Nonsense. Apple does nothing to advertise their next product. They are chided for their extreme privacy which pretty much leaves it to the media and tech-heads to guess, doing it enough so that after saying it enough times, they begin to believe it is true. Apple does nothing.
Someone doesn't understand marketing and sales... Or the allure of the unknown and the power of the takeaway.
Hey, you can hack those as well - even after the fact! Check out the 2004 governor's race in Washington State - bags and bags of ballots found, unsecured, well after the election. And counted. Never mind they broke heavily (way beyond the other ballots from the precinct) one way only...
It's OK, Washington State's Gubernatorial election in 2004 shows that even if you have paper ballots, they can be corrupted as well. And you can keep finding bags and bags of votes that break 70/30 for one candidate (when the district they came from broke 55/45 for that candidate) for weeks on end, until just enough votes are found to give a 124 vote margin and declare a winner.
.
You don't need e-voting to blow elections - just corrupt officials and complicit courts.
Absolutely. However, if you give permission to an entity to use your patent, you cannot come back later and sue for damages for their use; you can only prevent future, continued use of your patent. Basically, if Google can show that Sun's previous CEO blessed the use of Java in Android, then the current Oracle settlement quickly approaches $0. It does not mean Android can keep using Java in the future, but past penalties go out the window.
Early on in my engineering career, my first principal engineer I worked for, a Russian scientist who fled the USSR in 1974, told me something that's stuck with me ever since:
.
You never learn from your success, only from your failure. If you succeed, you cannot be sure it wasn't just dumb luck; when you fail, you know there is only one person to blame.
Check out the most used Android apps: Google Maps, GMail, Google Voice. All controlled by Google, all with Google ads. They make plenty of money on Android users in China...
Giving up on the US market just over not being able to use Java is unlikely and stupid.
Unlikely, yes. Stupid? Probably not... The US market has around 180 million cell phone users. China alone is around 800 million (China Mobile boasts 600 million subscribers alone). Add in SE Asia and India and we're talking close to 2 BILLION potential Android customers.
In the big scheme of things, the US market for cell phones is interesting, and it's great for early adopters, but as a monster source of long-term revenue the US really isn't where it's at. Witness Nokia's lack of presence in the US for the last 10 years, yet they continue to be the biggest cell phone maker in the world. A company can get along pretty well without the US market...
The universities, where most of the research comes from today. 99% of R&D budgets are pure D, research just doesn't happen in the private sector anymore.
Intel drops $4 billion a year on their research group. Microsoft drops $10 billion a year. A lot of that money goes for pure research that ends up not commercialized, and a lot of it is directed to universities to work hand-in-hand with the companies. Private funding of grants for university research is huge - it's the dominant share of university research funds. Companies may not do as much direct research as they did, but they still fund the majority of it - they just fund it through the use of universities.
I'm curious how much of that research that companies do actually makes it to the light of day. Granted, university research is frequently stuck behind journal paywalls as well, but is there any comparison to be made? How much research that doesn't result in a patent actually gets published for others to use?
A surprising amount of it never reaches the light of day - as originally researched. Usually spinoffs or alternate applications do ultimately make it into the market place.
As far as universities go, it's amazing how much money is sent from the private sector to those universities to perform research. It's a "cheap" way to buy great research. A sizable chunk of research done at US universities is, in fact, funded with private funds via grants. It's not quite the "Government is the only one who ever pays for general research" meme often put about.
It's quite simple. If your charger can supply the current, it supplies the current. Otherwise it shuts down. You can add smarts to query the port, and if you get a response you can respond accordingly. Otherwise just draw what you need and assume the source will either supply it or - as per the USB spec - shut down.
.
If you're charging on a Fry's charger, then it's probably built with the sense resistors inside it. Just witnessed a friend yesterday try to charge his iPhone with a generic charger and it wouldn't charge; plug into an official Apple charger and away it went.
The fact we even need to talk about these issues shows that it's a complete FUBAR. Just do what every other USB component does - pull the current you need, and if the port can't support it, the port shuts down. No need for dropping resistors, custom cables, or custom chargers.
All research with a clear short term benefit in mind. How much research into quantum computing has Intel done? That's all university research at this stage with probably mostly government funding.
Intel's Strategic Research Group has about $4 billion a year to spend researching next generation processors, including quantum computing. Microsoft Research has $10 billion a year, and spends a chunk of that on quantum computing research as well. The private sector dumps a ton of cash into basic, fundamental research. But it does so with an eye towards eventual economic returns, rather than research for research's sake. You'd be surprised how much actual hard, beneficial research is done by big corporations, and how much of that research done by Governments is into things like the mating habits of grunions.
Disclaimer: I have worked for Microsoft Research in the past, and I have also performed and provided equipment for marine research for the US, Canadian, and other governmental agencies.
That's not quite true. The iPhone is capable of drawing more power than the USB spec allows to charge (USB allows 500mA at 5V, the iPhone can draw up to 1A, IIRC). However, so as not to fry a USB port that is not rated to drive the phone, it looks for the voltage divider resistors.
That is the "official Apple story", but as anyone who's read the USB spec can tell you - EVERY single certified USB controller has an over-current detector in it and will shut the USB port down if the current draw is too high for the rated USB port (note: not all ports have to supply 500mA; they can supply up to that amount, but must report their actual limits in the hardware descriptor. And there is no requirement that a port only supplies up to 500 mA, many are built with higher limits now to support external HDDs and the like). IF the iDevice was built to the intent of the spec, it would throttle back its own USB current draw so as to not trip the over-current limit of the port, but there is no way for the iDevice to damage the USB port in the first place, by attempting to draw too much current.
And, as anyone who's ever built a charging circuit will tell you, just because your device "pulls" 1A does not mean you cannot charge it with 500 mA; you take longer, and may not be able to keep up with operational current draw, but you could charge it if desired.
Basically, Apple's using BS to try to make it sound like they're "protecting you" when in fact they're just playing around the USB spec and forcing you to only use their own chargers. Nice way to enforce purchase of $30 accessories...
Funny, I saw new, unopened iPhone 3G models for sale at the local Apple distributor, right in Xujiahui here in Shanghai. Are you assuming that what you see in the US is the same as everywhere?
Well played, good sir! Now excuse me whilst I go to the store and decide if I want the iPhone 3, 3GS, 4 in GSM, or 4 in CDMA. Because they all come with different OSes and capabilities. But I know, that's not fragmentation!
Since when does patent infringement result in a ban on import rather than a fine and order to pay royalties for the patented item? Is it because HTC isn't a US company?
A patent is a Government-granted monopoly. You have the right to license or restrict the use of your patented idea - it is the patent holder's choice, not the Courts or the infringer. You can choose to license company A and not license company B, effectively prohibiting company B from selling in your country.
If you're like Apple, and losing market share, then your best bet is to probably eliminate the competition than try to get a few bucks for each phone. The big problem for Apple isn't the loss of revenue from the infringement - it's from their shrinking marketshare worldwide. When the smartphone market starts reaching saturation and growth slows (probably in 2-3 years), then Apple's actual number of phones sold per month will start to slide as well (they are losing market share, but the market as a whole is growing faster so their total number of phones sold is increasing quarter over quarter).
Why is this a big, huge problem for Apple? Because 50% of their revenue - and close to 60% of their profit - comes from sales of iPhones. Their entire company is pretty much dependent on a single device. If sales of that device start to slip it will not only reduce revenue and profit but absolutely crush their stock price.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. Apple does nothing to advertise their next product. They are chided for their extreme privacy which pretty much leaves it to the media and tech-heads to guess, doing it enough so that after saying it enough times, they begin to believe it is true. Apple does nothing.
Someone doesn't understand marketing and sales... Or the allure of the unknown and the power of the takeaway.
Hey, you can hack those as well - even after the fact! Check out the 2004 governor's race in Washington State - bags and bags of ballots found, unsecured, well after the election. And counted. Never mind they broke heavily (way beyond the other ballots from the precinct) one way only...
You don't need e-voting to blow elections - just corrupt officials and complicit courts.
He saw it in a movie he downloaded...
Absolutely. However, if you give permission to an entity to use your patent, you cannot come back later and sue for damages for their use; you can only prevent future, continued use of your patent. Basically, if Google can show that Sun's previous CEO blessed the use of Java in Android, then the current Oracle settlement quickly approaches $0. It does not mean Android can keep using Java in the future, but past penalties go out the window.
You never learn from your success, only from your failure. If you succeed, you cannot be sure it wasn't just dumb luck; when you fail, you know there is only one person to blame.
Check out the most used Android apps: Google Maps, GMail, Google Voice. All controlled by Google, all with Google ads. They make plenty of money on Android users in China...
Giving up on the US market just over not being able to use Java is unlikely and stupid.
Unlikely, yes. Stupid? Probably not... The US market has around 180 million cell phone users. China alone is around 800 million (China Mobile boasts 600 million subscribers alone). Add in SE Asia and India and we're talking close to 2 BILLION potential Android customers.
In the big scheme of things, the US market for cell phones is interesting, and it's great for early adopters, but as a monster source of long-term revenue the US really isn't where it's at. Witness Nokia's lack of presence in the US for the last 10 years, yet they continue to be the biggest cell phone maker in the world. A company can get along pretty well without the US market...
The universities, where most of the research comes from today. 99% of R&D budgets are pure D, research just doesn't happen in the private sector anymore.
Intel drops $4 billion a year on their research group. Microsoft drops $10 billion a year. A lot of that money goes for pure research that ends up not commercialized, and a lot of it is directed to universities to work hand-in-hand with the companies. Private funding of grants for university research is huge - it's the dominant share of university research funds. Companies may not do as much direct research as they did, but they still fund the majority of it - they just fund it through the use of universities.
I'm curious how much of that research that companies do actually makes it to the light of day. Granted, university research is frequently stuck behind journal paywalls as well, but is there any comparison to be made? How much research that doesn't result in a patent actually gets published for others to use?
A surprising amount of it never reaches the light of day - as originally researched. Usually spinoffs or alternate applications do ultimately make it into the market place.
As far as universities go, it's amazing how much money is sent from the private sector to those universities to perform research. It's a "cheap" way to buy great research. A sizable chunk of research done at US universities is, in fact, funded with private funds via grants. It's not quite the "Government is the only one who ever pays for general research" meme often put about.
If you're charging on a Fry's charger, then it's probably built with the sense resistors inside it. Just witnessed a friend yesterday try to charge his iPhone with a generic charger and it wouldn't charge; plug into an official Apple charger and away it went.
The fact we even need to talk about these issues shows that it's a complete FUBAR. Just do what every other USB component does - pull the current you need, and if the port can't support it, the port shuts down. No need for dropping resistors, custom cables, or custom chargers.
Not according to the GP, and the presence of sense resistors required...
All research with a clear short term benefit in mind. How much research into quantum computing has Intel done? That's all university research at this stage with probably mostly government funding.
Intel's Strategic Research Group has about $4 billion a year to spend researching next generation processors, including quantum computing. Microsoft Research has $10 billion a year, and spends a chunk of that on quantum computing research as well. The private sector dumps a ton of cash into basic, fundamental research. But it does so with an eye towards eventual economic returns, rather than research for research's sake. You'd be surprised how much actual hard, beneficial research is done by big corporations, and how much of that research done by Governments is into things like the mating habits of grunions.
Disclaimer: I have worked for Microsoft Research in the past, and I have also performed and provided equipment for marine research for the US, Canadian, and other governmental agencies.
