podlasek

dewme said:

I'm a bit disappointed that they would design a building that doesn't accommodate and coexist in its environment in a more natural and passive way. An active roof warming system in a cold and snowy climate must be quite expensive to power and could potentially fail during a prolonged power outage, like an outage caused by excessive snowfall. I hope they at least use waste heat or an environmentally friendly energy source to power the roof heaters. It's not as bad as building an igloo store in the Arizona desert, but they could have been much more environmentally considerate like they've been with their spaceship campus. 

"doesn't accommodate and coexist in its environment " Is that your opinion, or do you have facts that they are not using a renewable energy source?

"warming system in a cold and snowy climate must be quite expensive to power" From previous experience, they are low power consumption, typically DC, systems that have sensors and cycle times to keep costs low.

"they could have been much more environmentally considerate"  It seems that you just have uninformed/non-factual opinion and guesses here? Or do you have some source you are not mentioning?

On a factual basis, one could argue that none of Apple's stores are energy efficient with their mostly glass exteriors.  Even multi pane glass with non-conductive gases do not have the R value of a well insulated wall

sflocal said:

One thing that confuses me a little bit is who manufactures the Qualcomm chips that Apple uses in its devices.  If Apple's partners are not paying Qualcomm until the lawsuits are settled, and Apple is not paying anything either to Qualcomm, then how is Apple getting the physical chips?

Are the physical chips provided by Qualcomm?  I would think that Qualcomm would simply stop supplying the chips if that were the case until they get paid.  Can anyone provide some insight on that?

This is the key of the suit.  The Qualcomm chips are purchased, and paid for.  Qualcomm has 'licensing' that requires additional payments based on the total cost of the item their chips are used in.  Essentially wanting a portion of the profits.  So if the chip is used in a $1000 phone they make more money than in a base model flip phone, even though it is the exact same chip and cost them the same regardless of the device it goes in. 

This is a monopolistic move because their technology was 'chosen' to be the standard.

Apple used to get a 'rebate' from Qualcomm that offset the 'licensing' fee, Qualcomm stopped that, so Apple sued for themselves and everyone else.

Let's see if I get this.

Qualcomm charges for the chip, then charges a fee to actually USE the chip?

Is that correct?

From the article referenced:
"These next-gen Mac Pros and pro displays “will not ship this year”. (I hope that means “next year”, but all Apple said was “not this year”.) In the meantime, Apple is today releasing meager speed-bump updates to the existing Mac Pros. The $2999 model goes from 4 Xeon CPU cores to 6, and from dual AMD G300 GPUs to dual G500 GPUs. The $3999 model goes from 6 CPU cores to 8, and from dual D500 GPUs to dual D800 GPUs. Nothing else is changing"


I can only hope that they are talking Fiscal Years, as in, will not ship this (Fiscal) year. Their Fiscal Year 2018 starts in October 2017.

robin huber said:

Wow. Business. And people think politicians are bad. 

So on the surface of this article, this Business is bad somehow?

Investors in anything have to make adult choices.  When those choices don't work out, the judge, in this case, says you can't have it both ways.  The investment could have just as easily gone south, and Beats would have been no more.

Obviously, Lee thought he was wronged in some way.  The court said he wasn't wronged in whatever way he was thinking, end of story, unless appeal, but that sounds unlikely based on the facts in the article.

Nothing here remotely looks like politics.