Um, what? From your own article: "Qualcomm, Apple said, is illegally double dipping by selling the chips it makes and also licensing its technology." Did you read the article you linked because it says the opposite of what you are claiming.
I don't know. You can't really anticipate every situation. I've had training classes where machines refused to work for some unknown reason. They work for some people and not others. They work the week before, the hour before. etc. As such I didn't have time to troubleshoot the exact problem. I had students move to other machines. IT just re-imaged the faulty ones.
I'm guessing IE would not work for the demo either is the reason he didn't use it or at least it would require downloading multiple addons like Silverlight, etc. The demo was using newer technologies and IE has been feature frozen for a few years now.
On paper Qualcomm has to follow FRAND licensing. The complaint of Apple and others is that it does not. One of the complaints of Apple is that Qualcomm is charging them for licensing multiple times.
There is a reason Qualcomm is in the position they are - they did a lot of R&D and pushed cellular forward. On the other hand Apple has done what, "invent" round corners?
That's two false dichotomies isn't it? It implies that Qualcomm didn't use anti competitive practices in addition to doing R&D work. Also it implies that Apple hasn't done any R&D work because Qualcomm has. Both have.
Not even MS can get Edge to work when they want it to work. That's why I don't use it. Maybe in the future when it's actually usable will I look into it.
Better tech?? HDMI introduces jitter; if you're after serious sound, you still use TOSLINK - which Alpine is finally offering in their latest mobile audio equipment.
I would think if you were serious about jitter, you'd get equipment with jitter-reduction. Also my understanding that toslink isn't immune to jitter either as it affects all digital signals. With toslink being optical it is less prone to EM interference but long toslink cables can still have jitter.
Hey it's up to you what parameters to set but if one of the parameters is: "I'm not buying new equipment" even cheap ones then you've sort of pigeonholed yourself. I'm not really sure what you mean by "awful DRM crap" as both Firestick and Chromecast work perfectly fine for use case presented above. I'm also not sure what you mean by "more than one device" as a cable doesn't plug into more than one device at a time whereas you can stream into from multiple devices to multiple devices with multiple Chromecasts and Firesticks. If multichannel isn't as important, there's always Bluetooth transmitter/receivers for about $20 each way.
It is slightly newsworthy in that it hasn't been feasible to make phones without Qualcomm chips until recently. For smaller companies, it would take a lot of work not to use Qualcomm chips/tech that most companies end up paying Qualcomm's royalty fees as there was little they could do. With Intel trying to make modems and Apple willing to invest the necessary R&D to do so, it means trouble for Qualcomm. Because if Apple is successful, other companies like Samsung can use the same technology as Apple.
I don't know who is right in the Qualcomm/Apple dispute but when a lot of money is at stake, companies will seek alternatives. At the heart of the dispute is $1B that Apple claims Qualcomm owes them for rebates. Apple says Qualcomm stopped delivering quarterly rebates in retaliation of Apple cooperating with the South Korean investigation.
I've honestly NEVER used an optical connection for sound.
The only use case that I see these days is OTA broadcasts from older TVs to an A/V receiver. People can get a digital TV Tuner box with HDMI for under $50 but it's another box that they don't really need. But eventually this problem will go away when they get newer TVs with ARC.
Also why bother with cables at all? Using wifi or Bluetooth to connect devices is currently the trend. Yes Bluetooth is really only for stereo streaming at the moment from your device to a speaker but if you are only streaming music it doesn't have to be 5.1. Otherwise wifi is filling in the gap.
The problem I have with HDMI audio is that a video signal must accompany the audio signal for it to work. I use Toslink for my computer to send stereo audio to my amp for my bookshelf computer speakers.
In the future I can see interconnects being handled more with wifi/ethernet. Optical/analog will still be used for minimalist set ups like yours but every media box/game console/TV etc will start to use wifi to do that if they haven't already. And these boxes are already cheap. For example in your case, Google Chromecast and Amazon Firestick are $35 USD, $40 USD respectively and both have an extremely tiny footprint and low power requirements.
Which I see is the long term problem with optical cable: The uses for it are dwindling due to better technology. It used to be that it had best sound along with digital coax. For A/V equipment, now that's being handled by HDMI which also combines digital video as well so that's one less cable to connect.
The other use is to interconnect devices like Rokus and Apple TVs which is slowly being replaced by wifi/ethernet as the bandwidth and protocols for connecting are better. For example, I want to play this a video clip/song/audio book from my smart phone to my TV. Before I would have to physically connect cables next to the TV. Now, I open an app or it is built into the functionality of my phone. I can stream from anywhere within my wifi network's range. I can play it on my living TV from the kitchen.