That's not quite true. The iPhone is capable of drawing more power than the USB spec allows to charge (USB allows 500mA at 5V, the iPhone can draw up to 1A, IIRC). However, so as not to fry a USB port that is not rated to drive the phone, it looks for the voltage divider resistors.
That is the "official Apple story", but as anyone who's read the USB spec can tell you - EVERY single certified USB controller has an over-current detector in it and will shut the USB port down if the current draw is too high for the rated USB port (note: not all ports have to supply 500mA; they can supply up to that amount, but must report their actual limits in the hardware descriptor. And there is no requirement that a port only supplies up to 500 mA, many are built with higher limits now to support external HDDs and the like). IF the iDevice was built to the intent of the spec, it would throttle back its own USB current draw so as to not trip the over-current limit of the port, but there is no way for the iDevice to damage the USB port in the first place, by attempting to draw too much current.
And, as anyone who's ever built a charging circuit will tell you, just because your device "pulls" 1A does not mean you cannot charge it with 500 mA; you take longer, and may not be able to keep up with operational current draw, but you could charge it if desired.
Basically, Apple's using BS to try to make it sound like they're "protecting you" when in fact they're just playing around the USB spec and forcing you to only use their own chargers. Nice way to enforce purchase of $30 accessories...
Britney? Without Autotune? But that would sound...
Like the gates of Hell opened up and released countless demon-spawn upon the earth...
Is "the Internet" really so difficult to say or type?
Yes. Two extra syllables, 3 extra letters, and a total lack of hipsterness...
Music industry finds yet another way to shoot itself in the foot. But yeah, blame the pirates.
Slashdot Knee-Jerk Logic:
If(MUSIC == story.type)
{
cout << "Pirates are a scapegoat; music industry hates self";
}
Funny, I saw new, unopened iPhone 3G models for sale at the local Apple distributor, right in Xujiahui here in Shanghai. Are you assuming that what you see in the US is the same as everywhere?
Well played, good sir! Now excuse me whilst I go to the store and decide if I want the iPhone 3, 3GS, 4 in GSM, or 4 in CDMA. Because they all come with different OSes and capabilities. But I know, that's not fragmentation!
It's endemic with iPhone owners; in fact, because they like their phone there shouldn't be any other options for phones at all...
Or you should not buy an iPhone in the first place. Give your money to a vendor who deserves it.
Why would I want to give money to Microsoft to get an HTC Android phone? Fortunately, there are other choices for the moment.
Well, I'm sure you're happy paying Microsoft for the ActiveSync functionality inside iOS... I guess there's always Symbian!
...some Android devices?
Now if only that was "some iOS devices". Choice rocks, doesn't it?
WHOOSH! Look at chalsall's UID. Now read my statement again...
I don't know... Your slashot UID is a bit too high for me to trust blindly...
Since when does patent infringement result in a ban on import rather than a fine and order to pay royalties for the patented item? Is it because HTC isn't a US company?
A patent is a Government-granted monopoly. You have the right to license or restrict the use of your patented idea - it is the patent holder's choice, not the Courts or the infringer. You can choose to license company A and not license company B, effectively prohibiting company B from selling in your country.
If you're like Apple, and losing market share, then your best bet is to probably eliminate the competition than try to get a few bucks for each phone. The big problem for Apple isn't the loss of revenue from the infringement - it's from their shrinking marketshare worldwide. When the smartphone market starts reaching saturation and growth slows (probably in 2-3 years), then Apple's actual number of phones sold per month will start to slide as well (they are losing market share, but the market as a whole is growing faster so their total number of phones sold is increasing quarter over quarter).
Why is this a big, huge problem for Apple? Because 50% of their revenue - and close to 60% of their profit - comes from sales of iPhones. Their entire company is pretty much dependent on a single device. If sales of that device start to slip it will not only reduce revenue and profit but absolutely crush their stock price.