Lucioguido

The logistics of what Samsung is arguing, if applied to society at large, would just obliterate a functional society. 

Basically, Samsung is saying that if you steal something, and use the stolen good to make billions of dollars, the most you can get in trouble for is the amount you should’ve paid to begin with. 

So, in this system, there would be no incentive to pay for anything, ever. Basically, every single sale would have to go through courts and juries would decide fair value. Until then, everything is free. There’s no reason to worry about stealing, the worst that can happen to you is you pay what the company was legally determined was a far asking price back when you stole it. 

Man, this was supposed to be physically impossible. A silicon atom itself is about ¼ of a nanometer. Would love to see some information about how they’re avoiding having quantum tunneling shatter any useful results. 

Really dont understand how this would be practical pr cost effective. Really expected to change from silicon to graphene for so many reasons, none the least of which is how much easier it is to make single atom chains of graphene. Maybe that’s part of the plan and just wasn’t described today. 

asdasd said:

This report is clearly showing that Apple over estimated last year, and is setting expectations this year. Which is what you would expect. 

In short nothing to see here regarding a fall in demand this year. 

We don't know if they will keep the old X around, if they do I expect it to be a big seller. 

How do we know anything from this report, let alone the what you’re trying to decipher. Do we know how many companies Apple is sourcing components from? Do we know what models will be available next year?

Apple set their expectations for the fall and winter quarters and just barely beat both expectations. Sounds to me like they absolutely nailed their expectations last year. This source predicted winter sales would fall dramatically short, they were extremely wrong. 

Apple will set its guidance for this years iPhone at the end of the summer quarter. Until then, who knows what to expect. Certainly not these guys, since they have been very wrong already this year with this same data point. 

anton zuykov said:

Lucioguido said:

Man, this was supposed to be physically impossible. A silicon atom itself is about ¼ of a nanometer. Would love to see some information about how they’re avoiding having quantum tunneling shatter any useful results. 

Really dont understand how this would be practical pr cost effective. Really expected to change from silicon to graphene for so many reasons, none the least of which is how much easier it is to make single atom chains of graphene. Maybe that’s part of the plan and just wasn’t described today. 

Si atoms are not what conducts electricity, though. It is just used as a base material of a wafer..

Well, I’m not sure what you mean by this. Yeah, silicon is exactly what the transistors and gates are etched into. Yes, electrons don’t just stream through them near the speed of light, because that’s not how conductive metals work. Still doesn’t change anything about the silicon walls being vastly thinner than the variance in location which an electron is expected to “jump” about.