piece of evidence and claim there is "no rational explanation" for that design choice. I can "admit" (although really, I shouldn't have to be defending this) that I can see the pros and cons of both approaches (built in and non-built in batteries), but because Apple went with built in you simply cannot admit that they might have done it for any positive reason.
Ergo, hater.
You're in lala land. But, whatever. It's probably kinda fun.
Is that what we're calling reality now?
I'd be interested in your response to the question: are Ubuntu and Fedora the same product?
While I respect that you aren't necessarily defending Apple... "assholes" sounds about right. By saying that "he should have known better", your basically saying that its ok for Apple to behave the way they did. Legally, sure... they can do that. Business-wise, we all know why they do it. From a customer stance though, it is utter crap, and Apple should be attacked for this.
By blaming the kickstarter guys, you're letting Apple get off the hook. If they had said "fine"... this never would have been a problem.
I'm blaming them both - Apple is shooting itself in the foot here (although as of today they have actually reversed the decision and granted them a licence), but also the project owners who pushed ahead with a business idea, raised funding, developed a prototype etc without making sure that all of their ducks were in a row first. They then pushed all the blame for the project being threatened on Apple, even calling them assholes, because they didn;t plan ahead and just made assumptions.
Apple should never have said no (and has now said yes), but they absolutely should not have gambled on that. They should have got all of that sorted before taking money and going into prototype stage.
Using the term 'hater' to describe an opponent in an argument is a cultish practice.
It's almost always Apple zealots who use the term.
Yeah. Asserting the above makes me a hater. Scientologists use this kind of semantics to keep themselves safely separate from 'the rest of us' too.
It distinguishes them from us "Fanbois".
I gave up on trying to argue that point a long time ago, and they seem to hate the term (ha) "hater" since it has cropped up as a pre-emptive argument winner in someone's sig. Of course, in that poster's comments he's free to throw around terms like "fanboi" and "corporate shill" but if you dare say he's a "hater" he wins the argument! Because he said so!
This thread is a textbook hater classic - the original OP asserted that there were no alternative browsers on iOS, presumably because he believes everything he reads on slashdot and never bothered to actually check. When he is called on it, rather than admit that he's wrong a flurry of posts trying to *redefine what is meant by alternative* appear, to make the criticism of Apple still valid.
In other words, it's preferable to twist the argument and change the definition of words than admit they were wrong about Apple. If "apple hater" isn't an accurate term for that then what do you suggest? Reality Denier? Ignorant? Muppet?
Oh I've heard of Chrome. It just doesn't exist on iOS. All you get on iOS devices is a skin that looks like Chrome which uses iOS's built-in Webkit API.
This is not an alternative browser, just like putting a shiny little red green blue yellow start button on KDE and calling it Lindows did not make it a Windows platform instead of a Linux platform.
Actually this entire thread is a fun read. Either you're really in "lalala" mode or you completely and utterly missed the point I was trying to make and are refusing to let yourself be corrected. Either way it's an entertaining way to start the first day after the end of the world.
No, I didn't miss your point. Your point is intellectually dishonest.
Chrome and Safari on iOS are two different browsers. That is the argument. The share a common rendering engine. This doesn't matter. Fedora and Ubuntu share the same kernel. Does that make them the same product?
So, what you;re saying is that it's a different browser? Thus fulfilling the OP's request for, quote:
Put lipstick on a pig and it's still a pig. Why do you persist in this stupidity when it's clear you didn't interpret what I said the way I meant it (most probably because you don't have a clue as to the arcane restrictions Apple places on apps).
You can't download any Gecko, or Presto engine browsers. You can't download any Webkit engine browsers that differ in Webkit from the Safari versions (Chrome webkit != Safari webkit).
All I get is a skin from another browser that inherits Safari's rendering bugs.
No, you didn't "mean it" honestly. You are attempting to make the argument that two different browsers are the same browser because they share a common rendering engine. I am calling that argument what it is: nonsense.
The only reason you're sticking to this ludicrous argument is because an apple hater troll made the argument that there were no competing browsers on iOS (clearly having not done any research on the topic), and you're now desperately twisting in the wind trying to manufacture evidence and redefine words to lend that troll some faint credibility. It's not working.
Other than the new iPod nano and the iPad, you can replace all of the batteries in Apple products. Sure there's no battery door, but it's as easy as popping the back off with a screwdriver and swapping out the battery. I've done it in about 10 minutes on a couple of iPhones, a MBP, etc.
Nothing I own that has batteries in it takes more than ten seconds to change and none need any tools whatever to do it.
You mindless fanboys (shills?) amuse the hell out of me! You make excuses for a goddamned faceless corporation! WTF? It's a bad design and there's no rational argument to the contrary.
So, 10 minutes every 2 or 3 years vs 10 seconds.
For that I get a machine with no battery door and a bigger battery? Worth it.
No "excuses", simply a different design philosophy.
You haters simply can't exist without something rage against to define yourselves. It must be exhausting.
We get that you're a slimy corporate shill already. Enough. You think Apple can do whatever the fuck they want with no consequence to acting monopolistically, and that's OK. It just makes you a complete fucktard in the eyes of the general tech community.
But good for you for standing up for your iConvictions.
What was that, kid? The adults were talking.
You should not have to ask permission to create interoperability.
Why not?
It's the choice of the owner of the spec/code/device/widget.
In that case, can I take some GPL code and add it to my device to make it interoperate with some other thing, and make the code closed source. Oh, licences? Forget that. I don;t need to ask permission or anything like that!
Because then it's no different from many of the other "universal chargers" out there? /w a lightning connector, and well... would you pledge for a universal charger when so many already exist?
Add to that that people pledged for a product
That's the point when it all boils down to it. There was no lightning connector when this project started, and they simply assumed they could add one when it was announced. They were wrong.
It is trying to be a very expensive charger in a market saturated with cheaper ones (even if those cheaper ones are not as good). If they wanted a USP they could use, they probably should have confirmed with Apple that they would be able to get a licence before promising it.
All the garbage you posted here is totally missing the point. The point is that Apple is still REFUSING to license it to them. That is the point. Apple is still REFUSING to grant them a license. None of the crap you posted is relevant to the point at hand but I suppose thats your job eh? Winging on and on about when the project was started as oppsed to when the new connector became available is a desperate attempt to deflect the spotlight from Apple's egregious and despicable practices in the marketplace. I Won't be recommnending them or their products to anyone until they change their behaviour in the marketplace.
So?
Apple has the right to do that. They are under no obligation to license their connector. Whether you agree with that or not isn't the point.
They assumed Apple would say yes. Apple said no. Project starter throws hissy fit.
Way to link to something just under 1/5th the capacity and with inferior electronics that pushes out a maximum 1amp, you know, a little under half what's required to charge the iPad at regular charging speed. But yeah, it's cheaper.
That's my point. There are much cheaper products that do "well enough" what this very expensive ($150) device does. It's no different to Apple vs PC (expensive vs cheaper for similar tasks) or Mercedes vs Ford, but the crucial difference is that market research has been done in the latter cases.
In the former case, he overpromised on something he had no guarantee he could deliver, at a high price, without checking with Apple first. He assumed that Apple would say yes. A dangerous thing to assume with Apple who are not known for their easygoing nature with third party vendors.
Yes lets use multiple posts here to deflect the blame from your beloved Apple with the same damn talking points propogated in other forums. The point is not whether they should have checked first. The point is that this is yet another example of Apple's anticompetitive culture. Your relentless advocation for this destructive behaviour in the marketplace is sickening. You don't happen to work for Burson-Marsterller do you?
I wish I did. Alas, the chemistry lab pays far less than industry lobbyists. Don;t have to wear a suit though, so that's a plus.
This is not a demonstration of Apple's anticompetitive culture (we all knew the Lightning connector was proprietary), as much as it;s a demonstration of not planning ahead in business and making promises you cannot guarantee because it relies on assumptions made about what Apple will agree to before even talking to them. Then, when it doesn't go your way, calling them assholes officially.
