And the parents who let them run around uncontrolled should expect them falling, or getting thrown, into the ocean is par for the course.
The parent should recognize the danger; the child doesn't have the life experience to do so; therefore, it is up to the parent to guide the child, if fo no reason other than their own protection. Screw the complete strangers, they shouldn't even enter into the equation, the parent should be keeping their kid safe. A side effect of this is that the kid won't bother complete strangers, but that's secondary. It's also a win for everybody, including the kid.
That's not even entirely true. I own a respectable CD and audio cassette collection, I subscribe to multiple streaming services, and I've even bought a number of music downloads through various industry-backed services. I still put together YouTube music playlists because, sometimes, it's just more convenient. Much of what appears on those playlists is music I already own; all of it is music I have access to through the various streaming services I pay for.
If YouTube were to pay the recorded music industry market rates, similar to what other streaming services pay, its economic contributions to the sector would be 0. This would be so because YouTube would simply not allow copyright music on its service.
Grab the divider between the two apps and slide it to the bottom (if you want to keep the top app) or the top (if you want to keep the bottom app). How is that not intuitive enough that you might try it before googling?
I commonly use 4 different Windows machines, 2 Windows 10 tablets, a Windows 10 desktop, and a Windows 10 laptop. The desktop and one of the tablets are on fast-ring builds, while the other two are running release builds.
News at 11: Which builds are more stable? The answer might surprise you!
My guess, they test new user-beneficial features in the fast-ring builds, without the bullshit, so they can get good feedback on just the features people care about; then, they introduce the Microsoft-beneficial features in slow-ring or RTM. Of course, that's just a WAG, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest and it does seem to align with my experience of fast-ring, counter-intuitively, being slightly faster and more stable than release.
I've never used slow-ring insider builds, so I can't say whether the same holds true but, as I suspect that's where they're introducing the stuff they want (rather than the stuff we want), I'd guess that it doesn't. If some brave souls wants to confirm, I'm sure this article will be posted again in a month and you can detail your results there.
Right. Where are all the successful lawsuits, then? Nowhere? Got it.
Who made mass-producible 192+ DPI displays before Samsung? Whose DRAM chip design did they copy? Who'd they steal the masks from for their Exynos CPUs? I suppose they stole the specs and designs for the various DACs, encoders, and other useful bits of silicon they sell, as well. Right?
You know, if that were true, Apple would be just as liable, since it's (supposedly) public knowledge and Apple still uses Samsung parts. Knowingly buying stolen goods is a felony and knowingly buying goods that infringe on someone else's patent is a civil infraction for which one can be sued and held liable for damages equal to, or greater than, those for which the infringer might be liable.
So, basically, your claim is that Apple is run by complete idiots who would knowingly buy infringing and/or stolen parts, and employs an incompetent legal department who would let them actually do it. Somehow, I'm not buying that. For all their faults, Apple is smarter than that.
I'm not sure that holds true; I've owned a number of Samsung and Apple devices over the past decade (in fact, I currently own many of both) and, to be quite honest, I'd say I've been watching Samsung's product engineering improve while Apple's has been on a steady decline for the past 6-7 years or so.
We're going to disagree on that point, of course, and that's fine. What you look for in a well-engineered product, and what I look for in the same, are different, because we have different needs and we use our products differently. In that vein, I'll grant Apple a clear win on the iPad, but Samsung takes the win on phones; I use the two classes of device differently, so my needs for one necessarily differ from my needs for the other. I'll also point out that Samsung covers a wider variety of products than Apple so, naturally, their focus will appear more spread out; these various lines are designed, engineered, manufactured, and distributed by distinct groups within Samsung, though, each of which has its own focus. Apple, meanwhile, cannibalizes one team to shift focus to another product line, which is why I observe that their product engineering is on a decline; they've very much focus-shifted toward mobile, and that certainly shows in the improvements the iPad has seen, all the while their computer lineup is all but rotting.
It's sad, really, as I would love to have taken what I just spent on a new PC build and spent it on more recent Mac workstation hardware; but there is no more recent Mac workstation hardware. The Mac Pro is 4 years old and was already a year out of date at launch, and I simply need more processing power than any current Mac system can give me, as well as the ability to run Adobe apps (not as a primary function, mind you, but I do need them running natively). The combination of those realities forced me to make some concessions, such as not running a native UNIX-like environment, as I can't run MacOS on fast-enough hardware and I can't run Adobe apps natively under Linux.
I'm not alone in this, either. Where I used to see new Macs being bought left and right for production environments, I'm seeing PC builds rolling in as their replacements; and for the reasons stated above.
Mind you, Samsung is no better in that regard; but, then, they've never really billed themselves as a company that provides a superior desktop or workstation. Apple, on the other hand, claims just that, while their product engineering fails to deliver on the promise.
And I really am missing the native UNIX-like environment that can also run all of my applications natively. This is not an attack on Apple, I'm not senselessly attacking them or putting them down; I am dissenting, in the hope that, come the time for my next hardware upgrade, my voice will be heard. And I'm not just bitching on Slashdot, I communicate my dissatisfaction to colleagues of mine at Apple, most of whom work on the software side of things and agree with me, as they could do a lot more with the software side of things on more capable hardware. Unfortunately, though they relay the complaints (often before they've even heard them from me, as they have the same complaints), their voices also appear to go unheard.
But, mostly, I was pointing out the irony in calling Samsung "Samdung" when Apple uses many Samsung parts in their own products. This, of course, is amplified by the fact that, historically, when Apple moves away from Samsung parts (e.g. Retina displays), customer satisfaction decreases (e.g. Panasonic pink tint) until Apple brings Samsung back into the fold.
And, here's the rub: Apple fans get to foot the bill when Apple sues Samsung. Samsung isn't raising the cost of Samsung consumer goods to cover the legal bills and settlements; they're raising the prices they charge Apple for parts. Go ahead and laugh your way to the bank every time Apple wins a patent suit against Samsung; you'll need to make an extra withdrawal to cover your next Apple purchase.
What does whether or not Apple or their competitors cold-copy the competition have to do with building a new filesystem? Probably nothing, but that's what I was replying to; if you're going to complain about the derailment of the discussion, complain to the guy who derailed it, dick.
You, sir, have absolutely mastered the art of debate.
I thought we were debating the validity of this patent; were we not? What, exactly, do you think goes on in court, when the validity of a patent is being tried? More or less, they're arguing over the interpretation of individual phrases.
If you don't want to do that, you must not have a very strong belief in the validity of this patent. You, quite simply, have no argument, so you turn to personal attacks, as always.
Unlike you, I actually read the patent, in its entirety and understood it. As a result, I was able to point out claims which, with respect to the Atrix and Lapdock, are novel; there are 5 of them, a list which does not include the two you chose to discuss. However, while none of the claims appear in the Atrix/Lapdock, they do all appear in similar products. None of them are novel.
Backing up to your previous post for a moment...
This patent is for a phone placed where a touchscreen would be in a laptop, so that it can be used for both touch and display.
The bit about touch being used to control the accessory is claim 24; claim 5 merely mentions that the host device (that is, the phone) has touch capabilities. The bit about the phone being used as a display is claim 7, wherein the host device (phone) displays host (phone) content. That claim says nothing of where the phone is positioned, nor that the phone's screen must be visible at all times during use; it only stipulates that the phoen display shows, well, phone stuff. Which the Atrix continued to do while placed in the dock. Claim 4, which you cited, only mentions a screen on the dock itself. The patent, likewise, says nothing about where the device should be docked, but more on that later.
I get what you're arguing, based off the bit I quoted here, but neither claim you referenced supports that argument; and neither are novel.
Hell, one of their drawings (fig 4) is of a freakin' iPad keyboard case, which they're also claiming is novel because it has a trackpad (not the iPhone, but an actual trackpad in the case) which, well... I guess would be novel for an iPad, but that very configuration has existed in the Android world for some time. Here is just one example, you can google "Android keyboard trackpad case", without quotes, for more. Yes, the iPhone dock drawings show the phone docked in the trackpad location; however, that is not a claim in the patent, it is merely one representation of the claims as a whole. Remember how I said I'd get back to that? Here we are:
Were there a claim as to the host device docking location, or were it stipulated anywhere else in the patent, the iPad drawing could not have been included, as it does not fit that stipulation.
Of course, such positioning is obvious for the iPhone; and changing positions is obvious for the iPad (and with just shy of 7 years and thousands of examples of prior art, it should be clear just how obvious). As such, if it were detailed in the patent, the patent would likely be invalidated by that inclusion. Of course, that's not to say that the patent is valid in the first place.
From the detailed description:
[0019] In one embodiment, the accessory device can have a form factor of a laptop computer having a display and a keyboard as well as other output/input devices known to be available with a laptop computer. The accessory device, however, does not have the processing resources (such as a CPU) generally associated with a conventional laptop computer. In this regard, the host device can provide the necessary computing resources, but it is the accessory device that provides additional functionality, such as a large display, enhanced audio capabilities, and further input means. These can include, for example, a mouse, track pad, keyboard, and the like.
"4. The electronic accessory device as recited in claim 3, wherein the operational component comprises an accessory display configured to present visual content. "
I'll refer you to claim 1:
1. An electronic accessory device, comprising: an operational component that provides an output to a user; a housing carrying the operational component, the housing having a recess; and a control interface coupled to the operational component and configured to receive a control signal from an electronic host device when the electronic host device is positioned within the recess and coupled to the control interface, wherein the electronic accessory device is inoperable without the electronic host device being coupled to the control interface.
The "operational component" is the dock/display, not the phone; the phone is, later, referred to as the "electronic host device". There is nothing novel in #1, as it's describing precisely what the Motorola Atrix and Lapdock did; there's also nothing novel in #4, it's simply describing an external display as part of a dock which, again is what the Atrix and Lapdock did.
"5. The electronic accessory device as recited in claim 4, wherein the electronic host device comprises an input device configured to detect a touch event. "
Indeed, and the Atrix did still respond to touch when docked. I distinctly recall wondering why, as you had to have the Lapdock display tilted at an odd angle, wherein it could still be actively in use as a display but tilted too far forward to really be useful, to be able to do so. It may not have been configured to detect a touch event in a useful way, but it was configured to detect a touch event while docked, which is the claim made here. There's, likewise, nothing novel in #5.
Claims 22-26 are not covered by the Atrix/Lapdock, but the other 15 claims are invalidated by that prior art. The remaining 5 claims are also not novel, having existed within previous mobile device dock designs; hell, I'm sure at least one of them included all 20 claims. Yes, the claims are numbered 1-28; 9-16 were "cancelled", so there are, truly, only 20 claims remaining, 3/4 of which are covered by a single piece of prior art from 7 years ago.
As SoftwareArtist pointed out, above me:
Every claim is independently asserted to be a novel invention.
None of these claims represent anything novel, even within the scope of mobile device docking stations.
Prior art, indeed! My Motorola Atrix did this in 2011. I still have the Lapdock and use it with a RasPi; it provides power, keyboard, trackpad, 1080p display, and a pair of USB ports.
Quite simply, people will realize soon enough that they've been hoodwinked and you can expect their next console not to sell very well if they don't make it absolutely amazing. I don't think that's going to happen, as it's become clear that Nintendo can't make a proper console anymore, something I don't say lightly as it represents the end of an era.
If they don't sell consoles and they're not making games for 3rd party consoles or, at a minimum, licensing IP so others can, how, exactly, do you propose they make money?
Of course, we can argue about this until we're both blue in the face, and we'll both be equally right and wrong based on the information we have available today. Only time will tell how the Nintendo story goes and, as a Nintendo fan, I sincerely hope I am wrong. I know better than to hold my breath for that long, though.
Well... mostly that was just complaining about system performance
Complaining about system performance? The "upgrade" is less capable than the system it is supposed to replace. That's about as valid a complaint as there can be. That said, I never complained about the performance, I pointed out that, while it would be quite a winner in Nintendo's handheld lineup (e.g. I actually like the hardware), they chose to position it as a replacement for a more capable system. That makes it a loser; it's positioned to be, quite literally, a downgrade.
along with the lack of a second screen
Which, again, would be a non-issue if Nintendo had added the Switch to their handheld lineup, rather than replacing a more capable system. The hardware, for a handheld system, is good; but they're billing it as a console, by which standard it is crap.
Look at it this way: The Geo Metro wasn't a horrible car, for what it was. It was cheap, fuel efficient, and got you from point A to point B. It wasn't built really well and it is obvious that corners were cut, but that was fine because Geo sold it as what it was: cheap transportation. If they had sold it as a sports car, luxury car, or even anything of any quality, it would have been complete crap.
The Switch isn't a horrible system, for what it should have been sold as. It is small, clocked down for power efficiency, and can play games on the go. It isn't built with performance in mind and it is obvious that corners were cut, but that would be fine if Nintendo sold it as what it is; a high-end portable. Instead, they sell is as a full console with portable capabilities and, at that, it is complete crap.
Sorry, it's just a fact that, while it outclasses Nintendo's handhelds, it doesn't come close to the Wii U. I'll repeat myself, once more, so you don't miss it this time: The Switch is a great handheld; it's just a shitty console.
I don't understand why the very same people who, 5 years ago, said the Wii U was underpowered crap are, 5 years later, saying the Switch, which is less powerful than the Wii U, is the freakin' bee's knees. Compared to anything in the DS line, I'd fully agree, the Switch is an awesome bit of gear; but it's not meant to compare with that line, it's meant to compare with the Wii U, and it fails at that.
The clock on the machine displays the correct time. Even if I had my time zone wrong (which I don't; Windows actually defaults to the correct time zone for me, as I share a time zone with MS), it should be using what it believes to be local time (e.g. the time it displays). Thanks for insinuating that I'm a friggin' idiot, while making it obvious that you ain't so bright yourself.:)
Slashdot Mirror
And the parents who let them run around uncontrolled should expect them falling, or getting thrown, into the ocean is par for the course.
The parent should recognize the danger; the child doesn't have the life experience to do so; therefore, it is up to the parent to guide the child, if fo no reason other than their own protection. Screw the complete strangers, they shouldn't even enter into the equation, the parent should be keeping their kid safe. A side effect of this is that the kid won't bother complete strangers, but that's secondary. It's also a win for everybody, including the kid.
That's not even entirely true. I own a respectable CD and audio cassette collection, I subscribe to multiple streaming services, and I've even bought a number of music downloads through various industry-backed services. I still put together YouTube music playlists because, sometimes, it's just more convenient. Much of what appears on those playlists is music I already own; all of it is music I have access to through the various streaming services I pay for.
If YouTube were to pay the recorded music industry market rates, similar to what other streaming services pay, its economic contributions to the sector would be 0. This would be so because YouTube would simply not allow copyright music on its service.
Indeed, just as they included every iOS app store.
And yes, I get that this was your point; this is Slashdot, most people here will miss it if you don't spell it out.
I thought only iOS users paid for apps!
Grab the divider between the two apps and slide it to the bottom (if you want to keep the top app) or the top (if you want to keep the bottom app). How is that not intuitive enough that you might try it before googling?
Clothing stores. Clothing stores will have fire sales.
On pants.
Because they're catching fire.
With S8's in their pockets.
Come on, man, PULL IT TOGETHER! How could you miss that?!
Based on how much tech workers pay in rent (per week).
Still, what did they do, find the cheapest rent and shortest commute? $3360/mo (775.45 * 52 / 12) is on the low end of the scale for SF.
I commonly use 4 different Windows machines, 2 Windows 10 tablets, a Windows 10 desktop, and a Windows 10 laptop. The desktop and one of the tablets are on fast-ring builds, while the other two are running release builds.
News at 11: Which builds are more stable? The answer might surprise you!
My guess, they test new user-beneficial features in the fast-ring builds, without the bullshit, so they can get good feedback on just the features people care about; then, they introduce the Microsoft-beneficial features in slow-ring or RTM. Of course, that's just a WAG, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest and it does seem to align with my experience of fast-ring, counter-intuitively, being slightly faster and more stable than release.
I've never used slow-ring insider builds, so I can't say whether the same holds true but, as I suspect that's where they're introducing the stuff they want (rather than the stuff we want), I'd guess that it doesn't. If some brave souls wants to confirm, I'm sure this article will be posted again in a month and you can detail your results there.
And Scoth was demonstrating why it should be.
Right. Where are all the successful lawsuits, then? Nowhere? Got it.
Who made mass-producible 192+ DPI displays before Samsung? Whose DRAM chip design did they copy? Who'd they steal the masks from for their Exynos CPUs? I suppose they stole the specs and designs for the various DACs, encoders, and other useful bits of silicon they sell, as well. Right?
You know, if that were true, Apple would be just as liable, since it's (supposedly) public knowledge and Apple still uses Samsung parts. Knowingly buying stolen goods is a felony and knowingly buying goods that infringe on someone else's patent is a civil infraction for which one can be sued and held liable for damages equal to, or greater than, those for which the infringer might be liable.
So, basically, your claim is that Apple is run by complete idiots who would knowingly buy infringing and/or stolen parts, and employs an incompetent legal department who would let them actually do it. Somehow, I'm not buying that. For all their faults, Apple is smarter than that.
LOL. iPhone 6.
I'm not sure that holds true; I've owned a number of Samsung and Apple devices over the past decade (in fact, I currently own many of both) and, to be quite honest, I'd say I've been watching Samsung's product engineering improve while Apple's has been on a steady decline for the past 6-7 years or so.
We're going to disagree on that point, of course, and that's fine. What you look for in a well-engineered product, and what I look for in the same, are different, because we have different needs and we use our products differently. In that vein, I'll grant Apple a clear win on the iPad, but Samsung takes the win on phones; I use the two classes of device differently, so my needs for one necessarily differ from my needs for the other. I'll also point out that Samsung covers a wider variety of products than Apple so, naturally, their focus will appear more spread out; these various lines are designed, engineered, manufactured, and distributed by distinct groups within Samsung, though, each of which has its own focus. Apple, meanwhile, cannibalizes one team to shift focus to another product line, which is why I observe that their product engineering is on a decline; they've very much focus-shifted toward mobile, and that certainly shows in the improvements the iPad has seen, all the while their computer lineup is all but rotting.
It's sad, really, as I would love to have taken what I just spent on a new PC build and spent it on more recent Mac workstation hardware; but there is no more recent Mac workstation hardware. The Mac Pro is 4 years old and was already a year out of date at launch, and I simply need more processing power than any current Mac system can give me, as well as the ability to run Adobe apps (not as a primary function, mind you, but I do need them running natively). The combination of those realities forced me to make some concessions, such as not running a native UNIX-like environment, as I can't run MacOS on fast-enough hardware and I can't run Adobe apps natively under Linux.
I'm not alone in this, either. Where I used to see new Macs being bought left and right for production environments, I'm seeing PC builds rolling in as their replacements; and for the reasons stated above.
Mind you, Samsung is no better in that regard; but, then, they've never really billed themselves as a company that provides a superior desktop or workstation. Apple, on the other hand, claims just that, while their product engineering fails to deliver on the promise.
And I really am missing the native UNIX-like environment that can also run all of my applications natively. This is not an attack on Apple, I'm not senselessly attacking them or putting them down; I am dissenting, in the hope that, come the time for my next hardware upgrade, my voice will be heard. And I'm not just bitching on Slashdot, I communicate my dissatisfaction to colleagues of mine at Apple, most of whom work on the software side of things and agree with me, as they could do a lot more with the software side of things on more capable hardware. Unfortunately, though they relay the complaints (often before they've even heard them from me, as they have the same complaints), their voices also appear to go unheard.
But, mostly, I was pointing out the irony in calling Samsung "Samdung" when Apple uses many Samsung parts in their own products. This, of course, is amplified by the fact that, historically, when Apple moves away from Samsung parts (e.g. Retina displays), customer satisfaction decreases (e.g. Panasonic pink tint) until Apple brings Samsung back into the fold.
And, here's the rub: Apple fans get to foot the bill when Apple sues Samsung. Samsung isn't raising the cost of Samsung consumer goods to cover the legal bills and settlements; they're raising the prices they charge Apple for parts. Go ahead and laugh your way to the bank every time Apple wins a patent suit against Samsung; you'll need to make an extra withdrawal to cover your next Apple purchase.
Part of me wi
What does whether or not Apple or their competitors cold-copy the competition have to do with building a new filesystem? Probably nothing, but that's what I was replying to; if you're going to complain about the derailment of the discussion, complain to the guy who derailed it, dick.
