or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by NormM

Square is involved in a patent dispute with the guy who they asked to design their card reader, who filed a patent with just his name on it (actually a bunch of patents). Of course detailed plans for such a device had been published openly on the internet years earlier, so I don't understand how anyone ended up getting patents on it! Probably PayPal is licensing these patents.
You mean four times the density (twice the resolution in each direction).
A large leap, I'd say. If this name is right, this is not the iPad 2HD or iPad 2S, this is the iPad HD. They consider HD a big enough feature to name the phone after it alone. Retina display was not a minor feature when it appeared in the iPhone 4 -- that was not an incremental upgrade. This is like saying that the MacBook Air was a minor upgrade, because they named it after just one feature, its light weight.
In response, jragosta exhibited a quote from the Wall Street Journal: Since the earlier agreement was a purchase and sale agreement, according to my understanding of the word "bought" this third party analysis says the court ruled the trademark was bought but not delivered.
I assume the article is quoting an Apple spokeswoman saying Proview "refuse to honor" the agreement. The writing could be clearer.
If these displays are being shipped to South Korea, I think that's pretty good evidence they aren't for the iPad 3.
All the current Airs come with Thunderbolt connectors, so I assume you would use that for imaging.
According to Apple's numbers they paid out $2 billion to developers last year. If the top 100,000 got most of the money, that's an average of around $20,000 each. Some must have gotten more and made a good living, and some must have just augmented other income. But it's still a lot of jobs, and obviously much more than your initial estimate of 2,000. And this estimate doesn't include any Apple employees, which I assume would be included in the 43,000 US employee number...
This American Life broadcast part of this show recently. The second part of the radio program was independent fact checking on part 1, and was actually pretty favorable towards Apple.
As long as there is enough information in the captured pixels to produce a crude depth-map for an all-in-focus image (i.e., about how far away is the thing captured by each pixel), then a blur filter applied to parts of the in-focus image can do a pretty good simulation of controlled depth of field. Computational imaging techniques seem to just be getting started, and I doubt if the Lytro idea is efficient enough in its use of available light to be the future.
New Posts  All Forums: