My point about the prepayment arrangement wasn't to suggest that Apple have laid claim to this specific panel, it was simply to say that the current lawsuit has no effect on that arrangement (as was suggested in your comment)
I didn't leave it out. You didn't mention it in your comment, therefore I didn't mention it either.
That aside, the 'special pricing' arrangement refers to the purchase of displays, for which Apple has invested in the form of multi-billion dollar prepayments. The payments have already been made up front, both in order to secure low price and a large degree of exclusivity.
Samsung have the cash already, and the contract is signed.
Isn't Apple severing ties with Samsung over their phone being to similar to an iPhone?
Not quite. Sure they are suing them, but Samsung remains a supplier of components for Apple's products.
If so, I wonder what would happen if Samsung pushes this towards Android and Blackberry for their tables
Android device manufacturers and RIM will certainly buy some of these, in the same way they buy panels from Samsung already. The issue though is one of cost. Unless you can buy in the volumes that Apple do, and can afford multiple-billion dollar prepayments like Apple do, then you pay a higher price for those panels. Your options are then to sell your product at a higher price to consumers, or sell it at a finer margin.
Now before somebody posts that Apple would be the biggest purchaser, so Samsung would be hurting them self.
1) Apple is currently suing Samsung.
That doesn't mean they would stop supplying to Apple, nor does it mean Apple would stop buying from Samsung. Samsung has two core businesses: selling products to end users, and manufacturing components. They only compete with Apple in the first.
2) Samsung can only produce so many of these screens (high reject rate).
That's true, but no different than how it works with other display types they already manufacture.
3) if Android/Blackberry devices can use up the supply that Samsung can produce, there is no loss.
Enough Android devices get shipped to use up the supply, sure. But because the device manufacturers can't buy at the low cost Apple can, and can't offer up the multi-billion dollar prepayments needed by Samsung to built the plants and buy the necessary machinery, it tends not to happen.
To be fair, Apple have said that with the iPhone retina display the pixels are indistinguishable at the distance you hold the phone, not just any distance.
The headline is, IMO, little more than link-bait. It could just as easily (and far more accurately) stated that Sony has implied a link between the activities of Anonymous and the recent PSN hack.
At no point has Sony said the PSN hack was the work of Anonymous, which is what the headline certainly states. Sony has yet to "officially blame" anyone.
Both make clear reference to the file placed on the server which bears the hallmarks of Anonymous, but neither statement "officially blames Anonymous" for the PSN hack.
Who is to say it is? That's a pretty wild assumption.
The creators of the 'iPhoneTracker' app (Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden) which analyses the data stored and represents it visually on a map have done some extensive research into this and have found no evidence that the data is transferred across the network to Apple, or anyone else.
That's not to say that I feel comfortable about the data being stored for so long in the first place, but suggesting that it's being collected and stored on Apple's servers needs at least a shred of evidence before I'd take that suggestion seriously.
You'd have to give Apple the data for them to do that.
Unlike your cell carrier, Apple isn't keeping tabs on where you've been. The data is being stored on the device, and on the computer it's sync'd with. Nowhere else.
Which is why I'm not quite so up in arms about this, because the data doesn't get transferred to another entity. It's on the device, and on the computer that device gets sync'd with, and nowhere else.
Not quite. The Samsung F700 was shown for the first time in Feb 2007, but it wasn't commercially available then. A quick search of the web for 'Samsung F700 release date' yields a large number of message board postings from people seeking the release date, with the responses being anything from 'September' to 'December' of 2007.
I'm doubtful Apple will successfully challenge Samsung's choice of hardware design (weren't most phones rectangular?) but there's merit to suggest that Samsung's software decisions were heavily influenced by Apple's. Given the eventual release of the phone wasn't until later in 2007, sufficient time was available for Samsung to make changes to the UI.
Slashdot Mirror
One man's Apple premium is another man's Dell discount.
Because despite the surveys, they're selling by the bucket load?
This.
My point about the prepayment arrangement wasn't to suggest that Apple have laid claim to this specific panel, it was simply to say that the current lawsuit has no effect on that arrangement (as was suggested in your comment)
I didn't leave it out. You didn't mention it in your comment, therefore I didn't mention it either.
That aside, the 'special pricing' arrangement refers to the purchase of displays, for which Apple has invested in the form of multi-billion dollar prepayments. The payments have already been made up front, both in order to secure low price and a large degree of exclusivity.
Samsung have the cash already, and the contract is signed.
72 virgins in paradise?
Isn't Apple severing ties with Samsung over their phone being to similar to an iPhone?
Not quite. Sure they are suing them, but Samsung remains a supplier of components for Apple's products.
