or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by battiato1981

Thus endth both the entertainment and journalist careers of Mike Daisey. Never really passed the smell test, but managed to do a lot of damage ... He got his start doing a 'tell all' show based on a stint at Amazon, disappeared and then resurfaced with the perfect publicity grabbing show that cashed in on the name of Steve Jobs, much like the 'click bait' articles used to turn up on the web ad nauseum before Jobs died. Very calculated ... After This American Life...
Not a bad take except I don't think they ever worried about Apple launching their own proprietary ad service. Apple had never shown any interest in doing that and has striven, on the desktop at least, to offer ad-free environments and products as one of the benefits of the Apple eco-system. But perhaps they viewed Apple as too powerful middle person between them and the search data that iOS users represented that they'd be better off trying to siphon some of those users...
I concur. So insecure and overreaching, and in the process fouling their own nest. I would hate to be at a company that depended on advertising to keep it all afloat. But how else to you monetize search and not annoy people? Thats been their problem from day one. I have no answer to that.
I do see them referring to basing the fee on an 'industry average sales price for a basic (voice/data) communications device' ... This is not quite what you are saying, this is an 'industry average' based on something 'basic' ... but perhaps is referencing that as the industry average price of the completed device that utilizes the chipset in question. So you have a point, but there seems to be a big difference. Anyway, I'll leave it to the lawyers now. And I did get...
Just read it ... didn't see any mention of Apple FRAND licensing being based on the cost of the final product though. Its a letter about Apples commitment to more 'consistent and more transparent application of FRAND licensing ...'. Good common sense stuff, as long as all parties reciprocate. Googles letter couldn't be more clear that they intend to try to extort onerous terms as a cudgel against competitors. Not exactly the spirit of FRAND.
I'm a little late to the party here and haven't read through all the comments ... I'm referring to the line in paragraph 3 of the Google letter which is cited in the body of the article. Not aware that Apple ever made a similar suggestion ... can't imagine them doing that.
So if this chipset is built in to a car as part of an integrated communications system, the royalty fee would be 2.25% of the value of the car ... have I got that right? I wish I had the e-mail address for this Mr. Gordon Day at the IEEE. I'll write a letter but might not get there before this decision had been made ... but still gotta chime in on this ...
Since you cite it, that event was reportedly Foxconn workers who were making the XBox for Microsoft, oddly enough. Never really got much in the way of details about why them, why then, and what the demands were. Not Apple related, except by extension via Foxconn. Apple, like it or not, is now the big kahuna making the mobile and computer devices that people all over the world want to have. With the success comes all sorts of scrutiny. They are now the poster boy for all...
I do look to Apple to lead the way to not only the best designed products but also safe and fair conditions for all their workers and of course, including the subcontractors who build all the products. It fits with the image that they want people to associate with them and is just good business, business that they can afford. That said, it's got to be extremely hard to continually ramp the production on all these items that the world is clamoring for ... it seems...
It's not like that at all, because, in short, Ford is not likely to be giving away Ford trucks to people that want to start moving businesses any time soon.
New Posts  All Forums: