or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by bsimpsen

Apple contributed $2.6 Billion to the Nortel patent purchase. I think that's more than half a billion ;-)
My wife claims that would be me.
Getting tax breaks by purchasing operations that lose money is a curious business model.
If you weren't mislead, why do you think the judge would be?
I've been wondering this too. One of the claimed benefits of the Liquid Metal technology was the ability to injection mold it to final tolerance, complete with an attractive surface finish. Apple has an exclusive license on this technology in the CE space. If it works and works well, it would be yet another distinguishing characteristic of Apple products that's hard to copy.
I routinely listen to my iPod while it's docked, which would be impossible in this scheme. At first glance, this does appear to be nonsense. Perhaps the main claims for this invention (induction via the headphone cables) are a smoke screen for something else in the patent. A careful reading of the patent might reveal what it's really getting at.
Agreed. Australian and European Telcos have recommended the iPhone 4 for use in fringe reception areas because it's one of the best performing phones with weak signals. Mr. Jobs accurately characterized the problem as being one of "perception" not reality. I don't sigh though. The "unwashed masses" who've consistently made the iPhone 4 a best seller seem to have a better grip on reality than the geek-tech experts.
There seems to be a presumption on the part of the person I responded to, and others, that this vulnerability is as described and that Apple must respond. In fact, the vulnerability is not as described and Apple's response would have to be a mix of addressing the true vulnerability (which is the potential bricking of batteries) and educating the masses in battery pack engineering. I expect Apple to address the vulnerability but I do not expect them to address the ignorance...
You have no idea what you are talking about. The charge control hardware in a LiPo system will not force the battery into a hazardous state even if the firmware is hacked. This is a regulated requirement for consumer products carrying US/CSA/IEC certification. If a LiPo battery were to vent, the gas would be hydrogen, which is non-toxic. You can float a LiPo cell at its rated full-charge voltage (4.2 or 4.3V depending on the chemistry) indefinitely with no harm. Apple has...
I'd blame the security guy for the wholesale manufacture of threats that don't exist. The battery cannot be made to catch fire or explode (as I explained earlier), nor is x86 code stored in/retrieved from the battery controller firmware. I do believe this is a case of Mr. Miller's ignorance and self interest getting the better of himself and a great many others.
New Posts  All Forums: