Is Your Browser Color Managed?

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Then how, in the context of DCI-P3, can Apple be said to be not a
follower?

because they're the only company to deploy it on almost every product.

But they didn't design the specification and they were not the first
to use it. How can you claim they are a leader?

read what i wrote:
because they're the only company to deploy it on almost every product.

The best you can say is that they were an early adopter, and that's
fair enough.

apple is the first to deploy it across their entire product line (with
minor exceptions).

being first is one of your silly requirements.

On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:41:28 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


qualcomm is also trying to extort patent licensing fees for frand
patents.

'frand' stands for 'fair, reasonable and non discrimatory' licensing.

correct.

It doesn't stand for 'free' licensing.

nobody said free.

You said (above) "qualcomm is also trying to extort patent licensing
fees for frand patents" as though it was something reprehensible.

Well, it isn't.

where does that say free?

You complain about them trying to 'extort' patent licensing fees - as
though you object to them wanting patent licensing fees. If that
wasn't your point, what were you trying to say?

did you even read what they're doing??

Actually, I do know what they are doing and why.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 29 May 2017 19:41:29 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Then how, in the context of DCI-P3, can Apple be said to be not a
follower?

because they're the only company to deploy it on almost every product.

But they didn't design the specification and they were not the first
to use it. How can you claim they are a leader?

read what i wrote:
because they're the only company to deploy it on almost every product.

The best you can say is that they were an early adopter, and that's
fair enough.

apple is the first to deploy it across their entire product line (with
minor exceptions).

being first is one of your silly requirements.

Being first is where leaders tend to be.


Leaving all that to one side - what exactly does apple software now do
when faced with the need to display an sRGB or Adobe RGB image?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


qualcomm is also trying to extort patent licensing fees for frand
patents.

'frand' stands for 'fair, reasonable and non discrimatory' licensing.

correct.

It doesn't stand for 'free' licensing.

nobody said free.

You said (above) "qualcomm is also trying to extort patent licensing
fees for frand patents" as though it was something reprehensible.

Well, it isn't.

where does that say free?

You complain about them trying to 'extort' patent licensing fees - as
though you object to them wanting patent licensing fees. If that
wasn't your point, what were you trying to say?

did you even read what they're doing??

Actually, I do know what they are doing and why.

then explain what they are doing and why.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Leaving all that to one side - what exactly does apple software now do
when faced with the need to display an sRGB or Adobe RGB image?

display it properly. what did you expect to happen?

everything in os x is colour managed, even the icons.

On Mon, 29 May 2017 22:36:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


qualcomm is also trying to extort patent licensing fees for frand
patents.

'frand' stands for 'fair, reasonable and non discrimatory' licensing.

correct.

It doesn't stand for 'free' licensing.

nobody said free.

You said (above) "qualcomm is also trying to extort patent licensing
fees for frand patents" as though it was something reprehensible.

Well, it isn't.

where does that say free?

You complain about them trying to 'extort' patent licensing fees - as
though you object to them wanting patent licensing fees. If that
wasn't your point, what were you trying to say?

did you even read what they're doing??

Actually, I do know what they are doing and why.

then explain what they are doing and why.

In short, Qualcom's original patent licensing came to an end. Apple,
Micron and a few others got together and have been trying to force
Qualcom to accept reduced patent licensing fees which Qualcom regards
as excessively low. Qualcom wants fees which may be as high as the
already paid rates and Apple, Micron et al think that's too high. Then
Apple, Micron et al stopped paying patent licensing fees although they
continued to use the patents. Finally Apple, Micron et al encouraged
(aka 'brought pressure to bear on') those who weren't a member of
their group to stop paying patent licensing fees to Qualcom. This last
group of people have been glad to shelter behind the skirts of Apple,
Micron et al and continue to use the patents without paying any
license. It's not nice and the industry has done this kind of thing
before.

Now, what were you saying about Qualcom extorting patent licensing
fees?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 29 May 2017 22:36:48 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


Leaving all that to one side - what exactly does apple software now do
when faced with the need to display an sRGB or Adobe RGB image?

display it properly. what did you expect to happen?

But what do they call 'properly'? What is the rendering intent, for
example?

everything in os x is colour managed, even the icons.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You complain about them trying to 'extort' patent licensing fees - as
though you object to them wanting patent licensing fees. If that
wasn't your point, what were you trying to say?

did you even read what they're doing??

Actually, I do know what they are doing and why.

then explain what they are doing and why.

In short, Qualcom's original patent licensing came to an end. Apple,
Micron and a few others got together and have been trying to force
Qualcom to accept reduced patent licensing fees which Qualcom regards
as excessively low. Qualcom wants fees which may be as high as the
already paid rates and Apple, Micron et al think that's too high. Then
Apple, Micron et al stopped paying patent licensing fees although they
continued to use the patents. Finally Apple, Micron et al encouraged
(aka 'brought pressure to bear on') those who weren't a member of
their group to stop paying patent licensing fees to Qualcom. This last
group of people have been glad to shelter behind the skirts of Apple,
Micron et al and continue to use the patents without paying any
license. It's not nice and the industry has done this kind of thing
before.

