Herbivore2

k2kw said:

Herbivore2 said:

Qualcomm has already been sued in Korea. Now the federal government and Apple are both suing them. 

Intel needs to get busy and release a baseband radio with both CDMA and GSM support, winning all of Apple's modem business. 

Samsung and LG need to abandon Qualcomm also, using their own chips, not snapdragons. The company can sink into the abyss. Their practices are odious and Apple is better off using Intel anyhow. 

I'm not going to buy a phone with any crappy Intel modem.   And is CDMA a public standard like GSM?

The FTC lawsuit will probably be dropped by the new Admin when Trump takes over.
Don't expect Apple's legal department to win this; they have a poor track record.

From a purely technical perspective, QUALCOMM has the better modem. However, Intel's modem is adequate.

The decision to buy a phone with an Intel or QUALCOMM modem is an individual one. That is not what's being discussed here.

QUALCOMM is abusing it's patent monopoly to charge exorbitant prices to manufacturers such as Apple, Samsung, and LG for modems.

It is the basis of the Korean fair trade commission lawsuit against QUALCOMM the FTC lawsuit and now the Apple lawsuit.

While Trump is pro business, he very likely will look at this quite unfavorably. It is doubtful that he will protect companies who use monopoly positions to charge exorbitant prices as in the case of QUALCOMM. Don't expect him to bail QUALCOMM out of this one.

In any case, Trump has no say over how the Korean government prosecutes lawsuits. QUALCOMM still has a huge liability, should the Korean lawsuit be lost.

The real key is how long is the Pixel useful. I can easily get three very useful years from an iPhone. Most of my friends who purchase Android devices struggle after a year and even more after two years of use. Apple's hardware is quite good. And Apple's ecosystem is far less fragmented than Google's Android. 

I don't think very highly of HTC hardware. Samsung and LG make better devices. As a matter of fact, both of them manufactured phones for Google previously and no longer do. It's no secret that they parted from Google on less than friendly terms. Now Google has partnered with HTC. I wonder who they'll partner with next. Probably won't be Sony. Maybe Xiaomi or Huawei. Actually Huawei probable won't as they are looking to put Alexa on their phones. And if I were looking for a non iOS phone, Alexa would be quite enticing. 

This is likely a play by Google to drive the adoption of Chrome. I got rid of that pathetic browser a long time ago freeing up substantial bandwidth and restoring good performance to my iPhone. 

I don't use YouTube for much other than how to videos and repair projects. I would rather go to a legitimate source for content such as iTunes, Amazon, Netflix and DIRECTV. The 4K support by YouTube is a non-issue for me. 

And if people stop watching YouTube, Google will step up to the plate. 

I am certain that Facebook supports H.264
and that's far more important than whether YouTube does. 

YouTube doesn't have that much clout. H.264 is standard and legal. VP9 is an attempt again by Google to usurp intellectual property. It is pathetic to watch a company like them resort to these types of unsavory and frankly pathetic practices.

 Once Facebook or Amazon develops an competitive model, I won't be using YouTube at all. 

The hackers have been hacked. They reaped what they sowed. 

Perhaps its best to try and stay offline. Or maintain a low profile. 

tzm41 said:

redraider11 said:

dannybrook said:

You should wear a helmet because it can save your life. (Saved mine too.).  That doesn't mean there should be a law. 

Sorry, some people need laws to help protect themselves and others. Seat belts. Speed limits. Solid lines and passing zones. Stop lights. All apply whether someone else is at risk in the moment or not. And we all pay when someone gets hurt. I suppose we don't need laws on drinking and driving enforced unless someone gets hurt?

There should just be a blanket law against reckless driving which would cover drinking and distracted driving as well as driving like a jackass, which are all equally dangerous.  As far as safety laws, that should be left up to the individual. It doesn't affect me one way or the other whether or not you want to wear a helmet or seat belt so I don't really care. I do it for myself because I believe in it.

Actually, it does affect all of us. Laws in place that help people behave less stupid will lower the overall cost of medical expense, auto and medical insurance, transfer payments in the form of unpaid medical bills, etc. This has more to do with economics than politics.

We should just outlaw motorcycles outright then. Motorcyclists are far more susceptible to serious spinal cord injuries. Those injuries are quite costly. How about outlawing horse back riding. Or at the very minimum, requiring a helmet. Perhaps requiring that everyone over 70 require the use of a walker or a cane. The costs of caring for hip fractures after falls in the elderly are quite costly. Perhaps the NFL should be outlawed as the risk of post traumatic encephalopathy is quite high in playing the game. The game should probably be outlawed at the Junior and High School levels. 

Perhaps alcohol consumption should be made illegal or cigarette smoking. If not, then why should things like marijuana or narcotics be kept illegal for recreational use. People can either be responsible or not. 

Laws are necessary, but the indiscriminate use of them only makes things worse. And making a law to control every stupid or irresponsible action an individual or entity could commit is ridiculous. 

Our elected representatives should represent the will of the people in the laws that they make. They are paid to carefully and thoughtfully draft the laws to maximize benefit and minimize negative impacts. Unfortunately, they no longer write laws that represent the will of the people, but the interests of maximizing the profits of big business. Hence motorcycle helmet laws that represent the interests of the insurance companies and not the will of the people. Especially when the majority of accidents are the result of the automobile driver. These issues are going to be problematic with the development of self driving technology. 

For example, a motorcyclist abruptly drives into the path of a self driving vehicle. For whatever reason, perhaps something legitimate such as avoiding hitting a child that darted into the roadway. The autonomous vehicle decides to put the vehicle into a tree to avoid certain death to the motorcyclist but seriously injuring the driver in the process. 

This isn't anything that can be fixed by technology. Human judgement and behavior are not fixed by technology and laws. I cannot say it emphatically enough. 

Technology exists to make life more convenient. Laws exist to regulate human behaviors toward each other and should be determined by the will of the people, not because my leaders decide it's in my best interest. Because whether I decide to drink and smoke is my own business much like wearing a helmet.