You're talking about desktop grade printer resolution which is not the same as commercial grade printer resolution (measured in LPI - lines per inch) and neither are the same as image resolution (DPI) which is a totally different thing.
300dpi for print is actually a lot lower than 300ppi for displays. Each dot for print is, depending on your technology, either black, cyan, magenta or yellow, or one of a very small (typically 4-16) shades of these colours.
You are confusing DPI (image resolution) and LPI (effectively printer resolution). They are not the same thing.
For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.
No.
For most average human adults, the limit is about 300 dpi.
Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience, there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.
How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me. The percentage of people who can visually tell the difference between a 300 dpi output and anything higher than that is very, very small. The number of people who can spot the difference at 400+ is not even a consideration for discussion. I'm sure there are some who can but don't even vaguely think that they in any way represent the norm.
Any manufacturer who targets a screen resolution above about 350 or so is just targeting big numbers for the marketing benefit - the average user will never be able to tell the difference.
Apple makes absolutely no pretenses of being an honest player...
I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. Not in the sense of "I disagree with you" but in the sense of "I have no clue what he's referring to".
The Veronica Mars kickstarter promised "You will receive a digital version of the movie within a few days of the movieâ(TM)s theatrical debut..."
A digital version. Last time I checked, while most people may dislike UltraViolet, it is a digital version.
Now, I understand the servers got hammered and there were issues with the process and Warner Brothers offered a refund so people could buy the movie from a competing digital store but they fulfilled their promise or made efforts to rectify the situation when their servers failed under the load.
Also, they made no promise of DRM free. Doing a search of the Veronica Mars Kickstarter page, I find exactly zero mentions of DRM so why you would think they owe you a DRM free movie is beyond me.
You're clearly itching to pick a fight and begging to justify torrenting the movie rather than paying for it but, sorry, you haven't cited so much as one valid complaint. They offered a digital version of the movie and they delivered a digital version of the movie. Users that encountered issues were offered a refund so they could obtain the movie elsewhere since their servers weren't up to the task rather than WB just pocketing the money and saying "well, try again another time".
Wait! One dickhead stops using Google Voice and that earns a frontpage article on Slashdot??
SERIOUSLY?!?
Ok, come the fuck on!!!
Can this site make even a minimal effort to not be total shit? For quite a long time, Slashdot was very educational and informative but, over the past few years, it has sunk to near-uselessness. It's only because some people steadfastly refuse to give up despite the fact they are fighting a losing battle that the site isn't entirely crap.
One guy stops using Google Voice and that earns a Slashdot article.
You obviously never collected comics. Geeks who did are fond of "what if?..." special issues because the exploration of the possibility of something weird is fun.
None of Apple's patents which are being enforced are essential to the difference between smartphones and dumbphones. Neither in the legal sense of standards essential patents nor in the sense of "without it, how will people know it's a smart phone?"
All their patents can be designed around.
As evidenced by the companies that have, you know, designed around them.
Ok, I'm certain I'm going to get modded into the stone age because, well, that's what happens on Slashdot nowadays so let's just get on with it.
First, the VAST majority of the patents involved in a mobile device are FRAND patents that are required for the phone to be, you know, a phone (plus the wifi and whatnot). And those patents are licensed at INCREDIBLY low rates per device because the inventor knows that they are going to make back their investment in the long run because EVERY device uses the patent. That is the value in a FRAND patent. That is why companies work so incredibly hard to get their invention involved in an industry standard - the value is long term. The value is in a steady stream of income, even if it is small per device, from everyone.
The other type of patents are the ones which Apple is enforcing in this case - non-FRAND patents. They are not, in any way, an "industry standard" and thus other manufacturers have a choice to a) pay whatever licensing fee they can negotiate with the patent holder or b) invent around it. Since it isn't REQUIRED, option b is available.
Now, the patent holder has the benefit that they are under no obligation to license the patent in question. With a FRAND patent, they do not have that choice. By agreeing to be part of an industry standard, the company agrees to license the patents at FAIR and REASONABLE rates and NON-DISCRIMINATORY. That means, EVERYONE can license the patent - the patent holder has no right to prevent a company from licensing it - and the rates MUST be fair and reasonable which equates with "very low because they make it up in bulk since everyone needs to license it." Thus, the 250,000 patents.
What trips up most people is the idea of "industry standard". It isn't a "well, everyone does it so it's standard". It is "companies pitched to be included in an industry standard that was being established by a board and went through an extensive review and development process". It is a legal term, not a description.
Apple's patents that they are enforcing aren't FRAND. They are under no obligation to license them to anyone. They are entirely within their right to not license them to anyone. Conversely, Samsung is also under no obligation to use them. They can agree to pay to license them or, alternatively, they can design around them and not infringe the patents.
Well, actually, there's another option, which Samsung opted for - infringe the patents and then drag the issue out in court and wage a PR war of misinformation. Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead.
Now, feel free to mod me down since I'm clearly an Apple fanboy despite speaking the truth and I've dared to impugn the honour of Samsung...
Oh, and lastly, can we SERIOUSLY get one or two story summaries that aren't clear and obvious flamebait? This site has become total shit in recent years and I see no recovery... sigh...
Wait. You just acknowledge that the VAST majority of malware comes from sideloaded apps and then make a snide comment about iOS because sideloading malware-laden apps isn't an option.
REALLY??
Only on Slashdot is the inability to load malware-riddled apps on your phone viewed as a negative...
White label tablets also include TV dongles that happen to run Android - for some reason, they track as "tablet". Presumably it's the most accurate of the choices available. Despite it not being a tablet, at all.
And there are a LOT of these TV dongles out there. For example, do a search on Amazon or eBay for "android tv dongle".
I would equate enforcing penalties with the numbers being under scrutiny but, sure, if you want to get picky about details like that - Apple's numbers are actionable if they are wrong while Gartner's are apparently pulled out of thin air. My point remains the same.
Sure, if you go with Gartner's numbers which undercut Apple's reported sales figures (you know, numbers that undergo SEC scrutiny for accuracy) by almost 4 million units while also adding in Android "white box" units that include TV dongles which track as tablets despite being not-at-all tablets while also clouding the results by reporting Apple's sales-to-end-users numbers with Android's shipped-into-channel numbers. So, yeah, if you cut Apple's numbers and artificially inflate Android's numbers, yes, Android is beating iOS in the tablet space.
And now you may mod me troll while claiming I'm just an Apple fanboy for speaking the truth.
I have such fond memories of when this site wasn't such a blatant tool of spin doctors for certain industry interests...
So, where's the added summary about the "related story" of how Google admits that Android's focus isn't on security and that malware writers should target their OS rather than Apple's or Microsoft's?
Or was that story only related when Slashdot was attempting to water down the discussion of Google's comments with a topic that actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with Google's comments?
Don't worry. I already know the answer to those questions.
It was nice when this site did a better job of disguising it's biases...
Ok, look. I know it's popular on Slashdot, especially with some submitters, to paint certain companies in as negative a light as possible and Apple is one of those companies but, good gawd, this is NOT NEWS!!
Here's a pro tip - companies the size of Apple, who invest billions (let me say that again - BILLIONS) of dollars into R&D also file for a LOT of patents. A vast majority (by a very wide margin) go nowhere other than the filing cabinet. They are patented because someone came up with an invention and, well, we live in a world where you patent inventions. Apple does it. Google does it. Microsoft does it. IBM. Samsung. HTC. The list goes on and on and on.
Implying that anything nefarious is happening because of one patent filing is absolutely, over the top, useless. If you are doing it for one company, you are very clearly and obviously trolling because, like I said, THEY ALL DO IT. I guarantee - I am willing to bet a year's salary - that if you look at every patent filing from the top 20 tech companies, you will find a notable number which are "nefarious" or "alarming".
In other words, THIS ISN'T NEWS. I don't care if it's Apple or Google or Samsung or whatever company you'd care to name. Filing a patent is not news. IMPLEMENTING a patent is news. Filing one is just business as usual.
Apple desperately needs to stay relevant with its continues to drop behind in market share worldwide...
Apple continues to grow their sales and Apple continues to pull in more profit than any other manufacturer (and only one other manufacturer is even close - all others are MILES AND MILES behind). Despite their market share being watered down due to cheap, inferior, "smartphones" that are really just feature phones running Android. I mean, really, for anyone using a top end smartphone, would you ever use, as your regular phone, one of the cheap options that are out there watering down the market share numbers? Do you seriously even vaguely put them in the same category as an iPhone or Galaxy S4 or HTC One?
I don't think Apple really cares about losing the bottom end of the market to subpar phones and I find it immensely amusing that people still think their loss of market share despite increasing sales is of any concern to them. If you think Apple cares about losing to a market in which they aren't even competing, then you're not paying attention.
Or, to put it in a car analogy so people understand, do you think that BMW and Audi care about $15k and less cars being sold? Protip: No. No they do not.
Did you even read the summary? Here - let me make it easy for you:
Right now, companies such as Apple, Google and others that issue so-called transparency reports are only allowed to report the volume of requests they get in increments of 1,000.
Did you get that? They didn't provide more detail because they are legally not allowed to beyond a range of 1000. If they could provide more detail, they would.
In fact, they are filing an amicus brief in the efforts of gaining permission to disclose numbers in greater detail.
Oh, and the list of companies fighting for permission to provide greater detail? Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook and LinkedIn. Notice Google, who you claim publishes the precise number of NSL requests, is on that list.
Let's have a look at Google's transparency report for the US:
Oh. Look at that - Google does not provide precise numbers of NSL, as you claim.
It's simple - the US makes it illegal for companies to disclose in any detail greater than units of 1000 how many requests for information they receive. Thus the numbers for the US are, shockingly, in units of 1000. For Apple and Google.
Samsung did some really good technical work, which almost everyone wanted to copy, so they agreed that the patents involved were "Standards Essential Patents"...
That's not quite accurate.
Samsung did some really good technical R&D work. The industry's standards body was establishing an industry standard and asked companies to suggest ideas for inclusion in this standard. Samsung, along with other companies, offered their technology into this industry standards process, all with the promise of offering their patents under FRAND terms. The standard was established.
The patents didn't become a Standards Essential Patent because everyone used it. It became SEP because Samsung offered it for use in the industry standard technology _AND THEN_ everyone used it.
The most common misconception on Slashdot is that Samsung is being punished for making a popular patent that became an industry standard. It is very important to understand that this is not the case. They _offered_ their patents up for inclusion in a standards setting process and everyone uses those patents now because they were accepted into the technology. They are popular patents _because_ they were included into the standards essential technology.
I know it's popular to imply that FRAND patents have no value but they have enormous value - they create a consistent, long term revenue stream since any company involved in the industry almost certainly will make use of that industry standard technology and thus will license the patent.
That enormous value is different from non-FRAND patents which have their value in being able to selectively license the patents or not, as you choose, and to license for whatever rate you and the other party can agree upon. That might result in people designing around your patent and you getting nothing at all or it might result in you earning a massive payday or prevent competitors from copying you.
FRAND and non-FRAND patents both have tremendous value but their value is different. When a company elects to offer their patent to a standards body for inclusion in a Standards Essential technology, they are electing to grain the long term, consistent licensing fees from a large number of companies licensing the patent. And that's incredibly valuable.
And "Fair and Reasonable" hasn't been difficult to interpret until Motorola and Samsung decided to selectively target companies (primarily Apple but also Microsoft and some others). If everyone abides by their FRAND promises, there is no problem. It's only a problem when a few start to break their FRAND promises.
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about desktop grade printer resolution which is not the same as commercial grade printer resolution (measured in LPI - lines per inch) and neither are the same as image resolution (DPI) which is a totally different thing.
Printer resolution (LPI) and image resolution (DPI) are two different things.
300dpi for print is actually a lot lower than 300ppi for displays. Each dot for print is, depending on your technology, either black, cyan, magenta or yellow, or one of a very small (typically 4-16) shades of these colours.
You are confusing DPI (image resolution) and LPI (effectively printer resolution). They are not the same thing.
For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.
No.
For most average human adults, the limit is about 300 dpi.
Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience, there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.
How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me. The percentage of people who can visually tell the difference between a 300 dpi output and anything higher than that is very, very small. The number of people who can spot the difference at 400+ is not even a consideration for discussion. I'm sure there are some who can but don't even vaguely think that they in any way represent the norm.
Any manufacturer who targets a screen resolution above about 350 or so is just targeting big numbers for the marketing benefit - the average user will never be able to tell the difference.
Apple makes absolutely no pretenses of being an honest player...
I literally have no idea what you're talking about here. Not in the sense of "I disagree with you" but in the sense of "I have no clue what he's referring to".
I ask this seriously, could you please clarify?
The Veronica Mars kickstarter promised "You will receive a digital version of the movie within a few days of the movieâ(TM)s theatrical debut..."
A digital version. Last time I checked, while most people may dislike UltraViolet, it is a digital version.
Now, I understand the servers got hammered and there were issues with the process and Warner Brothers offered a refund so people could buy the movie from a competing digital store but they fulfilled their promise or made efforts to rectify the situation when their servers failed under the load.
Also, they made no promise of DRM free. Doing a search of the Veronica Mars Kickstarter page, I find exactly zero mentions of DRM so why you would think they owe you a DRM free movie is beyond me.
You're clearly itching to pick a fight and begging to justify torrenting the movie rather than paying for it but, sorry, you haven't cited so much as one valid complaint. They offered a digital version of the movie and they delivered a digital version of the movie. Users that encountered issues were offered a refund so they could obtain the movie elsewhere since their servers weren't up to the task rather than WB just pocketing the money and saying "well, try again another time".
I see absolutely nothing nefarious here.
Much geek rage about nothing.
Wait! One dickhead stops using Google Voice and that earns a frontpage article on Slashdot??
SERIOUSLY?!?
Ok, come the fuck on!!!
Can this site make even a minimal effort to not be total shit? For quite a long time, Slashdot was very educational and informative but, over the past few years, it has sunk to near-uselessness. It's only because some people steadfastly refuse to give up despite the fact they are fighting a losing battle that the site isn't entirely crap.
One guy stops using Google Voice and that earns a Slashdot article.
Wow.
You obviously never collected comics. Geeks who did are fond of "what if?..." special issues because the exploration of the possibility of something weird is fun.
You remember what fun was like, right?
Don't worry - I'll get off your lawn now.
You have utterly no concept of how FRAND patents work nor virtually any of the facts in this rather large situation.
Thus the subject of my original post.
None of Apple's patents which are being enforced are essential to the difference between smartphones and dumbphones. Neither in the legal sense of standards essential patents nor in the sense of "without it, how will people know it's a smart phone?"
All their patents can be designed around.
As evidenced by the companies that have, you know, designed around them.
Ok, I'm certain I'm going to get modded into the stone age because, well, that's what happens on Slashdot nowadays so let's just get on with it.
First, the VAST majority of the patents involved in a mobile device are FRAND patents that are required for the phone to be, you know, a phone (plus the wifi and whatnot). And those patents are licensed at INCREDIBLY low rates per device because the inventor knows that they are going to make back their investment in the long run because EVERY device uses the patent. That is the value in a FRAND patent. That is why companies work so incredibly hard to get their invention involved in an industry standard - the value is long term. The value is in a steady stream of income, even if it is small per device, from everyone.
The other type of patents are the ones which Apple is enforcing in this case - non-FRAND patents. They are not, in any way, an "industry standard" and thus other manufacturers have a choice to a) pay whatever licensing fee they can negotiate with the patent holder or b) invent around it. Since it isn't REQUIRED, option b is available.
Now, the patent holder has the benefit that they are under no obligation to license the patent in question. With a FRAND patent, they do not have that choice. By agreeing to be part of an industry standard, the company agrees to license the patents at FAIR and REASONABLE rates and NON-DISCRIMINATORY. That means, EVERYONE can license the patent - the patent holder has no right to prevent a company from licensing it - and the rates MUST be fair and reasonable which equates with "very low because they make it up in bulk since everyone needs to license it." Thus, the 250,000 patents.