Now, what were you saying about Qualcom extorting patent licensing
fees?

you forgot the key part, where qualcomm bases its patent licensing fees
on the total price of the product, not just what comes from qualcomm.

that means that the licensing fees for an iphone 7+ are twice as much
as an iphone se, even though both have the same qualcomm modem.

similarly, the licensing fees for a 256 gig iphone are higher than a 32
gig iphone, the only difference being how much memory is installed,
which has nothing to do with qualcomm.

it's bull****. everyone knows it's bull****. even qualcomm knows its
bull****. they just don't want to lose their money stream from
extorting companies.

qualcomm is well hated in the industry, and for very good reason.

On 05/30/2017 01:53 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

You complain about them trying to 'extort' patent licensing fees - as
though you object to them wanting patent licensing fees. If that
wasn't your point, what were you trying to say?

did you even read what they're doing??

Actually, I do know what they are doing and why.

then explain what they are doing and why.

In short, Qualcom's original patent licensing came to an end. Apple,
Micron and a few others got together and have been trying to force
Qualcom to accept reduced patent licensing fees which Qualcom regards
as excessively low. Qualcom wants fees which may be as high as the
already paid rates and Apple, Micron et al think that's too high. Then
Apple, Micron et al stopped paying patent licensing fees although they
continued to use the patents. Finally Apple, Micron et al encouraged
(aka 'brought pressure to bear on') those who weren't a member of
their group to stop paying patent licensing fees to Qualcom. This last
group of people have been glad to shelter behind the skirts of Apple,
Micron et al and continue to use the patents without paying any
license. It's not nice and the industry has done this kind of thing
before.

Now, what were you saying about Qualcom extorting patent licensing
fees?

you forgot the key part, where qualcomm bases its patent licensing fees
on the total price of the product, not just what comes from qualcomm.

that means that the licensing fees for an iphone 7+ are twice as much
as an iphone se, even though both have the same qualcomm modem.

similarly, the licensing fees for a 256 gig iphone are higher than a 32
gig iphone, the only difference being how much memory is installed,
which has nothing to do with qualcomm.

That is a very common pricing structure. It's price based on the ability
to pay.
An everyday example is utilities. If you have a business, in many
locations you pay higher "business" rates for phone, electricity, water,
etc. Residential customers get the same utilities at a lower price.
The rationale is that businesses "need" these utilities to make a
profit, while residences don't have the same need. That rationale
doesn't hold up- most homes don't want to be without water, phone,
electricity. Unless you're Amish.

As for your iPhone: the iPhone 7+ sells for a higher price, and is more
in demand, so the profit from it will be higher. It is in the
manufacturer's best interest to pay whatever it takes to put it on the
market. The same with the larger memory version.


it's bull****. everyone knows it's bull****. even qualcomm knows its
bull****. they just don't want to lose their money stream from
extorting companies.

The real world is filled with examples of such bull****. You'll learn
that once you start spending some time out in the real world. You'll
also learn to deal with it.


qualcomm is well hated in the industry, and for very good reason.



--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Now, what were you saying about Qualcom extorting patent licensing
fees?

you forgot the key part, where qualcomm bases its patent licensing fees
on the total price of the product, not just what comes from qualcomm.

that means that the licensing fees for an iphone 7+ are twice as much
as an iphone se, even though both have the same qualcomm modem.

similarly, the licensing fees for a 256 gig iphone are higher than a 32
gig iphone, the only difference being how much memory is installed,
which has nothing to do with qualcomm.

That is a very common pricing structure. It's price based on the ability
to pay.

it's not common at all. qualcomm is the only company to license patents
based on the price of the product, not the value of the patent, and one
reason why they're being sued by multiple companies.

An everyday example is utilities. If you have a business, in many
locations you pay higher "business" rates for phone, electricity, water,
etc. Residential customers get the same utilities at a lower price.
The rationale is that businesses "need" these utilities to make a
profit, while residences don't have the same need. That rationale
doesn't hold up- most homes don't want to be without water, phone,
electricity. Unless you're Amish.

irrelevant. utilities are not patented.

As for your iPhone: the iPhone 7+ sells for a higher price, and is more
in demand, so the profit from it will be higher. It is in the
manufacturer's best interest to pay whatever it takes to put it on the
market. The same with the larger memory version.

not only irrelevant, but wrong.

it's bull****. everyone knows it's bull****. even qualcomm knows its
bull****. they just don't want to lose their money stream from
extorting companies.

The real world is filled with examples of such bull****. You'll learn
that once you start spending some time out in the real world. You'll
also learn to deal with it.

you'll learn to keep your mouth shut one day.