Well first of all the usual stuff. It needs to be completely open source and have an open bootloader so there is a chance of security. It also needs to have rather simple code so it can be checked, as well as decent battery life.

Then there is the whole issue of user interfaces which isn't even solved for mobile phones these days. What you need is a powerful interface that works on small devices. So far the best contestant in that area seems to be the HP-01 calculator watch.
http://www.led-forever.com/htm...
It allows you to start a stop watch, and then use the result in real time to do calculations on it.

Unfortunately it seems like "smartwatch" manufacturers will go the other route, making them rather useless. Just like they already did with the idea of a "smartphone" when they turned it from something like the Nokia Communicator to something like the iPhone.

There is, apart from some clouds, nothing in between. Those are ideal conditions. Considering that even the radio links of the moon missions had a few megabits of channel capacity, that's not very much. (Yes those links were analog, but Shannon has showed that you can still express the capacity of such a channel in bits or shannons)

So you are still looking through a letterbox. This may be acceptable in situations where you need lots of width.

It's a typical "market research" product. People put 2 screens next to each other and complain about the bezel, a company realizes this and makes a "double wide" monitor.
People don't put 2 screens next to each other because they want to have just a wider screen. They do so because they want to have a larger screens. Putting screens on top of each other is, however, rather difficult. That's why they are put next to each other.

What people actually want is a large high definition screen. Ideally with more than 2000 pixels in height. That way you can put whole designs on your screen without having to constantly scroll and zoom around. Just imagine routing a wire on a board and being able to see where you're going.

I mean those people create _actual_ harm.
China cannot harm people outside China in any significant way, and should they ever do, your local government would at least protest. However no western government ever protests against the US... even when they abduct people.

China doesn't even run large sigint installations in Germany the way the US does.

To be honest I've never seen a capture card doing anything with the signal. I know the chipsets are capable of detecting it, but I've never seen it implemented in a driver.

Well, but a week long Exchange semi-outage still costs money, no matter what your support level is. (Happened at a large German manufacturer of household appliances) Microsoft software just doesn't seem to be enterprise ready.

So far the main advantage of BluRay is that you can get a HD copy at a reasonable price where you can actually get rid of the DRM in most cases. Currently this makes using a BluRay just as illegal as pirating the movie. If they would stop adding DRM, they would not only reduce the production costs (DRM is expensive!), but also give the customers what they want.

Yes, plus they want to be able to give out VHS copies to people. In fact some producers dubbed all their material to VHS to be able to have a portable editing station in their hotel room where they could do a rough edit. The final edit would be done on proper equipment, but they already got a feel for how it would look like.

Actually the "broadcast quality" equipment ran various forms of Betacam which only shares the cassette size with Beta. The closest thing ever promoted by Sony for actual broadcast use was U-Matic, an ancestor of Beta with 3/4inch tape. It came in Low Band, High Band and SP.

However as stated before, there's a professional market where quality doesn't matter, and that's where (S-)VHS came in.

VHS never was broadcast quality, however there's still a large market for professional non broadcast TV. For example companies would want to put internal information video on VHS since it's cheap and "good enough". For that market you get better (S-)VHS recorders.

It depends on the way the "stabilizer" works. Most just blank out some lines while some might actually replace the whole sync signal which is what you want.

Macrovision is record only.
Professional VHS and/or S-VHS recorders actually had a switch where you could turn of the Macrovision AGC so those never were a problem.
Such professional VTRs are now available fairly cheap, even the ones with little use. I'd gravitate towards an S-VHS one since they are able to play VHS, and they provide the S-Video output for no cross colour.

Well but iOS for the iPhone x is a different image than iOS for the iPhone y. The same goes for Android. That's why the manufacturer decides which devices get updates and which don't.

Yes and so is USB, the question is, will the controllers for it be the same?
There is some pressure for such standards from the ARM-hosting crowd, since ARM based servers would fill a very interesting niche in the market.

Something that already exists on the PC. You can trivially boot up any operating system you want on any PC and the basic things like the display and the input devices will just work.
This is because the PC platform not only has certain basic hardware components standardised, but also because there are interfaces to enumerate the hardware you have. Once you have your kernel in memory and running, it can simply look for the hardware and access the hardware accordingly.

On ARM there is no such thing as a PCI bus. Therefore your kernel needs to be compiled for the very device you want to use it for. You cannot just compile in the most common ethernet controllers into your kernel and expect it to choose the right one. This may work, but very likely your first driver will try to probe blindly for its device, crashing your system, before the second one even has a chance to run.

This is why there are movements to create a common hardware interface, one where you just have a single operating system image running on a huge variation of hardware just like on the PC. Unfortunately the business model of ARM doesn't help here. ARM licenses its cores to many SoC manufacturers. Each one of them hopes to lock in its customers making it deliberately hard to switch to any of their competitors. A common interface would sweep away the borders. You could switch from manufacturer A to manufacturer B just like you can switch from a Dell PC to an HP one.