Well, Google is rebooting the 'laptop appliance' concept with the ChromeBook (a $250 ARM cpu'd laptop). It'll work well for people who's entire computing world can fit within a web browser.

Netbooks were started by ASUS and their peers as an 'appliance' laptop- They were Linux based and only cost a few hundred bucks. Microsoft didn't try to get into it until it was posing as a threat to Windows!

I think Steve had a personal vendetta against Android since Google's CEO (Eric Schmidt) was on the Apple board at the time, thus was privy to some of iPhone's development-- which obviously influenced how the final Android phones turned out nearly a year later. But in other cases, Apple isn't worried about Samsung/Android; they're making tons of money off their product line regardless.

I do know there's plenty of things done wrong with Android. I hear grumbling about the size: ~5" phones are almost mini-tablets, and are quite a lump to try shove in an average size pocket-- it also makes it pretty awkward to operate one-handed. The battery life is atrociously short. (My running joke is: "Android phones are like Cinderella's night: It may work like a dream but everything shuts down before midnight".)

we're rushing as fast as we can to put out the OS even if it's not entirely finished, but we'll gladly sell the phone anyways cause that's what software updates are made for.

It's probably not a huge deal since Apple didn't release a iPhone OS SDK until a year and a half after the iPhone was introduced.... except MS will needs every advantage they can get to make WP8 have a dent in the phone market...

they're working on optic nerve transmissions for people that lost total vision due to macular degeneration or other diseases. See this Ted Talk presentation

Biological eyes encode vision data as electrical impulses sent to our brain; they're trying to reverse engineer the encoded data at the optic nerve level, which will help make prosthetic eyes a reality.

woudln't you need a body that rotates fast enough (at the equator) to keep the elevator line taught?

by 2025. Hybrids are a hot commodity now, and gas extended electrics are just beginning. Soon there will be a point where a gas engine will cost a lot more to build then electric... (In an engineering standpoint, the drivetrain of a petrol car is way more complex then electric. We're just waiting for battery packaging/recharge/swap technology to catch up, and once that's done they'll be no turning back to petrol except for edge cases.

I don't even know if cheap 3D printers have the resolution to do smooth curved surfaces (as in .00001-inch). It would be more accurate to 3D print the stock and bore out the barrel with standard drill press.

In the end I don't think 3D printers are an advantage for making guns, since an experienced person can build a regular metal gun with a few billet pieces and ordinary CAD/CAM+machining tools.

It looks like it is getting thrown out (or at least heading there).

From what I read: Apple's is using a Qualcomm communication chip in their devices. Qualcomm has already paid into the FRAND license pool (which is built into the price of their chips). That license is then extended to the customers that buy Qualcomm's chips. Since Apple (among many other companies) is Qualcomm's customer, the FRAND license is already covered.

Motorola going back and suddenly demanding 2.5% for iPhones using their FRAND looks like double dipping. If they get any kind of settlement, you will quickly see MM going after ANYBODY that uses communication chips based on their FRAND technology -- including Windows Phones, all other (non Motorola) Android phones, dumb phones, etc. Lawyers tend to keep doing what they do so long as money is involved.

Ah, so controversy is the campaign! It worked for Calvin Klein's creepy-guy-filming-kids-in-a-basement commercials in the 90's. I have a feeling this isn't as bad though.

Would you rather have somebody working the patent office that has no idea of what such technologies entail?

They've pretty much copied the Apple's distribution method except for the minimum price: $1.49 instead of 99 cents. That's probably OK for Desktop apps, but I don't know if that will fly for touchscreen (Win RT) software; since Apple already set an expectation for such software to be priced lower.

That's funny, since I didn't even use a keyboard to write this reply. I just talked into my iPad and the text shows up. But don't let that take away from your argument.

It's even more agressive then that-- Apple has fronted $billions to their suppliers in order for them to build a new factories in exchange for exclusive supply of parts for several years.