or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bsimpsen

Your patent would only prevent others from using YOUR finger on Apple devices. I think there are already sufficient legal protections in place for that.
The young lady states that we could argue that "retina display" is more about perceived image quality than specs. But as the specs are based on human visual perception, she's wrong. What you can argue about is viewing distance. Whether that argument will have any effect on sales is another issue entirely.
A first-hand account by one person which, when fact-checked by "This American Life" revealed that some of his observations did not comport with the facts. The creator of that show also did not observe and report on working conditions for farmers in South China. I certainly hope for improvements in working conditions at Foxconn, but you must remember that China is dragging itself into the 21st century from the 19th. It won't be pretty.
[QUOTE=jragosta;2029170]Patents used to have a lifetime of 17 years after issuance. This was later (1995, IIRC) changed to 20 years after application to be consistent with most of the rest of the world. I haven't followed the story, so don't know if the issue dates of the patents in question have been revealed. It's possible that patents for ideas created during the joint venture were not granted until years later (current issue latency is about three years). It's also...
If you recall Steve's introduction of retina limited viewing, he explained that the required PPI depends on the viewing distance. For the average viewing distance of an iPhone, that worked out to about 300+PPI. For the average viewing distance to an iPad, 264PPI would likely well qualify as retina limited.
The market has already answered your question for you, the Vita is in serious trouble.
This remains to be seen. Let's hope the Fingerworks crew were far enough ahead of the curve that they've got a good footing in multi-touch. Cypress, Atmel, Synaptics and others have been working in this area since before the iPhone. We won't know the value of Apple's patent until they bring it to bear against potential infringers.
I might agree with this, but you've missed that, since losing the "PC War", Apple has become the worlds largest consumer of semiconductors and has the highest return on R&D in big business. We're already seeing hints of monopsony and competitors are having difficulty competing on price. Apple is now large enough that vertical integration doesn't lose volume efficiencies.Also note that Apple is overturning the status quo in computers, as the Mac is gaining market share....
The rumored acquisition of Anobit would bolster this view. If Apple is able to take the lead in cost/bit for large Flash systems (Anobit's forté), competitor's margins will be further squeezed while Apple enlarges the performance envelope of the Air family. Apple's manufacturing volumes are now sufficient to justify vertical integration into the silicon supply chain. Every additional disintermediation makes it that much harder for others to compete.
If Steve had done that, 95% of computer users would be using crappy MacO/iOS. The Apple ecosystem is what it is because the operating systems are NOT licensed out. Apple's mistake 25 years ago was in pricing their products too high. Being vertically integrated could have worked then as it's working now.
New Posts  All Forums: