or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by auxio

 It could be in the contrast at the edges of objects in the scene (for example: a dark object on a light background or vice versa).  If you have more pixels in the video image, you can average/smooth those edges better when you downsample the larger image to fit on the screen.
 Why do people use run-on sentences is beyond linguistic sense.  Anyways, when you think about the design, it makes perfect sense.  The iMac is only thick enough to have port inputs at that point in the height.  So if you tried to put it on the front, you'd be plugging in to the edge of the screen.  And the side isn't thick enough for ports anywhere. And yes, one could argue that "it's a design issue then".  But seriously, I have a 27" iMac here, and it's really not that...
 There was huge discussion about this on the Go project site.  Closed as "Unfortunate".
So then, it's fair if someone invests millions of dollars in coming up with an innovative fingerprint recognition technology, and then someone else comes along and copies it identically aside from simply changing the coating on the sensor, and sells the same product for cheaper because they didn't have to do any of the expensive R&D work? I'm not saying that's the case here (FPC has a history in biometrics), but there needs to be some incentive to invest in innovation.
 Them's the brakes.  Either pay for the R&D to have your own technology (as Apple does) or forgo it.  Reverse-engineering and trying to work around patents deincentivizes innovation.
 It's what happened when the hardware components were being manufactured and sold in higher quantities (economies of scale) and Android OS made it very cheap for manufacturers to have a software interface to those components (i.e. they didn't have to pay for the software to be developed or pay licensing fees).  Manufacturers could then make more complex (smart) phones as cheaply as feature phones.  I already gave an example of how this might happen (government subsidies to...
 It's all about return-on-investment.  They'll push whichever phone gives them the highest.  If they have to pay a $500 subsidy and they make $1000 profit over the 2-year contract, it's no different than if they paid $100 subsidy and only made $600 over the 2-year contract.
 I didn't say that.  It's just that many of the companies manufacturing these phones have a history of working around patents rather than fairly licensing technology (especially when only distributing products in China, where patents tend to be difficult to enforce). So I was a bit skeptical when I first looked that the fingerprint sensor technology used in the Ascend, but after a quick look at the FPC site, I see that they've publicly announced it.  So I'm satisfied that...
 Not shipping yet. Why is the fingerprint sensor on the back of it?  It also just started shipping this month and it's not available in the US. And keep supporting companies that reverse-engineer technology and figure out ways to work around patents.  Apple may not always invent things themselves, but at least they play by the rules and either buy the company that did or license the technology from them.
 What if a government agency tasked with preventing electronics waste from making it's way into landfills (as many feature phones did when they fell out of favour) subsidized it?  If you're referring to a cellular service provider, then they aren't the ones profiting when someone buys a higher end phone unless they also buy a higher end service plan.  In fact, they have to pay a higher subsidy (and thus have to force you onto a more expensive plan to recoup their...
New Posts  All Forums: