CloudTalkin

entropys said:

I can understand trying to stop distribution, but why sue? Did Ubisoft ask nicely first?

AI didn't report it but the source article from Bloomber says they did ask first:
"Ubisoft said it has notified Apple and Google that Area F2 is infringing its copyrights but the companies have refused to remove the game from the Google Play and Apple App stores."

GeorgeBMac said:

I think the take-away here might simply be that processors, memory and GPUs have, for the average user, surpassed their needs.

I mean come on!   How many users need or want a 5K display much less a 6K?

Yes, there are those who need every ounce of power a machine can give.   But, for most, the power of these already exceeds their wants and needs.

The analogy is:   Should I buy a car that can do 180mph?   Or, will one that can only do 150mph suffice?   For most people -- the vast majority I think, the faster car is only for bragging rights.

The take away is much more simple than that.  The take away is people who want an Apple laptop should either buy the MBA if budget is a concern or buy the higher level MBP.  They generally shouldn't buy the entry level MBP.  To piggyback on your analogy.  The MBA can do 150mph.  The entry level MBP can do 156mph but costs as if it can do 170mph.  Why buy it?  Just get the 150mph MBA or the 180mph higher spec.  It's squeeze by the MBA and the higher spec MBP.  It's superfluous... like a 3rd nipple.

GeorgeBMac said:

I'm confused:  Is LTPO needed for 120Hz refresh or simply for better battery life?

The article mentions Young saying "a technology he suggests is essential for displays with variable refresh rates up to 120Hz."

But then it points out the iPads already have 120Hz without it.

Then it suggests that Apple Watch 5 uses it -- but for as Young suggests, better battery life in an "always on" display.

Actually, this whole thing sounds like somebody (Young) pushing a technology using whichever justifications he can come up with.

Confusion.  That's what happens when an author throws together a mishmash of quotes and tweets and doesn't really add any explanatory contributions.  Still, you got it right.  LTPO is not needed for 120Hz refresh.  It is there to contribute to better battery life.   The iPads and Android phones don't need LTPO for the same reason:  they all have big ass batteries.  They all could benefit from it, yes, but don't need it as much as an iPhone would.  iPhones typically have the smallest battery capacity of all the flagships so LTPO + variable refresh rate will definitely be beneficial in maintaining the current battery life levels.

The article mentions Samsung will be using LTPO on the upcoming Note 20.  Even with giant batteries, that 120Hz refresh rate is a power drawing monster.  In the S20, Samsung limited 120Hz to 1080p to help mitigate the battery drain and maintain current battery life levels.  LTPO will help them get past that self imposed limitation.

coolfactor said:

Sad that people feel compelled to spin this as "Apple did this on purpose!". They never intentionally broke something to force upgrades. That wasn't their motivation. They didn't sit around a table brainstorming "hey, how can we force our customers to upgrade to iOS 7?".... "hmm, what if we disabled FaceTime on iOS 6?".... "oh! Good idea!".

That's nonsense, yet that's exactly how these silly lawsuits are portrayed.

Well, circumstantial evidence implies they did do it on purpose, but not for the reasons you're implying.  The real claim is their motivation was to avoid paying Akamai excessive fees for server based FaceTime.  To accomplish that, it is alleged they intentionally broke FT on iOS6 (server based) to get users to migrate to iOS7.  Remember, they could no longer do peer-to-peer FT without incurring the licensing fees from VirnetX - Apple had just lost a FT patent case to them.  FT use to be 90% peer-to-peer, 10% server based...  economical and safe back up with Akamai.  After the VirnetX judgment, Apple decided it had to go 100% server based FT... still safe, but no so economical.   

The primary circumstantial evidence was internal emails that implied the "FaceTime Break" was intentional.  In other words, the implication was upgrading to iOS7 was means to accomplish the end result of reducing payments to Akamai.  This situation is ironic since the iOS7 peer-to-peer solution to get around VirnetX only resulted in a secondary lawsuit loss to VirnetX at a later date.

Unfortunately, the article is factually incorrect.  The car referenced in this article is 1. not the rare 1979 Apple liveried 935 K3 that raced at Le Mans, 2. was never sponsored by Apple, and 3 the video in the article is not the Apple 935 K3.  The car in the article is a replica (hence the cheap $500K price tag) basically built from a GT2 chassis. 

Tangent: The replica being an older reskinned GT2 is ironic since the new Porsche 935, built as an homage to the original, is basically just a new GT2 RS reskinned to race spec.  Details here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT2EhcwoO6k

Fun fact:  The real Apple 935 K3 is owned by Adam Carolla.  He paid a whopping $4.4 million for the car because it was owned by Paul Newman.  Story here.  It won a class victory and 2nd overall at the 1979 24hr of Le Mans with Newman co-driving with Barbour and Stommelen. Apple only sponsored the car for one season since the 1980 campaign was not very successful.  The car went back to it's primary sponsor, Hawaiian Tropic (the livery it wears now) and subsequently won the '81 24hrs of Daytona and '83 12hrs of Sebring.  

Carolla is a die hard Paul Newman fanboy.  He owns 10 of Newman's race cars.  Personally I think the truth is a better story than the original.