What trips up most people is the idea of "industry standard". It isn't a "well, everyone does it so it's standard". It is "companies pitched to be included in an industry standard that was being established by a board and went through an extensive review and development process". It is a legal term, not a description.
Apple's patents that they are enforcing aren't FRAND. They are under no obligation to license them to anyone. They are entirely within their right to not license them to anyone. Conversely, Samsung is also under no obligation to use them. They can agree to pay to license them or, alternatively, they can design around them and not infringe the patents.
Well, actually, there's another option, which Samsung opted for - infringe the patents and then drag the issue out in court and wage a PR war of misinformation. Most companies, however, either agree to license the patents or, if they can't reach an agreeable rate with the patent holder, design around the patents instead.
Now, feel free to mod me down since I'm clearly an Apple fanboy despite speaking the truth and I've dared to impugn the honour of Samsung...
Oh, and lastly, can we SERIOUSLY get one or two story summaries that aren't clear and obvious flamebait? This site has become total shit in recent years and I see no recovery... sigh...
...(something which isn't even an option on iOS).
Wait. You just acknowledge that the VAST majority of malware comes from sideloaded apps and then make a snide comment about iOS because sideloading malware-laden apps isn't an option.
REALLY??
Only on Slashdot is the inability to load malware-riddled apps on your phone viewed as a negative...
White label tablets also include TV dongles that happen to run Android - for some reason, they track as "tablet". Presumably it's the most accurate of the choices available. Despite it not being a tablet, at all.
And there are a LOT of these TV dongles out there. For example, do a search on Amazon or eBay for "android tv dongle".
Skewed and distorted numbers.
I would equate enforcing penalties with the numbers being under scrutiny but, sure, if you want to get picky about details like that - Apple's numbers are actionable if they are wrong while Gartner's are apparently pulled out of thin air. My point remains the same.
Sure, if you go with Gartner's numbers which undercut Apple's reported sales figures (you know, numbers that undergo SEC scrutiny for accuracy) by almost 4 million units while also adding in Android "white box" units that include TV dongles which track as tablets despite being not-at-all tablets while also clouding the results by reporting Apple's sales-to-end-users numbers with Android's shipped-into-channel numbers. So, yeah, if you cut Apple's numbers and artificially inflate Android's numbers, yes, Android is beating iOS in the tablet space.
And now you may mod me troll while claiming I'm just an Apple fanboy for speaking the truth.
I have such fond memories of when this site wasn't such a blatant tool of spin doctors for certain industry interests...
So, where's the added summary about the "related story" of how Google admits that Android's focus isn't on security and that malware writers should target their OS rather than Apple's or Microsoft's?
Or was that story only related when Slashdot was attempting to water down the discussion of Google's comments with a topic that actually had nothing what-so-ever to do with Google's comments?
Don't worry. I already know the answer to those questions.
It was nice when this site did a better job of disguising it's biases...
A minor level performer is attempting to get his name out there with the lamest publicity stunt ever.
So Slashdot posted it to the front page.
Yay Slashdot...
Ok, look. I know it's popular on Slashdot, especially with some submitters, to paint certain companies in as negative a light as possible and Apple is one of those companies but, good gawd, this is NOT NEWS!!
Here's a pro tip - companies the size of Apple, who invest billions (let me say that again - BILLIONS) of dollars into R&D also file for a LOT of patents. A vast majority (by a very wide margin) go nowhere other than the filing cabinet. They are patented because someone came up with an invention and, well, we live in a world where you patent inventions. Apple does it. Google does it. Microsoft does it. IBM. Samsung. HTC. The list goes on and on and on.
Implying that anything nefarious is happening because of one patent filing is absolutely, over the top, useless. If you are doing it for one company, you are very clearly and obviously trolling because, like I said, THEY ALL DO IT. I guarantee - I am willing to bet a year's salary - that if you look at every patent filing from the top 20 tech companies, you will find a notable number which are "nefarious" or "alarming".
In other words, THIS ISN'T NEWS. I don't care if it's Apple or Google or Samsung or whatever company you'd care to name. Filing a patent is not news. IMPLEMENTING a patent is news. Filing one is just business as usual.
