Consoles are focused on lowest possible cost of their hardware, since they sell to consumers at a loss, or at the best a slim profit. They need their suppliers to give them hardware for bottom dollar. That means you don't get much profit per unit.

Now that doesn't mean AMD is getting screwed, I'm sure they are making money per unit sold, but make no mistake: The reason they got the contracts is they could offer the lowest price and that means a thin profit. So 10 million chips sold in the console is less profit than 10 million sold in a desktop or server or the like.

It is not the grand prize of hardware contracts.

On another note I find it hilarious how fanboys relish in the concept of a competitor doing badly, as if we all wouldn't be more screwed if there was a single company. Personally, I like nVidia GPUs, they work better in my experience. However I'm real, real glad AMD is around. Why? Well if they weren't nVidia could, and would, charge more than they already do, and they wouldn't release new tech as fast.

So if you are an AMD fanboy wishing the death of Intel and nVidia, what you are really saying is "Gee I hope AMD will be able to overcharge me for lower end technology when they have nobody to push them!"

... of putting your damn comment in the comment box, not the subject field where it doesn't belong.

The Kickstarter campaign closed 9 months ago. You can order them from LIFX now for $79 USD.

Crap. I didn't catch that. I was hoping they were going to try to release the content of the requests as well as the counts and hopefully the dates. *sighs* Yeah, publicity stunt... That's what I'm assuming and I'm sticking with it.

I have never thought of it that way. It's painfully obvious but I'd never thought of it like that. Thank you - much appreciated.

Can they just join the suit without it being class action or without some sort of invite from Google or, more likely, needing it to be a whole new suit? I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on television - I don't even watch lawyer television shows for that matter.

Also, it seems to me that they have a snowball's chance in hell at being successful. Because of this it seems more like a marketing ploy than it does a realistic attempt at getting them to allow Google to reveal the information. I am not sure if my writing is clear or if that makes sense.

Basically it looks like this is so unlikely that the more probable reality is that this is a marketing ploy by Google so that they appear to actually be doing something about our privacy but that they know, the government knows, and we know that they have pretty much no chance in hell of being allowed to reveal the information.

When I was reading the summary and thinking about it - it did occur to me that they had some small chance. I guess that, in the past, people were unable to bring suits because they were unable to prove harm. They couldn't prove harm because they couldn't prove they'd been targeted. In this case they MIGHT be able to prove harm in that it is damaging their reputation? However, again, I am NOT a lawyer nor do I play at one. I do pay attention to the law and the various legal proceedings from SCOTUS and my state's supreme court. I do kind of understand quite a bit of it and I do try to read up and learn about the law. But, alas, I don't know...

Perhaps someone will chime in? It seems they can maybe prove harm so the suit may be legitimate though I'm not sure harm would have to be proved if they're going for a 1st Amendment solution.

Either way, it still seems to me that it is so unlikely that it will succeed and the only reason I can think of for even bothering is not for the good of freedom but as a marketing strategy. "Look at us! Look at what we're doing. We're not just about the money, we're trying to protect your freedom! Join our latest beta program and give us more of your personal information, thanks!"

Oh, just like the LIFX bulbs then. Phew, glad that's sorted.

No its not, because the bulbs have a security model which prevents anyone but the "rightful owner" giving them directions.

The other thing that will prevent you participating in the Kickstarter is that it closed in November 2012. They ARE proceeding, and this whole story is about the fact that they're finally delivering.

Which is news to us customers.

Well considering many of us are outside your country where we were not able to object to your government passing these laws, but are still somehow subject to them, I think the outrage is justified.

Nope, it's Skype Communications SarL's fault. That restriction existed long before the Microsoft purchase.

It doesn't matter how strict the GPL conditions are, they have no effect on the copyright owner, who is not bound by it.

They are easier to maintain from a central location, they are easier to backup, they are easier to use, and there are all sorts of other benefits that you're overlooking. Additionally, in bulk, there are savings to be hand when purchasing the hardware. Not to mention that there are any number of ways to connect a thin client and, as you mentioned, they needn't be specific devices so the roles can be easily filled by older hardware.

In other words, those aren't good enough reasons to simply naysay the idea in my humble opinion. This is quite viable and potentially valuable as it gives (I'm thinking this would be best suited for residential use, really, though I suppose some businesses could use the service) more access to more people. The information and freedom are great ideas and the expense is can be negligible.

I don't see too many businesses taking advantage of this. It doesn't seem likely. They'd just run their own service.

Anyhow, computers are expensive there - very much so. This is a way to get them into the hands of the people so that they can access the wealth of information that is online. It can be inexpensive and commonplace. The definition of thin client is so ambiguous that anything from a tablet to an old P3 harvested from a call center can fit the role. Letting perfect get in the way of good enough seems to be an issue here.

It has been my experience that, if you can, build... It is far less hassle to deal with the loan from the bank and contract out your own maintenance and cleaning services than it is to deal with some management company who are more interested in the bottom line than they are in providing quality services. And you're spot on about the theft...

I don't see this as being a great thing for businesses, and I don't see businesses making a lot of use of it, but I could see it being great for residential. I could see it as being wonderful for business use but it just doesn't seem likely. The building's management service could do the telephony and provision thin clients, connectivity, and storage. Software could be provisioned online for many business needs. Those needing greater than what is possible over the 'net can have full blown PCs.

As I said, I don't see it being great for businesses. Could it be? Absolutely. Will it be? If the culture in Brazil is anything like the culture here then it is quite unlikely to be as good as it says it is on the package. But, it has that potential so I say we should wait to see how it turns out. Assuming you're smart with your lease and include non-payment as an option for violations then you should be good to go. It remains to be seen though - I'd not dismiss it out of hand though, certainly not without giving it a go. They've managed to accomplish some neat things there - including fairly inexpensive (comparably) taxi helicopters and things like that. I say we watch them and root for them, this could turn out to be an excellent idea for them.

An important part, and equally important for residential, is that this not be limiting. This needs to be a add-on service which one can opt out of if they don't want it. So long as that's the case I see nothing wrong with it. Even for business use, make sure you have a good lawyer read the terms, it could be viable. Uptime contracts are important in this case too and you'd want to ensure that they had good security measures in place but those can be defined contractually. Rather than just an early termination clause for violations (the expense of moving is too great over small violations) one needs to include a non-payment clause. If they fail to maintain the provided amenities per the standards set in the contract then one doesn't pay that month's rent, not just not paying the amenity fees but the entire rent. That should give sufficient motivation and help ensure the quality of service is maintained.

Yes, you don't pay enough to have more than a slumlord so it is a bad idea for everyone. That is completely correct and an excellent use of reasoning. I applaud your logic skills and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.