Is Your Browser Color Managed?

On Sat, 03 Jun 2017 23:42:23 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:



https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...onable-to-qual
comm-isn-t-to-apple

It sounds reasonably neutral and informative. Except
for the subheading: "Their licensing and patent dispute
ultimately affects the price of iPhones." Last I heard,
Apple was bilking their customers to the tune of about
50% profit on iPhones. It has little to do with their costs.
They sue suppliers and competitors while building their
devices with slave labor, then charge their customers
far more than they need to. So the price of an iPhone
is not likely to be affected by one or two of these
patent disputes.

I think the Nokia deal was the one where the contract
expired. From the sounds of it, Apple just decided they
might have enough peer pressure in the industry to
simply refuse to pay Qualcomm and force a new price
discount. It's hard to find anyone who looks good
in these battles. They're all collecting dubious patents
and trying to extort each other. That seems to be part
of the Silicon Valley business model in general.

Cook's quoted statement is much more fair and balanced than nospam's.

he says pretty much the same thing as i do. fancy that.

However when writing:

"It suggested that patent fees should no longer be paid as a
percentage of the entire price of the phone, but rather as a
percentage of the component that used the technology. That would
radically lower the fees the Apples of the world paid to Qualcomm."

which is why qualcomm is fighting so damned hard.

they're seeing their money train dry up.

... Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. Qualcomm
wants to collect a certain sum by way of license and whether you
express this as X% of the cost of the phone or 8X% of the cost of a
chip is immaterial.

nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price
of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero.

I've already quoted specialists in the field explaining why it can be
a good idea and is common practice.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


... Bloomberg fundamentally misunderstood what was going on. Qualcomm
wants to collect a certain sum by way of license and whether you
express this as X% of the cost of the phone or 8X% of the cost of a
chip is immaterial.

nonsense. there is absolute no justification whatsoever for the price
of a component to be based on the device in which it's used. zero.

I've already quoted specialists in the field explaining why it can be
a good idea and is common practice.

no you didn't. not only is it not common, but you failed to name
another company that engages in such predatory tactics. not a single
one.

what a company does with the parts they buy does not change the price
they pay for it, something you even agreed with.

you are defending the indefensible.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

... unless you are suggesting that Apple have stopped making the
products which require the use Qualcomm's patents.
Surely you are not suggesting that?

where did you get that idea?

I originally wrote (above):

"The original contract expired and Apple didn't want to extend it.
But they kept on using the patented technology just the same ..."

You appeared to challenge me on that statement. The statement
comprises two sentences. AS far as the first sentence is concerned, we
know that Apple don't want to extend (continue with) the present
contract. That's why they are arguing. I presume you are not disputing
that.

they wanted to extend it, but renegotiate the terms.

It must be the second sentence you are disputing. For that to be
wrong, Apple must have ceased using the disputed technology. That's
where I got that idea.

they can't cease using it. qualcomm has a monopoly on it.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...sonable-to-qua
lcomm-isn-t-to-apple

Apple and the other smartphone makers want to have a new fee
arrangement in place before 5G becomes the standard -- because they
don¹t want to be as beholden to Qualcomm as they were for 3G and 4G
technology. If the courts agree that Qualcomm must base its fees on
the component rather than the entire smartphone, it will be a huge
victory for the phone makers and a significant blow to Qualcomm.

We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

true, but it's very obvious what will happen.


It sounds reasonably neutral and informative. Except
for the subheading: "Their licensing and patent dispute
ultimately affects the price of iPhones."

obviously, especially when qualcomm's fees are dependent on components
that *don't* come from qualcomm.

You misunderstand. They are dependent on the value of the object their
invention makes possible.

it's you who misunderstands.

under no circumstances whatsoever is a company entitled to anything
that does not come from said company.

qualcomm insists on higher fees because apple adds value that qualcomm
did not create.

apple is paying twice, once for the other component and again to
qualcomm.

then charge their customers
far more than they need to.

except that the samsung galaxy s8 and note 7 (before its recall) sold
for *more* than an equivalent iphone.

Business 101. The sales price of a good does not depend on it's cost.

exactly.

now convince mayayana of that.

On 2017-06-04 05:40:02 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

... unless you are suggesting that Apple have stopped making the
products which require the use Qualcomm's patents.
Surely you are not suggesting that?

where did you get that idea?

I originally wrote (above):

"The original contract expired and Apple didn't want to extend it.
But they kept on using the patented technology just the same ..."

You appeared to challenge me on that statement. The statement
comprises two sentences. AS far as the first sentence is concerned, we
know that Apple don't want to extend (continue with) the present
contract. That's why they are arguing. I presume you are not disputing
that.

they wanted to extend it, but renegotiate the terms.

That sounds very much like Trumpian thinking.

It must be the second sentence you are disputing. For that to be
wrong, Apple must have ceased using the disputed technology. That's
where I got that idea.

they can't cease using it. qualcomm has a monopoly on it.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 01:40:02 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

... unless you are suggesting that Apple have stopped making the
products which require the use Qualcomm's patents.
Surely you are not suggesting that?

where did you get that idea?

I originally wrote (above):

"The original contract expired and Apple didn't want to extend it.
But they kept on using the patented technology just the same ..."

You appeared to challenge me on that statement. The statement
comprises two sentences. AS far as the first sentence is concerned, we
know that Apple don't want to extend (continue with) the present
contract. That's why they are arguing. I presume you are not disputing
that.

they wanted to extend it, but renegotiate the terms.

Which means they didn't want to extend the original agreement ... duh!

It must be the second sentence you are disputing. For that to be
wrong, Apple must have ceased using the disputed technology. That's
where I got that idea.

they can't cease using it. qualcomm has a monopoly on it.

Are you saying they are continuing to use it? If so, you are agreeing
with me when I wrote "But they kept on using the patented technology
just the same ..."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sun, 04 Jun 2017 01:40:03 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...sonable-to-qua
lcomm-isn-t-to-apple

Apple and the other smartphone makers want to have a new fee
arrangement in place before 5G becomes the standard -- because they
don¹t want to be as beholden to Qualcomm as they were for 3G and 4G
technology. If the courts agree that Qualcomm must base its fees on
the component rather than the entire smartphone, it will be a huge
victory for the phone makers and a significant blow to Qualcomm.

We will have to wait and see what actually happens.

true, but it's very obvious what will happen.


It sounds reasonably neutral and informative. Except
for the subheading: "Their licensing and patent dispute
ultimately affects the price of iPhones."

obviously, especially when qualcomm's fees are dependent on components
that *don't* come from qualcomm.

You misunderstand. They are dependent on the value of the object their
invention makes possible.

it's you who misunderstands.

under no circumstances whatsoever is a company entitled to anything
that does not come from said company.

qualcomm insists on higher fees because apple adds value that qualcomm
did not create.

apple is paying twice, once for the other component and again to
qualcomm.

This is common: Apple pays once to buy a license to use Qualcomm's
patented technology. They pay separately to buy goods from Qualcomm
which they can then incorporate in their products as they have already
bought a license to do so.

then charge their customers
far more than they need to.

except that the samsung galaxy s8 and note 7 (before its recall) sold
for *more* than an equivalent iphone.

Business 101. The sales price of a good does not depend on it's cost.

exactly.

now convince mayayana of that.

Only after you show me that you have understood where this fits into
the present discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Businesses that need business phones pay a lot
more for that, even though there's usually no
reason for it. When I started my own business I called
the phone company to ask whether I had to have
a business phone. They told me no, as long as I
didn't answer the phone with a business name. There's
no logic at all to that. It's just what the market will
bear combined with lack of regulation.


When systems go down, business phones get priority in repair.(at least
in theory.)

in practice too.

Obviously you've never been up a pole or in a cable vault. The circuits
that can be positively identified get repaired first. If a cable is
damaged by fire and the lineman finds 200 charred wires and 50 wires
with sufficient insulation to determine the color code, he'll repair
those 50 wires first just to get them out of the way. He's not going to
go through a bundle of charred, bare wires looking for business circuits.

obviously, you haven't a clue. this isn't about major outages due to
fire that affects thousands of customers.

if there's a problem with *your* line, business class service will have
someone out to fix it within a couple of hours, while residential will
be whenever they get around to it. tech support will be a higher tier,
staffed by people with a clue, not the "did you reset your modem? did
you reboot your computer?"

businesses generally can't afford downtime, while residential customers
can, thus the higher price.

business class service may also offer services not available to
residential customers, such as static ip, no prohibition on servers
and/or no blocking of ports.

(Disclosu I have never been up a telephone pole. I have been in a few
cable vaults.)

too bad you didn't stay in one of them.

Years ago, United Telco in central PA rationalized the higher business
rate because it included a Yellow Pages listing. This was back in the
day when only the local telco published a phone book.

who cares. it's not years ago anymore.

Nospam is totally clueless. Trouble ticket systems That
don't differentiate between business and residental. The tech
with the windshield wipers may never even know what was
being worked on

It happens that business phones are important, but not
more so than residential phones. On the grand scheme of
things the industry has always been based on the idea
that no one phone is more important, because it is that
other phone that calls it. Put a phone on every tree
and under every rock, and that is what generates the
traffic, not a phone that has a CEO at the end.

I never climbed a pole either. But as an IXC trouble
shooter I've given more technical advice to LEC's than
you can shake a stick at.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Utqiagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 6/3/2017 9:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Apple signed a contract and then wanted to negotiate a price? It
doesn't work that way.

The original contract expired and Apple didn't want to extend it. But
they kept on using the patented technology just the same ...

you sat in on the negotiations?


Sounds more like you have inside information. What Eric said is not at
all uncommon. He has made a reasonable assumption.

--
PeterN

On 6/3/2017 9:21 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Businesses that need business phones pay a lot
more for that, even though there's usually no
reason for it. When I started my own business I called
the phone company to ask whether I had to have
a business phone. They told me no, as long as I
didn't answer the phone with a business name. There's
no logic at all to that. It's just what the market will
bear combined with lack of regulation.


When systems go down, business phones get priority in repair.(at least
in theory.)

in practice too.

Obviously you've never been up a pole or in a cable vault. The circuits
that can be positively identified get repaired first. If a cable is
damaged by fire and the lineman finds 200 charred wires and 50 wires
with sufficient insulation to determine the color code, he'll repair
those 50 wires first just to get them out of the way. He's not going to
go through a bundle of charred, bare wires looking for business circuits.

obviously, you haven't a clue. this isn't about major outages due to
fire that affects thousands of customers.

if there's a problem with *your* line, business class service will have
someone out to fix it within a couple of hours, while residential will
be whenever they get around to it. tech support will be a higher tier,
staffed by people with a clue, not the "did you reset your modem? did
you reboot your computer?"

businesses generally can't afford downtime, while residential customers
can, thus the higher price.

business class service may also offer services not available to
residential customers, such as static ip, no prohibition on servers
and/or no blocking of ports.

(Disclosu I have never been up a telephone pole. I have been in a few
cable vaults.)

too bad you didn't stay in one of them.

Years ago, United Telco in central PA rationalized the higher business
rate because it included a Yellow Pages listing. This was back in the
day when only the local telco published a phone book.

who cares. it's not years ago anymore.


Again, you make nasty personal comments. Too bad you don't get out i the
real world.

--
PeterN