If you note, I'm not defending Apple's decision here - I personally think it's asinine - what I'm talking about is someone making business decisions and making promises that he cannot deliver based on assumptions, which is bad at the best of times but when it relates to something involving Apple it's even more absurd.
Then when Apple turns out to be inflexible and obtuse (how unexpected) getting all pissy and calling Apple "assholes" in an official quote.
Who says it has to be reasonable?
That doesn't come into it. The simple fact is they promised something they couldn't deliver because they didn't even approach Apple about licensing until late on. They simply assumed.
Making assumptions in business is generally a bad idea.
Apple can have any number of unreasonable restrictions - then it's down to the 3rd party vendors if they want to play in that market. Simply assuming Apple will be reasonable is a risky proposition.
They cancelled it because without the lightning connector, although still useful to many people, it would not be the device people pledged money for.
How could they pledge money for a device promising the Lightning connector when the connector had not been officially announced when the project began?
Were they pledging for a rumoured product? I guess they can receive a rumour in the mail after paying up.
While some (many in the tech community) share your complete lack of scruples, apparently Mr. Siminoff does not and did the morally acceptable thing which is to not take someone's money when he cannot deliver what he promised.
Ah, yes. The moral highground of a guy promising to deliver a feature that he does not have a licence for, gambling that he will get one late in the product design stage.
That's the kind of statement that might make sense if Apple and its connector was some kind of inherently unpredictable thing, like a hurricane or an earthquake or the results of cutting edge research. But it's not. It's an electronics company. They deliberately chose to make Lightning proprietary even though it's nothing more than a cable, and then kill this product for, apparently, no reason at all. How is this not Apples fault? Can you come up with any scenario in which you would accept that something was Apples fault?
Yes, there are a number of times where Apple has been at fault, but this is not one of them.
The connector *did not exist* when this product was conceived. They chose to make the new connector proprietary, but with a licensing scheme for third party manufacturers. The project starters gambled on what they thought those terms would be (and gambled that the connector would even be used at all, based on leaked product details) and then collected venture capital *without having everything nailed down*.
Had they waited and gone to Apple, and Apple would say no (as it has now), you can say "that sucks Apple!", but when you press ahead and promise to deliver features that you have not managed to officially secure the licence for then you are gambling. That gamble did not pay off.
If Apple had agreed to the inclusion of the port, and then changed the terms of the agreement after the fact, then that would be Apple's fault.
As it was, they did not approach Apple for a licence (or even the terms of the licence, since it did not exist at the time) until after they had promised they could deliver the feature.
No, you can't find a 25k maH one for $20... but you can find 5,000 aH ones.
The price differential makes the big one a bad deal. It doesn't have to be identical, it just has to attempt to fill a niche that other products already do *well enough* for less.
Look, I'm not claiming it's without merit - I use an Apple device, which is the definition of a more expensive product in a market where there are many other cheaper competitors that work "well enough" - just that if that is your business model, you have to be realistic about your expectations and be *totally sure* your market research and product details are bullet proof.
Dear Apple
Fuck you!
Yours sincerely
The sane people on the planet
Ah yes, the kickstarter project that began before the official release of the connector, that also features powered USB ports for charging "other devices with incompatible ports" and yet somehow the inability to roll in the Lightning port to a product that was begun before Apple even acknowledged it exists is "doomed".
I wonder, what's to stop iPhone 5 users from plugging in a Lightning cable into one of the powered USB ports on this device? Nothing? So why the need to cancel it?
Very odd.
$99 for a fucking USB hub? What the fuck is wrong with you? Not even Apple fans would be fooled by that garbage. Without a lightning cable built in to it, there is no point in buying one, period. End of story. If you want to buy a $99 USB hub, I will be happy to sell you one (that i snatch off of Amazon for $9.) Their high capacity battery option isn't bad but those too are very cheap (despite their claims) and I can easily get one for under $50 while they want $150 for the kickstarted version.
This is a clear cut example of Apple deciding to screw over consumers so they can be the only one to pillage their loyal base. Get over it.
I think you just accurately made my point for me.
The price of the device was the whole problem, since you can buy cheaper USB-compatible high-capacity chargers from Amazon for much less.
No one was complaining about the price of it - you brought that up - but the difference between the device with a built in Lighting cord and one without... is simply the USB>Lightning cord that comes with the iPhone.
ie, if it's a bad deal without the port then it was a bad deal to begin with. I think that realisation hit the owners of the project given that their original shipping date is around now. The product simply isn't viable.
Now the project owner has thrown his toys out of the pram because apparently the built in USB ports on the device will simply make it totally useless and non-viable because Apple denied them a licence for a connector that didn't exist at the start of the project.
Apple didn't "kill a kickstarter project" - the originator of the kickstarter project killed a kickstarter project.
Read the actual kickstarter page referenced in the summary. He promised it would work with the iphone 5 - it was a reasonable assumption given Apple's terms for licensing the connector for the iphone 4. When he found out he could not live up to his promise - i.e. he could not fulfill his kickstarter contract he had no choice but to cancel the project and start over.
Your characterization of his decision to not unilaterally change the terms of the kickstarter contract, something that might well get him sued by the people who gave him money under the original terms, as throwing "toys out of the pram" is ridiculous. It was the only responsible choice he had.
It has USB ports on it, so it would still work with the iPhone 5.
His choices were a) to ship it as it was originally designed (ie, with no Lightning connector because it didn't exist at the time) and provide the promised iPhone 5 compatibility via the USB ports that were always there, or b) cancel the project and go on record calling Apple "assholes", or c) cancel the project and go back for redesign and don't burn bridges with the technology giant that you want to licence a connector from.
He chose... poorly.
I had presumed that Apple wanted to have tight control over the lightening connector - that is to say, they wanted to maximize their profit - but geesh!
Way to act like Veruca Salt!
In what way? Their terms for licensing the "lightening [sic] connector" are well known, and this project started before the iPhone 5 was even released. Somehow it has become a deal breaker for the project, despite the connector not being officially announced when the project began.
Now the project owner has thrown his toys out of the pram because apparently the built in USB ports on the device will simply make it totally useless and non-viable because Apple denied them a licence for a connector that didn't exist at the start of the project.
Apple didn't "kill a kickstarter project" - the originator of the kickstarter project killed a kickstarter project.
How biased do have to be to post this? You keep saying over and over again that the connector was not announced when the project was announced. So what? The connector exists today. Apple denied them a license because they do want their connector to coexist with another connector because in their special universe, only apple products exist.
This level of arrogance is staggering. On top of it, you are not only supporting their arrogance but also trashing a bunch of guys that just wanted to make a simple combo connector. Dude that is pathetic. Apple is a company that makes some great products but are also filled with hubris, and I don't know why you can't let these two thoughts coexist in your head.
Right! you're getting it!
* The connector did not exist. The project began, promising support for this non-existent connector, such that denial of use of this non-existent connector is crucial for the product to succeed.
* The connector was announced.
* The project promised to add it.
* Finally, deep in development they discuss licencing with Apple, despite already promising they will include the connector.
* Apple said no.
* Project cancelled.
* Project starter calls Apple "assholes" in official quote.
Professional, guys. Really professional.
The only arrogance here is the project owners, who promised something that they could not deliver because they designed and developed something that they did not seek the licences to use until late in the game (or they simply tried to roll the Lightning connector in late in the product cycle),
Either way it is not Apple's fault that they released a new connector while this project was ongoing. Had they released it later on, would it still be Apple's fault they they changed the connector and now the product is obsolete (despite it having powered USB ports on it)?
Apple did not "kill" this project - they simply didn't licence a connector design *that did not exist when the project began*.
They cancelled it because without the lightning connector, although still useful to many people, it would not be the device people pledged money for.
How could they pledge money for a device promising the Lightning connector when the connector had not been officially announced when the project began?
Were they pledging for a rumoured product? I guess they can receive a rumour in the mail after paying up.