maestro64
About
- Username
- maestro64
- Joined
- Visits
- 158
- Last Active
- Roles
- member
- Points
- 4,923
- Badges
- 2
- Posts
- 5,043
Reactions
-
Apple hit with patent suits over iPhone X camera, iOS 11 'Do Not Disturb While Driving' fe...
lowededwookie said:Doesn’t Apple already hold a patent for Do Not Disturb? I remember it being issued some time ago. Therefore this lot are going to have to have Apple’s patent invalidated first. Good luck with that.
Actually I had this feature on my Motorola Android phone back in 2009. It was one of the few features from Motorola I missed once I moved to the IPhone. The Motorola feature allow you to set triggers on what it did base on location and Bluetooth connections. I have it set when it connected to my car's Bluetooth and was plugged into the car charger it would automatically send a text to people telling them I was driving and I would get back to them later, it would also send calls to voicemail and if I did not try an answer it and it recognize the caller with mobile phone it would send them a text saying I was driving. It also have basic geo-fencing as well
What Apple is doing is a subset of this, and if this company is going after Apple they better show they had the idea and patents prior to Motorola back in 2009. Otherwise they copied my Motorola was already doing 9 yrs ago.
-
Samsung, Micron, Hynix sued for alleged DRAM price fixing
Actual, you will not, most consumers never actually buy memory directly. I worked for one of the companies who bought memory from these companies, back in 2006 the last time this happen. My company got a big fat check and we did not share it with anyone. We did not increase our product price we took a margin hit so consumers did not end up paying more.rob53 said:Of course, we the end users will see maybe a buck or two at most out of this.
Most likely this is what will happen again. Those who buy the memory will get the payday.
FYI, the company I worked for back in 2006 was the one who blew the whistle on memory companies and what they were doing.
-
Qualcomm proposes new licensing terms to lure in customers
No it was poorly written, I thought the same thing. No QCOM caps the phone cost @ $400 when calculating the % fee they get, if the fee is 1% the most a licensee pays is $4 phone if the phone sells for $400 or more. It was not always this way in the past, a $1000 phone would have been $10.1983 said:WTF! Am I understanding this right, if Qualcomm products are used in the iPhone X, 40 percent of that product’s retail price goes to bloody Qualcomm?
There is a second part of Apple issue is the fact Foxconn also had to pay the same fee based on the value of the parts they made for Apple.
-
Apple could be hit by Korean FTC for shifting iPhone burdens to local carriers
First, you can not price fix your own product, Telling your customer what they are allow to sell your product for is not new, this is a stand practice. No if Apple sold into distribution then Apple is not allow to dictate price. This is why Apple will not sell their production through Distribution. Apple negotiate deals with each reseller, as such they agree to the terms or not sell the product. Price fixing is when multiply companies get together behind close doors and agree to not to sell below a specific price. Pricing fixing requires more than one company selling similar product like gas or sugar, i.e, they can exchange for one another with not impact the consumer.
Also, do you think Apple lets Korean carries fix their phones, also, how much advertising does Apple actually do, and do you think Apple is forking over money to over carries to advertise for them.
-
Mark Zuckerberg calls Tim Cook's anti-Facebook retort 'glib,' defends ad-based model
vmarks said:
Nielsen ratings did come from somewhere, though. Advertisers weren't just throwing dollars at TV spend, they were working on spending on time slots when they knew people would be watching, and more than that, when they knew their target audience would be watching. Soap operas are called that because it was that time of day when the housewife was at home, and they could advertise soap to her.maestro64 said:At one time TV and Radio was always free to everyone, no matter how much you made, everyone was treated the same, media broadcast did not discriminate based on your social economic background, If you could buy a radio or TV or share one with your neighbor you can see free content. This all was supported by advertising. however, at no time did the media companies know anything about you what you did each day, how you spent your time and money.
So Zuck is claiming there are people who can not afford his product and services unless he know everything about them and then use their formation to target information at them which may or may not be in their own best interest.
Zuck is really trying hard to get this to blow over, he is hoping in a few weeks people will forget and go back to what they always have been doing which is sharing their information with Zuck so he can make lots of money. If that happen I guess i will jump back in on the stock and also make money off people giving up their privacy.
Nielsen also paid you. I was Nielsen household for a short period of time and had to fill out the viewing log. Did this for 6 months and Nielson choose not to renew with my household. I eventually figure out why, we did not watch much TV at the time, may be a few hours a week. We had young kids and spent more time with them and their activities than sitting in front of TV. Nielson obvious did not want my data to share with Advertisers because I was not the target audience.
We then got DirecTV, and DTV always had the ability to know what you watch and when all the time, they did not need you to log your watching habits they knew it better than anyone. Why do you think they required a phone cable to the STB back in the 90's. This was also why DTV was less than most other services, they could advertise better to you.
