No, You have the option of using a mobile telephone (no, like the rest of the world we dont call them "cell" phones) or can opt for the other method (either a one time pad or RSA token depending on the bank).
I hope you enjoy alcoholism. Good luck with that.;). That's a lot of beer.
Not in Australia.
A carton of beer is 24 x 330 to 375 ml bottles.
A carton of cheap beer is A$35. You want decent beer its A$50-60. You want nice beer, well just bend over and take it (A$70+).
Thats for drinking at home, drinking whilst out gets better. For a pint (600ml for arguments sake, this varies by state) of beer you're looking at between $7 and $12. A 330 ml bottle is about the same. A shot of liquor is A$12.
So someone who goes out a few times a week and has a total of 12 pints* per week @A$10 per pint is looking at $480 p/m. If they also drink 2 cartons per week, that's another $400 p/m. Add in the odd bottle of wine (A$10-200) or spirits (A$25-100) and this easily adds up to $1300 per month.
* Someone who only drinks 12 pints a week in Australia is referred to as a "lightweight".
* email servers (if your spam scanning is external)
* some database servers (generally io bound not cpu bound, tho it of course depends on the nature of the queries)
Where are these servers not CPU intensive. Even in a small business your most CPU intensive servers will be mail and database.
Things that ARM chips would be ideal for.
* File server appliances
* Security appliances
* Web server appliances
* Networking appliances (DNS, DHCP, Directory Services)
You might notice the word "appliances" comes up a lot, well ARM/Linux is already used in a lot of these appliances.
The one that ARM would be ideal for I havent seen (so it probably exists and I havent seen it)
* Backup appliances.
Why, because virtualising a backup server is a royal PITA. If you've got a tape drive, virtualising a SCSI or SAS connector isn't fun. Even when dealing with disk to disk backups you've got to direct map LUN's which things like vMotion don't like. You can virtualise backup servers, it's just prefered to keep them physical for simplicities sake. So a simple ARM device with a few SAS connectors and Fibre Channel would be great, all a backup device does is move data from one location to another, hardly CPU intensive at all (even with a bit of encryption on top).
If that happens, you could just do what most people on ChatRoulette do....
Show 'em the DONG!
Might I suggest you use a more widely accepted currency like the US dollar, Euro or British Pound. You'll never get a good exchange rate on Dong outside Vietnam.
Frankly I think Richard Stallman looks more and more like a prophet every year. (And I doubt Jesus or Moses' personal hygiene was especially good, either).
I remember having a Mac guy go on and on for hours about how the x86 couldn't do the things a PPC could do. Then, the x86 Macs come out and suddenly all those "deficiencies" are no big deal.
...because of course, it's not like x86 technology improved during the ~10 year period that Macs were on PowerPC. Intel would never spend money improving their products.
Yes, but he was doing this the very week Apple announced the switch to Intel. The next Monday he didn't seem to notice any deficiencies in x86.
And then there are the extreme minority of Ruby/UNIX/Java developers, who often use Macs to develop on.
Fixed that for you.
The vast majority of Ruby, Unix and Java developers work on non-Apple hardware because for a long time, Apple hardware powerful enough has been prohibitively expensive. Why spend $4000 on a Mac Pro when the better performance can be gained out of sub $2000 box. Developers who require a really, really powerful set-up aren't building on local machines, they are building on servers running Windows or Linux, 2 way 4 core SMP IBM server with 32 GB of RAM will build faster than any desktop machine. When you have a build server, you code on entry level laptops which aren't Mac as OSX tends not to play well with code repositories like Subversion. Coders doing local builds are also falling off Mac because it's too hard to get an off the shelf SSD working in one.
Unix developers in particular have almost completely abandoned Mac because Apple have made it too difficult to get Linux running on there.
The only subset of developers who've started using Mac's in any semi-significant number (as in 1 in 20) are ironically.net developers who run Windows on their Macs. But as I said, these are dropping off because of the difficulties in upgrading.
I can see the switch from PowerPC as IBM and Motorola could not keep up with supplies or advances. To switch from Intel to ARM on PC's will be suicide as performance in PC's far outweigh any negligible benefits in power savings.
It wont be suicide for Apple, their customers will keep buying Apple products because they are finacially and psycologically locked in. No matter what Apple does to them to screw them over they'll keep coming back. Hell, they'll even defend the abuse.
People using Macs are designers, programmers and heavy users.
Hahahahahaha,
No.
A lot of designers, especially web designers have moved to Windows based PC's. Programmers who use Mac's use Windows on Mac. Mac's are not for heavy use (which is why a $1000 macbook only comes with an Intel IGM).
Hipsters buy Mac's, not heavy users. People buy Mac's because they hate windows, not because Mac's are any better (in fact, given the limited and overpriced hardware choices, they are a lot worse).
I've been predicting that Apple will switch to ARM for laptops for some time now and OSX will be depreciated into IOS. The biggest difference between an Ipad and a Desktop Mac in the future will be the OS feature set. This is to say, they'll run the same OS but you'll pay more for options like an IDE. You wont be able to run it on feature limited version of the OS.
So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is.
I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.
As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.
Apple wont get the chance to make it work in the long term, they ruined it in the short term. For Apple to get a similar dataset to Google would take the better part of a decade.
First off, Latitude would be opt-in the same as it is on Android, but it gives users the option to use the service if they want.
Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected and who gets it than Apple, who allow thrid party developers to collect information on you without even notifiying you (also it's automatically enabled and there's no opt out). Seeing as I never opted in to Latitude on Android, I don't have to worry.
But nice try to spin it. In the end, Apple shot themselves in the foot.
Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in.
Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.
In the end, Apple walked away from the table, the Google offer remained but Apple didn't want to agree to it.
As much as Apple fan sites tried to spin it, Apple chose not to have Google's turn by turn navigation.
Save your breath. Why would Apple give Google any face on this? The #1 reason they dumped Google Maps was because Apple didn't want to pay Google's for turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version.
Fixed that for you.
Apple wanted access to Google's data for free. Google didn't want that, so Google asked for money and barring that asked wanted other concessions such as branding or the inclusion of more google services (such as Latitude) but Apple steadfastly refused.
As much as they tried to paint Google as the bad guy, it was Apple who refused to negotiate.
Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in.
Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.
As much as All Things D tried to spin it, they couldn't get around the fact that Apple refused to give the concessions Google wanted and Google had every right to ask for those concessions as they spent the money developing the service.
Think of it this way, I'm a better singer than 99.9999% of all rappers, but that doesn't mean I can hold a note (nor does it stop me wailing 80's power ballads down the highway).
The RIAA may beg to differ. At the rate we are going, our cars will listen to what we are singing, determine how many people are in the car listening to it, and automatically charge you for royalties on each person as well as a surcharge for bad singing.
I'm sure I'm out of tune enough for it to be considered an original work. Especially with the low standards of originality in the music industry.
Apple was a thug long before Steve Jobs declared thermonuclear war, but Jobs was a master at concealing that. Tim Cook isn't. This is one of several reasons that it is just wonderful for the rest of us that Tim Cook now runs Apple.
Actually, Steve Jobs wasn't very good at concealing the fact he was an arsehole, this we have known since the 80's. Granted Tim Cook is worse at it, but that doesn't make Steve Jobs good at it.
Think of it this way, I'm a better singer than 99.9999% of all rappers, but that doesn't mean I can hold a note (nor does it stop me wailing 80's power ballads down the highway).
Depends on what metric we're using to determine shelf life. If we are throwing them out when they start to smell, their shelf life isn't very long at all.
"appears to have (borrowed) (parentheses mine) features from the U.S. Air Force's twin-engine F-22 and U.S. Navy's single-engine F-35C" (I think you mean stolen)!
The communist Chinese have always been short on originality and Long on thievery.
70% of Apple shareholders are institutional share holders (banks, credit unions, governments). Did you factor that in?
Obviously you didn't as you're still banging on about other numbers. Apple's stock is still overpriced, their product is nearing the point of maximum saturation (currently in the laggards part of the diffusion of innovation) and when that happens, the stock will drop. After that happens, the institutional stock holders will cash out (as that's their entire reason for holding stock that doesn't pay divs), with approx 70% of stockholders doing this the drop becomes more of a snowball effect, sales of the stock cause the price to drop even further.
Basically, Apple's stock value is a giant bubble waiting to burst. When the institutional share holders cash out, it's the mum and pop share holders that will be left with stock that is not worth what they paid for it.
SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American business leadership.
There, fixed that for you.
But it could be worse, they could have an Irish CEO.
The idea that first world wages are the problem is preposterous. QANTAS (QF) for years was one of the mos profitable airlines in the world whilst paying Australian wages for pilots and ground staff. This changed when Alan Joyce came into power and started trying to get rid of Australian staff. QF posted it's first loss in decades this year, it all comes down to the incompetent leadership of Joyce and his arrogant campaign against his own staff.
Cheaper staff wont improve airline profitability if strategic direction is lacking. Another example from Australia, Strategic Airlines (later re-branded to Air Australia) used Turkish pilots and Asian flight attendants but went out of business due to a series of high profile failures (basically flights cancelled and passengers left stranded, a big no-no in hospitality). QF did the same thing when Joyce chose to shut down the airline last October, the difference between Strategic and QANTAS is that Strategic didn't plan it's failure, QF under Joyce shot themselves in the foot.
Like many Australians, I refuse to fly QANTAS (or it's subsidiary DeathStar, sorry, JetStar) until Joyce is replaced. Replacing CEO's does fix problems another example from Australia is Telstra, when David Theody replaced Solomon Trujilo as CEO the business improved even though the price remained uncompetitive (compared to Vodafone and Optus).
funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets
I go with whoever has the best value.
Air Asia's standard fare was A$600, MAS (Malaysian Airlines) had a sale on for A$800 for the same trip. I went with MAS. I'd happily pay $200 extra to get better service. Then again, Air Asia has better service than most US airlines and Air Asia is pretty unashamed of being a budget airline (they really are a good budget airline but they're still a budget airline). Singapore and Malaysian are a world apart from Air Asia when it comes to service.
Because so far, Apple has been perfecting willing to pay for FRAND related patent use
But not willing to pay what other companies are paying. 2.25% is standard, this is only reduced when that company has patents of equal value offered in a cross (reciprocal) licensing deal. Apple is not being singled out here, it's the same deal offered to Microsoft (who like Apple, have no patents of value to hardware manufacturers).
Google informed regulators it intended to charge no more than 2.25% for access to FRAND patents when they bought Motorola Mobility. Regulators agreed but Apple wants to squirm out of it. As groklaw put it:
It's a legal strategy in other words. Samsung and Motorola built the world that Apple and Microsoft now want to enter, and the early creators each have foundational patents that neither of the newcomers can build smartphones without infringing, so they want to pay less and they want to be immune from the threat of injunction, while being free to seek them on their own, non-standards-essential patents. It's a game, and that is all it is, despite the rhetoric.
So Apple and Microsoft want to stand on the shoulders of giants (Samsung and Motorola), thats fine. But the giant is simply asking for fair payment for carrying them.
Actually, given that they are FRAND patents, Apple should pay (by the rules stipulated in the FRAND terms) the same rate that everyone else paid for those patents. No more, no less.
Whatever that figure is, that is what Apple should pay.
So, 2.25% then.
Because that is the same rate being charged to other companies including Microsoft. The only difference between MS and Samsung is that Samsung and Motorola have a reciprocal licensing agreement which makes up the value of the 2.25%.
Slashdot Mirror
No, You have the option of using a mobile telephone (no, like the rest of the world we dont call them "cell" phones) or can opt for the other method (either a one time pad or RSA token depending on the bank).
I hope you enjoy alcoholism. Good luck with that. ;). That's a lot of beer.
Not in Australia.
A carton of beer is 24 x 330 to 375 ml bottles.
A carton of cheap beer is A$35. You want decent beer its A$50-60. You want nice beer, well just bend over and take it (A$70+).
Thats for drinking at home, drinking whilst out gets better. For a pint (600ml for arguments sake, this varies by state) of beer you're looking at between $7 and $12. A 330 ml bottle is about the same. A shot of liquor is A$12.
So someone who goes out a few times a week and has a total of 12 pints* per week @A$10 per pint is looking at $480 p/m. If they also drink 2 cartons per week, that's another $400 p/m. Add in the odd bottle of wine (A$10-200) or spirits (A$25-100) and this easily adds up to $1300 per month.
* Someone who only drinks 12 pints a week in Australia is referred to as a "lightweight".
* email servers (if your spam scanning is external)
* some database servers (generally io bound not cpu bound, tho it of course depends on the nature of the queries)
Where are these servers not CPU intensive. Even in a small business your most CPU intensive servers will be mail and database.
Things that ARM chips would be ideal for.
* File server appliances
* Security appliances
* Web server appliances
* Networking appliances (DNS, DHCP, Directory Services)
You might notice the word "appliances" comes up a lot, well ARM/Linux is already used in a lot of these appliances.
The one that ARM would be ideal for I havent seen (so it probably exists and I havent seen it)
* Backup appliances.
Why, because virtualising a backup server is a royal PITA. If you've got a tape drive, virtualising a SCSI or SAS connector isn't fun. Even when dealing with disk to disk backups you've got to direct map LUN's which things like vMotion don't like. You can virtualise backup servers, it's just prefered to keep them physical for simplicities sake. So a simple ARM device with a few SAS connectors and Fibre Channel would be great, all a backup device does is move data from one location to another, hardly CPU intensive at all (even with a bit of encryption on top).
If that happens, you could just do what most people on ChatRoulette do....
Show 'em the DONG!
Might I suggest you use a more widely accepted currency like the US dollar, Euro or British Pound. You'll never get a good exchange rate on Dong outside Vietnam.
Frankly I think Richard Stallman looks more and more like a prophet every year. (And I doubt Jesus or Moses' personal hygiene was especially good, either).
They all had long beards.
Coincidence? I think not.
Yes, but he was doing this the very week Apple announced the switch to Intel. The next Monday he didn't seem to notice any deficiencies in x86.
And then there are the extreme minority of Ruby/UNIX/Java developers, who often use Macs to develop on.
Fixed that for you.
.net developers who run Windows on their Macs. But as I said, these are dropping off because of the difficulties in upgrading.
The vast majority of Ruby, Unix and Java developers work on non-Apple hardware because for a long time, Apple hardware powerful enough has been prohibitively expensive. Why spend $4000 on a Mac Pro when the better performance can be gained out of sub $2000 box. Developers who require a really, really powerful set-up aren't building on local machines, they are building on servers running Windows or Linux, 2 way 4 core SMP IBM server with 32 GB of RAM will build faster than any desktop machine. When you have a build server, you code on entry level laptops which aren't Mac as OSX tends not to play well with code repositories like Subversion. Coders doing local builds are also falling off Mac because it's too hard to get an off the shelf SSD working in one.
Unix developers in particular have almost completely abandoned Mac because Apple have made it too difficult to get Linux running on there.
The only subset of developers who've started using Mac's in any semi-significant number (as in 1 in 20) are ironically
I can see the switch from PowerPC as IBM and Motorola could not keep up with supplies or advances. To switch from Intel to ARM on PC's will be suicide as performance in PC's far outweigh any negligible benefits in power savings.
It wont be suicide for Apple, their customers will keep buying Apple products because they are finacially and psycologically locked in. No matter what Apple does to them to screw them over they'll keep coming back. Hell, they'll even defend the abuse.
People using Macs are designers, programmers and heavy users.
Hahahahahaha,
No.
A lot of designers, especially web designers have moved to Windows based PC's. Programmers who use Mac's use Windows on Mac. Mac's are not for heavy use (which is why a $1000 macbook only comes with an Intel IGM).
Hipsters buy Mac's, not heavy users. People buy Mac's because they hate windows, not because Mac's are any better (in fact, given the limited and overpriced hardware choices, they are a lot worse).
I've been predicting that Apple will switch to ARM for laptops for some time now and OSX will be depreciated into IOS. The biggest difference between an Ipad and a Desktop Mac in the future will be the OS feature set. This is to say, they'll run the same OS but you'll pay more for options like an IDE. You wont be able to run it on feature limited version of the OS.
So basically Google wanted to have tight control over the branding (look and feel?) and add a feature which let Google keep track of where every iOS user is. I can understand why Apple wants to make their own maps in the long run.
As I said, as much as Apple fans try to spin it, Apple still walked away.
Apple wont get the chance to make it work in the long term, they ruined it in the short term. For Apple to get a similar dataset to Google would take the better part of a decade.
First off, Latitude would be opt-in the same as it is on Android, but it gives users the option to use the service if they want.
Secondly, I'd sooner trust Google who are open about what is being collected and who gets it than Apple, who allow thrid party developers to collect information on you without even notifiying you (also it's automatically enabled and there's no opt out). Seeing as I never opted in to Latitude on Android, I don't have to worry.
But nice try to spin it. In the end, Apple shot themselves in the foot.
Really? I have seen any evidence of that. Do you have a link? (I'm not doubting you, just genuinely surprised.)
So you've been ignoring this: www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-no-longer-has-google-based-maps-on-the-iphone-2012-9
Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in. Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.
In the end, Apple walked away from the table, the Google offer remained but Apple didn't want to agree to it.
As much as Apple fan sites tried to spin it, Apple chose not to have Google's turn by turn navigation.
Save your breath. Why would Apple give Google any face on this? The #1 reason they dumped Google Maps was because Apple didn't want to pay Google's for turn-by-turn voice navigation from the iOS version.
Fixed that for you.
Apple wanted access to Google's data for free. Google didn't want that, so Google asked for money and barring that asked wanted other concessions such as branding or the inclusion of more google services (such as Latitude) but Apple steadfastly refused.
As much as they tried to paint Google as the bad guy, it was Apple who refused to negotiate.
http://www.businessinsider.com/why-apple-no-longer-has-google-based-maps-on-the-iphone-2012-9
Apple tried to negotiate with Google to get turn-by-turn navigation, but Google wouldn't give up that data without some concessions from Apple. Google wanted more Google branding in the maps as well as the inclusion of Lattitude, Google's Foursquare-esque social network that tracks people if they opt-in.
Apple didn't want to include either of those things in its maps.
As much as All Things D tried to spin it, they couldn't get around the fact that Apple refused to give the concessions Google wanted and Google had every right to ask for those concessions as they spent the money developing the service.
Translation: Any judge who rules against Apple is saintly. Any judge who rules for Apple should be disrobed. I miss anything?
Reality.
Think of it this way, I'm a better singer than 99.9999% of all rappers, but that doesn't mean I can hold a note (nor does it stop me wailing 80's power ballads down the highway).
The RIAA may beg to differ. At the rate we are going, our cars will listen to what we are singing, determine how many people are in the car listening to it, and automatically charge you for royalties on each person as well as a surcharge for bad singing.
I'm sure I'm out of tune enough for it to be considered an original work. Especially with the low standards of originality in the music industry.
Apple was a thug long before Steve Jobs declared thermonuclear war, but Jobs was a master at concealing that. Tim Cook isn't. This is one of several reasons that it is just wonderful for the rest of us that Tim Cook now runs Apple.
Actually, Steve Jobs wasn't very good at concealing the fact he was an arsehole, this we have known since the 80's. Granted Tim Cook is worse at it, but that doesn't make Steve Jobs good at it.
Think of it this way, I'm a better singer than 99.9999% of all rappers, but that doesn't mean I can hold a note (nor does it stop me wailing 80's power ballads down the highway).
It's pretty straightforward, actually: Apple are a bunch of cunts. Hope that clears things up.
The association of collective vagina's takes offence to this comparison.
Depends on the programmer!
Depends on what metric we're using to determine shelf life. If we are throwing them out when they start to smell, their shelf life isn't very long at all.
"appears to have (borrowed) (parentheses mine) features from the U.S. Air Force's twin-engine F-22 and U.S. Navy's single-engine F-35C" (I think you mean stolen)!
The communist Chinese have always been short on originality and Long on thievery.
It would probably be closer to Russia's PAK FA developed by Sukhoi..
Why steal from the US when you can just buy from the Russians?
Apple has no debt. Did you factor that in?
70% of Apple shareholders are institutional share holders (banks, credit unions, governments). Did you factor that in?
Obviously you didn't as you're still banging on about other numbers. Apple's stock is still overpriced, their product is nearing the point of maximum saturation (currently in the laggards part of the diffusion of innovation) and when that happens, the stock will drop. After that happens, the institutional stock holders will cash out (as that's their entire reason for holding stock that doesn't pay divs), with approx 70% of stockholders doing this the drop becomes more of a snowball effect, sales of the stock cause the price to drop even further.
Basically, Apple's stock value is a giant bubble waiting to burst. When the institutional share holders cash out, it's the mum and pop share holders that will be left with stock that is not worth what they paid for it.
SWA may do fine as a business, but it doesn't do any better than other US carriers in terms of product or value for the customer.
If you compare US airlines to foreign airlines, foreign airlines (excluding Europe) have far better soft product (food, service, etc) because they are not saddled with the costs of an American business leadership.
There, fixed that for you.
But it could be worse, they could have an Irish CEO.
The idea that first world wages are the problem is preposterous. QANTAS (QF) for years was one of the mos profitable airlines in the world whilst paying Australian wages for pilots and ground staff. This changed when Alan Joyce came into power and started trying to get rid of Australian staff. QF posted it's first loss in decades this year, it all comes down to the incompetent leadership of Joyce and his arrogant campaign against his own staff.
Cheaper staff wont improve airline profitability if strategic direction is lacking. Another example from Australia, Strategic Airlines (later re-branded to Air Australia) used Turkish pilots and Asian flight attendants but went out of business due to a series of high profile failures (basically flights cancelled and passengers left stranded, a big no-no in hospitality). QF did the same thing when Joyce chose to shut down the airline last October, the difference between Strategic and QANTAS is that Strategic didn't plan it's failure, QF under Joyce shot themselves in the foot.
Like many Australians, I refuse to fly QANTAS (or it's subsidiary DeathStar, sorry, JetStar) until Joyce is replaced. Replacing CEO's does fix problems another example from Australia is Telstra, when David Theody replaced Solomon Trujilo as CEO the business improved even though the price remained uncompetitive (compared to Vodafone and Optus).
funny, I go with the lowest bidder for airlines based in other parts of the world and the food, beer & wine, entertainment and courteous service are included. the US airlines *could* do it if money-grubbing scum weren't allowed to get away with excessivly lining their own pockets
I go with whoever has the best value.
Air Asia's standard fare was A$600, MAS (Malaysian Airlines) had a sale on for A$800 for the same trip. I went with MAS. I'd happily pay $200 extra to get better service. Then again, Air Asia has better service than most US airlines and Air Asia is pretty unashamed of being a budget airline (they really are a good budget airline but they're still a budget airline). Singapore and Malaysian are a world apart from Air Asia when it comes to service.
The judge did not rule on the "cool factor".
The judge ruled the product did not infringe. More so, the judge specifically ordered them to state that Samsung did not infringe on Apple's patents.
The "cool" comment was not part of the ruling at all.
Apart from Search, Gmail, Maps, Docs and Android. What has Google bought to the market that it really wants?
But not willing to pay what other companies are paying. 2.25% is standard, this is only reduced when that company has patents of equal value offered in a cross (reciprocal) licensing deal. Apple is not being singled out here, it's the same deal offered to Microsoft (who like Apple, have no patents of value to hardware manufacturers). Google informed regulators it intended to charge no more than 2.25% for access to FRAND patents when they bought Motorola Mobility. Regulators agreed but Apple wants to squirm out of it. As groklaw put it:
It's a legal strategy in other words. Samsung and Motorola built the world that Apple and Microsoft now want to enter, and the early creators each have foundational patents that neither of the newcomers can build smartphones without infringing, so they want to pay less and they want to be immune from the threat of injunction, while being free to seek them on their own, non-standards-essential patents. It's a game, and that is all it is, despite the rhetoric.
So Apple and Microsoft want to stand on the shoulders of giants (Samsung and Motorola), thats fine. But the giant is simply asking for fair payment for carrying them.
So, Apple has to pay cash. 2.5% of the sale price of every product. On a $500 iPhone that would be $12.50, rather more than they want to pay.
It would be closer to $6 as they charge it on the wholesale price rather than the retail price.
Actually, given that they are FRAND patents, Apple should pay (by the rules stipulated in the FRAND terms) the same rate that everyone else paid for those patents. No more, no less.
Whatever that figure is, that is what Apple should pay.
So, 2.25% then.
Because that is the same rate being charged to other companies including Microsoft. The only difference between MS and Samsung is that Samsung and Motorola have a reciprocal licensing agreement which makes up the value of the 2.25%.