You mean, like... using Samsung displays and RAM and having their CPUs manufactured in Samsung-owned foundries?
I thought we were debating the validity of this patent; were we not? What, exactly, do you think goes on in court, when the validity of a patent is being tried? More or less, they're arguing over the interpretation of individual phrases.
If you don't want to do that, you must not have a very strong belief in the validity of this patent. You, quite simply, have no argument, so you turn to personal attacks, as always.
Unlike you, I actually read the patent, in its entirety and understood it. As a result, I was able to point out claims which, with respect to the Atrix and Lapdock, are novel; there are 5 of them, a list which does not include the two you chose to discuss. However, while none of the claims appear in the Atrix/Lapdock, they do all appear in similar products. None of them are novel.
Backing up to your previous post for a moment...
This patent is for a phone placed where a touchscreen would be in a laptop, so that it can be used for both touch and display.
The bit about touch being used to control the accessory is claim 24; claim 5 merely mentions that the host device (that is, the phone) has touch capabilities. The bit about the phone being used as a display is claim 7, wherein the host device (phone) displays host (phone) content. That claim says nothing of where the phone is positioned, nor that the phone's screen must be visible at all times during use; it only stipulates that the phoen display shows, well, phone stuff. Which the Atrix continued to do while placed in the dock. Claim 4, which you cited, only mentions a screen on the dock itself. The patent, likewise, says nothing about where the device should be docked, but more on that later.
I get what you're arguing, based off the bit I quoted here, but neither claim you referenced supports that argument; and neither are novel.
Hell, one of their drawings (fig 4) is of a freakin' iPad keyboard case, which they're also claiming is novel because it has a trackpad (not the iPhone, but an actual trackpad in the case) which, well... I guess would be novel for an iPad, but that very configuration has existed in the Android world for some time. Here is just one example, you can google "Android keyboard trackpad case", without quotes, for more. Yes, the iPhone dock drawings show the phone docked in the trackpad location; however, that is not a claim in the patent, it is merely one representation of the claims as a whole. Remember how I said I'd get back to that? Here we are:
Were there a claim as to the host device docking location, or were it stipulated anywhere else in the patent, the iPad drawing could not have been included, as it does not fit that stipulation.
Of course, such positioning is obvious for the iPhone; and changing positions is obvious for the iPad (and with just shy of 7 years and thousands of examples of prior art, it should be clear just how obvious). As such, if it were detailed in the patent, the patent would likely be invalidated by that inclusion. Of course, that's not to say that the patent is valid in the first place.
From the detailed description:
[0019] In one embodiment, the accessory device can have a form factor of a laptop computer having a display and a keyboard as well as other output/input devices known to be available with a laptop computer. The accessory device, however, does not have the processing resources (such as a CPU) generally associated with a conventional laptop computer. In this regard, the host device can provide the necessary computing resources, but it is the accessory device that provides additional functionality, such as a large display, enhanced audio capabilities, and further input means. These can include, for example, a mouse, track pad, keyboard, and the like.
That's the Atr
Maybe read the entirety of my post?
"4. The electronic accessory device as recited in claim 3, wherein the operational component comprises an accessory display configured to present visual content. "
I'll refer you to claim 1:
1. An electronic accessory device, comprising: an operational component that provides an output to a user; a housing carrying the operational component, the housing having a recess; and a control interface coupled to the operational component and configured to receive a control signal from an electronic host device when the electronic host device is positioned within the recess and coupled to the control interface, wherein the electronic accessory device is inoperable without the electronic host device being coupled to the control interface.
The "operational component" is the dock/display, not the phone; the phone is, later, referred to as the "electronic host device". There is nothing novel in #1, as it's describing precisely what the Motorola Atrix and Lapdock did; there's also nothing novel in #4, it's simply describing an external display as part of a dock which, again is what the Atrix and Lapdock did.
"5. The electronic accessory device as recited in claim 4, wherein the electronic host device comprises an input device configured to detect a touch event. "
Indeed, and the Atrix did still respond to touch when docked. I distinctly recall wondering why, as you had to have the Lapdock display tilted at an odd angle, wherein it could still be actively in use as a display but tilted too far forward to really be useful, to be able to do so. It may not have been configured to detect a touch event in a useful way, but it was configured to detect a touch event while docked, which is the claim made here. There's, likewise, nothing novel in #5.