I guess you really don't know Firefox as this article was talking about the built-in password manager. Not an extension. Speaking of extension, you are aware the current integration is not going to work after Firefox 57?
And if you ignore someone breaking multiple rules then don't rules become meaningless? Also the phrase that is ignored is "this time". This time, no immediate harm was a result.
(I’m assuming even Windows and macOS have password managers for ages now. I haven't checked tough.)
Then you would assume wrong. Windows has not had a central password manager "for ages" now. MacOS has one integrated with Safari but it does not work directly with other browsers. The integration with Safari means that it detects the presence of a password dialog and suggests a random password for the site that more or less obeys the site rules. If you agree then it saves the password for you if you want. In MacOS the password manager has a feature to externally generate passwords with options to set the rules and difficulty so you could use it manually with other browsers.
What it really send a message about is a draconian corporate culture. It tells other employees to live in fear. And random fear at that. Robert Powell, the engineer who lost a prototype iPhone at a bar years ago, still appears to be employed there according to LinkedIn. So now it looks more like a campaign of terror than "rule enforcement".
Only if you equate all actions as equal. The other engineer lost a prototype phone. This engineer allowed his daughter to film at Apple (which is clearly against the rules) AND showed her a prototype (which is also clearly against the rules) AND allowed her to film said prototype phone. It wasn't something out his control or accidental. See the difference?
Yes, he is in breach of contract, which is why he was fired. But what actual harm was done to Apple by this?
So it's okay to breach rules as long as no one is harmed? What kind of message does that send to other employees? You can break the rules all you want if no one gets hurt?
Summarily firing him sends all kinds of bad messages, like that they think great engineers grow on trees and everyone leaps at the opportunity to work for the great, mighty Apple, and that they don't care about morale and expect the rest their employees to drink deep of the company Koolaid that this firing was totally justified. Must be a stressful place to work, a worse sweatshop than most top tech companies, many of which have a bad reputation that way.
It wasn't like his daughter secretly filmed it. He knew and allowed his daughter to film at Apple which was already against rules. He also let her film his iPhone X which was a prototype. Then she posted it on YouTube.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, what? From your own article: "Qualcomm, Apple said, is illegally double dipping by selling the chips it makes and also licensing its technology." Did you read the article you linked because it says the opposite of what you are claiming.
I don't know. You can't really anticipate every situation. I've had training classes where machines refused to work for some unknown reason. They work for some people and not others. They work the week before, the hour before. etc. As such I didn't have time to troubleshoot the exact problem. I had students move to other machines. IT just re-imaged the faulty ones.
The news is that if Apple is successful other phone manufacturers might have viable alternatives to Qualcomm.
I'm guessing IE would not work for the demo either is the reason he didn't use it or at least it would require downloading multiple addons like Silverlight, etc. The demo was using newer technologies and IE has been feature frozen for a few years now.
On paper Qualcomm has to follow FRAND licensing. The complaint of Apple and others is that it does not. One of the complaints of Apple is that Qualcomm is charging them for licensing multiple times.
There is a reason Qualcomm is in the position they are - they did a lot of R&D and pushed cellular forward. On the other hand Apple has done what, "invent" round corners?
That's two false dichotomies isn't it? It implies that Qualcomm didn't use anti competitive practices in addition to doing R&D work. Also it implies that Apple hasn't done any R&D work because Qualcomm has. Both have.
Not even MS can get Edge to work when they want it to work. That's why I don't use it. Maybe in the future when it's actually usable will I look into it.
Better tech?? HDMI introduces jitter; if you're after serious sound, you still use TOSLINK - which Alpine is finally offering in their latest mobile audio equipment.
I would think if you were serious about jitter, you'd get equipment with jitter-reduction. Also my understanding that toslink isn't immune to jitter either as it affects all digital signals. With toslink being optical it is less prone to EM interference but long toslink cables can still have jitter.
The question is are they gold or "gold**"
**Gold-colored, may not contain any amount of the element gold, void where prohibited, restrictions apply.
Hey it's up to you what parameters to set but if one of the parameters is: "I'm not buying new equipment" even cheap ones then you've sort of pigeonholed yourself. I'm not really sure what you mean by "awful DRM crap" as both Firestick and Chromecast work perfectly fine for use case presented above. I'm also not sure what you mean by "more than one device" as a cable doesn't plug into more than one device at a time whereas you can stream into from multiple devices to multiple devices with multiple Chromecasts and Firesticks. If multichannel isn't as important, there's always Bluetooth transmitter/receivers for about $20 each way.
It is slightly newsworthy in that it hasn't been feasible to make phones without Qualcomm chips until recently. For smaller companies, it would take a lot of work not to use Qualcomm chips/tech that most companies end up paying Qualcomm's royalty fees as there was little they could do. With Intel trying to make modems and Apple willing to invest the necessary R&D to do so, it means trouble for Qualcomm. Because if Apple is successful, other companies like Samsung can use the same technology as Apple.
I don't know who is right in the Qualcomm/Apple dispute but when a lot of money is at stake, companies will seek alternatives. At the heart of the dispute is $1B that Apple claims Qualcomm owes them for rebates. Apple says Qualcomm stopped delivering quarterly rebates in retaliation of Apple cooperating with the South Korean investigation.
I've honestly NEVER used an optical connection for sound.
The only use case that I see these days is OTA broadcasts from older TVs to an A/V receiver. People can get a digital TV Tuner box with HDMI for under $50 but it's another box that they don't really need. But eventually this problem will go away when they get newer TVs with ARC.
Also why bother with cables at all? Using wifi or Bluetooth to connect devices is currently the trend. Yes Bluetooth is really only for stereo streaming at the moment from your device to a speaker but if you are only streaming music it doesn't have to be 5.1. Otherwise wifi is filling in the gap.
You didn't spring for the platinum optical toslink, you cheap bastard? What would you leave behind for your children, you selfish poser! :P
The problem I have with HDMI audio is that a video signal must accompany the audio signal for it to work. I use Toslink for my computer to send stereo audio to my amp for my bookshelf computer speakers.
In the future I can see interconnects being handled more with wifi/ethernet. Optical/analog will still be used for minimalist set ups like yours but every media box/game console/TV etc will start to use wifi to do that if they haven't already. And these boxes are already cheap. For example in your case, Google Chromecast and Amazon Firestick are $35 USD, $40 USD respectively and both have an extremely tiny footprint and low power requirements.
Which I see is the long term problem with optical cable: The uses for it are dwindling due to better technology. It used to be that it had best sound along with digital coax. For A/V equipment, now that's being handled by HDMI which also combines digital video as well so that's one less cable to connect.
The other use is to interconnect devices like Rokus and Apple TVs which is slowly being replaced by wifi/ethernet as the bandwidth and protocols for connecting are better. For example, I want to play this a video clip/song/audio book from my smart phone to my TV. Before I would have to physically connect cables next to the TV. Now, I open an app or it is built into the functionality of my phone. I can stream from anywhere within my wifi network's range. I can play it on my living TV from the kitchen.
I guess you really don't know Firefox as this article was talking about the built-in password manager. Not an extension. Speaking of extension, you are aware the current integration is not going to work after Firefox 57?
And if you ignore someone breaking multiple rules then don't rules become meaningless? Also the phrase that is ignored is "this time". This time, no immediate harm was a result.
Does it go to 11?
(I’m assuming even Windows and macOS have password managers for ages now. I haven't checked tough.)
Then you would assume wrong. Windows has not had a central password manager "for ages" now. MacOS has one integrated with Safari but it does not work directly with other browsers. The integration with Safari means that it detects the presence of a password dialog and suggests a random password for the site that more or less obeys the site rules. If you agree then it saves the password for you if you want. In MacOS the password manager has a feature to externally generate passwords with options to set the rules and difficulty so you could use it manually with other browsers.
I think one complaint is that it shows you all your passwords and not just a selected password.
What it really send a message about is a draconian corporate culture. It tells other employees to live in fear. And random fear at that. Robert Powell, the engineer who lost a prototype iPhone at a bar years ago, still appears to be employed there according to LinkedIn. So now it looks more like a campaign of terror than "rule enforcement".
Only if you equate all actions as equal. The other engineer lost a prototype phone. This engineer allowed his daughter to film at Apple (which is clearly against the rules) AND showed her a prototype (which is also clearly against the rules) AND allowed her to film said prototype phone. It wasn't something out his control or accidental. See the difference?
Yes, he is in breach of contract, which is why he was fired. But what actual harm was done to Apple by this?
So it's okay to breach rules as long as no one is harmed? What kind of message does that send to other employees? You can break the rules all you want if no one gets hurt?
Summarily firing him sends all kinds of bad messages, like that they think great engineers grow on trees and everyone leaps at the opportunity to work for the great, mighty Apple, and that they don't care about morale and expect the rest their employees to drink deep of the company Koolaid that this firing was totally justified. Must be a stressful place to work, a worse sweatshop than most top tech companies, many of which have a bad reputation that way.
It wasn't like his daughter secretly filmed it. He knew and allowed his daughter to film at Apple which was already against rules. He also let her film his iPhone X which was a prototype. Then she posted it on YouTube.
Or better yet: "We don't know everything and there is still much science to be done."