That sounds like a great day. I'm not a lawyer but I suspect a lawyer would LOVE to get their hands on this situation with an eye on a big payday.
Apple desperately needs to stay relevant with its continues to drop behind in market share worldwide...
Apple continues to grow their sales and Apple continues to pull in more profit than any other manufacturer (and only one other manufacturer is even close - all others are MILES AND MILES behind). Despite their market share being watered down due to cheap, inferior, "smartphones" that are really just feature phones running Android. I mean, really, for anyone using a top end smartphone, would you ever use, as your regular phone, one of the cheap options that are out there watering down the market share numbers? Do you seriously even vaguely put them in the same category as an iPhone or Galaxy S4 or HTC One?
I don't think Apple really cares about losing the bottom end of the market to subpar phones and I find it immensely amusing that people still think their loss of market share despite increasing sales is of any concern to them. If you think Apple cares about losing to a market in which they aren't even competing, then you're not paying attention.
Or, to put it in a car analogy so people understand, do you think that BMW and Audi care about $15k and less cars being sold? Protip: No. No they do not.
As a Safari user, where's my cheque?
Oh. That's right. My privacy was invaded but governments are going to get the money.
That seems fair. ...
Did you even read the summary? Here - let me make it easy for you:
Right now, companies such as Apple, Google and others that issue so-called transparency reports are only allowed to report the volume of requests they get in increments of 1,000.
Did you get that? They didn't provide more detail because they are legally not allowed to beyond a range of 1000. If they could provide more detail, they would.
In fact, they are filing an amicus brief in the efforts of gaining permission to disclose numbers in greater detail.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/11/05/apple-court-filing-asks-for-transparency-on-government-user-information-requests
Oh, and the list of companies fighting for permission to provide greater detail? Google, Microsoft, Yahoo!, Facebook and LinkedIn. Notice Google, who you claim publishes the precise number of NSL requests, is on that list.
Let's have a look at Google's transparency report for the US:
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/
Oh. Look at that - Google does not provide precise numbers of NSL, as you claim.
It's simple - the US makes it illegal for companies to disclose in any detail greater than units of 1000 how many requests for information they receive. Thus the numbers for the US are, shockingly, in units of 1000. For Apple and Google.
Samsung did some really good technical work, which almost everyone wanted to copy, so they agreed that the patents involved were "Standards Essential Patents"...
That's not quite accurate.
Samsung did some really good technical R&D work. The industry's standards body was establishing an industry standard and asked companies to suggest ideas for inclusion in this standard. Samsung, along with other companies, offered their technology into this industry standards process, all with the promise of offering their patents under FRAND terms. The standard was established.
The patents didn't become a Standards Essential Patent because everyone used it. It became SEP because Samsung offered it for use in the industry standard technology _AND THEN_ everyone used it.
The most common misconception on Slashdot is that Samsung is being punished for making a popular patent that became an industry standard. It is very important to understand that this is not the case. They _offered_ their patents up for inclusion in a standards setting process and everyone uses those patents now because they were accepted into the technology. They are popular patents _because_ they were included into the standards essential technology.
The rest of your post, however, is spot-on.
I know it's popular to imply that FRAND patents have no value but they have enormous value - they create a consistent, long term revenue stream since any company involved in the industry almost certainly will make use of that industry standard technology and thus will license the patent.
That enormous value is different from non-FRAND patents which have their value in being able to selectively license the patents or not, as you choose, and to license for whatever rate you and the other party can agree upon. That might result in people designing around your patent and you getting nothing at all or it might result in you earning a massive payday or prevent competitors from copying you.
FRAND and non-FRAND patents both have tremendous value but their value is different. When a company elects to offer their patent to a standards body for inclusion in a Standards Essential technology, they are electing to grain the long term, consistent licensing fees from a large number of companies licensing the patent. And that's incredibly valuable.
And "Fair and Reasonable" hasn't been difficult to interpret until Motorola and Samsung decided to selectively target companies (primarily Apple but also Microsoft and some others). If everyone abides by their FRAND promises, there is no problem. It's only a problem when a few start to break their FRAND promises.
Never abused SEP patents covered by FRAND promises. No. They haven't.