If so, I wonder what would happen if Samsung pushes this towards Android and Blackberry for their tables
Android device manufacturers and RIM will certainly buy some of these, in the same way they buy panels from Samsung already. The issue though is one of cost. Unless you can buy in the volumes that Apple do, and can afford multiple-billion dollar prepayments like Apple do, then you pay a higher price for those panels. Your options are then to sell your product at a higher price to consumers, or sell it at a finer margin.
Now before somebody posts that Apple would be the biggest purchaser, so Samsung would be hurting them self. 1) Apple is currently suing Samsung.
That doesn't mean they would stop supplying to Apple, nor does it mean Apple would stop buying from Samsung. Samsung has two core businesses: selling products to end users, and manufacturing components. They only compete with Apple in the first.
2) Samsung can only produce so many of these screens (high reject rate).
That's true, but no different than how it works with other display types they already manufacture.
3) if Android/Blackberry devices can use up the supply that Samsung can produce, there is no loss.
Enough Android devices get shipped to use up the supply, sure. But because the device manufacturers can't buy at the low cost Apple can, and can't offer up the multi-billion dollar prepayments needed by Samsung to built the plants and buy the necessary machinery, it tends not to happen.
To be fair, Apple have said that with the iPhone retina display the pixels are indistinguishable at the distance you hold the phone, not just any distance.
I wear a balaclava and plastic gloves when browsing.
...they remained on track to complete the change on time, and the project didn't go off the rails.
(even the third one, if we count individual EU states separately).
I'd certainly hope we'd count individual EU 'states' seperately, as they are after all separate countries.
Most people seem to just run any old javascripts by default, without having the first clue what it might be doing.
Most people don't, and never will, understand what JavaScript even is. They're not stupid people, they're just ordinary people.
...until it can run Duke Nukem Forever.
The headline is, IMO, little more than link-bait. It could just as easily (and far more accurately) stated that Sony has implied a link between the activities of Anonymous and the recent PSN hack.
At no point has Sony said the PSN hack was the work of Anonymous, which is what the headline certainly states. Sony has yet to "officially blame" anyone.
You've quoted the Reuters article, but not the Sony statement.
The PlayStation blog and Sony's statement to The US House of Representatives can be found via the following links:
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/05/04/sonys-response-to-the-u-s-house-of-representatives/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/playstationblog/sets/72157626521862165/
Both make clear reference to the file placed on the server which bears the hallmarks of Anonymous, but neither statement "officially blames Anonymous" for the PSN hack.
Quite sure, thank you.
Entirely. The Slashdot headline states "Sony Officially Blames Anonymous For PSN Hack". Sony has done no such thing.
Sony has made a link between the actions of a group it refers to as 'Anonymous' and the hack. It has not stated that Anonymous carried out the hack.
Slashdot have misrepresented what Sony has stated.
The Slashdot headline isn't just misleading, it's a complete fabrication.
A controller pan? Is there going to be Kitchen Hero game?
All part of the plan to attract more female gamers.
Only joking...
Is there going to be Kitchen Hero game?
All part of their plan to attract more female gamers.
Only joking.......
If you see a stylus, they blew it.
Who is to say it is? That's a pretty wild assumption.
The creators of the 'iPhoneTracker' app (Alasdair Allan and Pete Warden) which analyses the data stored and represents it visually on a map have done some extensive research into this and have found no evidence that the data is transferred across the network to Apple, or anyone else.
That's not to say that I feel comfortable about the data being stored for so long in the first place, but suggesting that it's being collected and stored on Apple's servers needs at least a shred of evidence before I'd take that suggestion seriously.
You'd have to give Apple the data for them to do that.
Unlike your cell carrier, Apple isn't keeping tabs on where you've been. The data is being stored on the device, and on the computer it's sync'd with. Nowhere else.
Which is why I'm not quite so up in arms about this, because the data doesn't get transferred to another entity. It's on the device, and on the computer that device gets sync'd with, and nowhere else.
Not quite. The Samsung F700 was shown for the first time in Feb 2007, but it wasn't commercially available then. A quick search of the web for 'Samsung F700 release date' yields a large number of message board postings from people seeking the release date, with the responses being anything from 'September' to 'December' of 2007.
Slashgear was one of the few blogs to actually get their hands on a working unit and that wasn't until March 15th. Even then parts of the phone were off-limits, and it was clear the device wasn't ready for release.
http://www.slashgear.com/slashgear-at-cebit-samsung-f700-hands-on-154328/
I'm doubtful Apple will successfully challenge Samsung's choice of hardware design (weren't most phones rectangular?) but there's merit to suggest that Samsung's software decisions were heavily influenced by Apple's. Given the eventual release of the phone wasn't until later in 2007, sufficient time was available for Samsung to make changes to the UI.