Claims 22-26 are not covered by the Atrix/Lapdock, but the other 15 claims are invalidated by that prior art. The remaining 5 claims are also not novel, having existed within previous mobile device dock designs; hell, I'm sure at least one of them included all 20 claims. Yes, the claims are numbered 1-28; 9-16 were "cancelled", so there are, truly, only 20 claims remaining, 3/4 of which are covered by a single piece of prior art from 7 years ago.
As SoftwareArtist pointed out, above me:
Every claim is independently asserted to be a novel invention.
None of these claims represent anything novel, even within the scope of mobile device docking stations.
Indeed, this is true. I've been reading /. practically since day 1, yet I have a high 6 digit ID.
For me, it was Super Mario Maker that made the Wii U compelling enough to actually buy; but only because I had my eye on the console from launch.
I dunno, maybe we're not serious enough casual gamers to "get it". Yes, I understand the irony of the "serious casual gamer".
Prior art, indeed! My Motorola Atrix did this in 2011. I still have the Lapdock and use it with a RasPi; it provides power, keyboard, trackpad, 1080p display, and a pair of USB ports.
Quite simply, people will realize soon enough that they've been hoodwinked and you can expect their next console not to sell very well if they don't make it absolutely amazing. I don't think that's going to happen, as it's become clear that Nintendo can't make a proper console anymore, something I don't say lightly as it represents the end of an era.
If they don't sell consoles and they're not making games for 3rd party consoles or, at a minimum, licensing IP so others can, how, exactly, do you propose they make money?
Of course, we can argue about this until we're both blue in the face, and we'll both be equally right and wrong based on the information we have available today. Only time will tell how the Nintendo story goes and, as a Nintendo fan, I sincerely hope I am wrong. I know better than to hold my breath for that long, though.
Well... mostly that was just complaining about system performance
Complaining about system performance? The "upgrade" is less capable than the system it is supposed to replace. That's about as valid a complaint as there can be. That said, I never complained about the performance, I pointed out that, while it would be quite a winner in Nintendo's handheld lineup (e.g. I actually like the hardware), they chose to position it as a replacement for a more capable system. That makes it a loser; it's positioned to be, quite literally, a downgrade.
along with the lack of a second screen
Which, again, would be a non-issue if Nintendo had added the Switch to their handheld lineup, rather than replacing a more capable system. The hardware, for a handheld system, is good; but they're billing it as a console, by which standard it is crap.
Look at it this way: The Geo Metro wasn't a horrible car, for what it was. It was cheap, fuel efficient, and got you from point A to point B. It wasn't built really well and it is obvious that corners were cut, but that was fine because Geo sold it as what it was: cheap transportation. If they had sold it as a sports car, luxury car, or even anything of any quality, it would have been complete crap.
The Switch isn't a horrible system, for what it should have been sold as. It is small, clocked down for power efficiency, and can play games on the go. It isn't built with performance in mind and it is obvious that corners were cut, but that would be fine if Nintendo sold it as what it is; a high-end portable. Instead, they sell is as a full console with portable capabilities and, at that, it is complete crap.
Sorry, it's just a fact that, while it outclasses Nintendo's handhelds, it doesn't come close to the Wii U. I'll repeat myself, once more, so you don't miss it this time: The Switch is a great handheld; it's just a shitty console.
I don't understand why the very same people who, 5 years ago, said the Wii U was underpowered crap are, 5 years later, saying the Switch, which is less powerful than the Wii U, is the freakin' bee's knees. Compared to anything in the DS line, I'd fully agree, the Switch is an awesome bit of gear; but it's not meant to compare with that line, it's meant to compare with the Wii U, and it fails at that.
Note: We'll check to see if you're using this device before attempting to restart.
Time shouldn't matter if I'm actively typing.
The clock on the machine displays the correct time. Even if I had my time zone wrong (which I don't; Windows actually defaults to the correct time zone for me, as I share a time zone with MS), it should be using what it believes to be local time (e.g. the time it displays). Thanks for insinuating that I'm a friggin' idiot, while making it obvious that you ain't so bright yourself. :)