Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Amazing Insight (Score 2) 161

by sessamoid (#46665723) Attached to: Illustrating the Socioeconomic Divide With iOS and Android

Actually, it's in direct contrast to other research that said most people with iPhones had a lower income than most people with Android phones: those who can afford it the least sometimes tend to buy the most expensive stuff based. But that was a few years ago - perhaps it has changed in the mean time.

Gonna have call BS on this one. I need to see a link for this assertion.

Comment: Re:Tax Avoidance (Score 1) 292

by sessamoid (#45140263) Attached to: Irish Government May Close Apple's Biggest Tax Loophole

I do, I sometimes don't claim back charitable donations. I don't claim depreciation on my rental property I do not think it is valid expense. I claim deductions that I believe to be fair and for business purposes, I do not claim ones i don't, legal or not.

But the real reason is probably everybody could get away with paying less tax if they knew what they where doing. The reason normal people don't is it is not feasible for the average person to pay millions to an accountancy firm to set up tax shelters. Once a company starts making billions however those admin costs become insignificant.

Why couldn't you set up a company in Ireland and contract out of that instead of being directly employed by your company. (they would think you where dodgy but only because it isn't common practice). Your employer is paying you the same amount, what difference does it make to them. The hassle is just not worth it, at least for the common man.

The problem is that you don't have stockholders that will sue you PERSONALLY if you pay more taxes than you have to. Public corporation executives can be personally liable for intentionally harming the financial standing of the companies they run.

Comment: Re:Fingerprint database, anyone? (Score 1) 773

by sessamoid (#44810999) Attached to: Apple Unveils iPhone 5C, iPhone 5S

The fingerprint is saved locally and encrypted on the individual phone's A7 chip. Never goes to iCloud. Never touches Apple servers.

Do we know this for fact?

Do we really know anything for fact? If your tin foil hat is sufficiently snug, you would not believe anything at all about anything. Apple has a history of exaggerating or selectively picking performance metrics, but not out and out lying about privacy and security features.

Comment: Re:They don't use proprietary chargers. (Score 1) 117

by sessamoid (#44492509) Attached to: Apple Announces a Trade-in Program For Third-Party Chargers

It may be that poor-quality third-party chargers could damage the device.

Generally they can't. But they can be badly grounded and damage you (which actually happened recently).

Quite true. The recently publicized case in China involved a third party charger that killed the user, but apparently left the iPhone still (somewhat) operational.

Comment: Re:Strangely... (Score -1, Troll) 397

by sessamoid (#44467077) Attached to: Obama Administration Overrules iPhone Trade Ban

And Apple has refused to license those patents. They have refused to negotiate to license them. They have even stated that they will not accept a court-ordered license fee unless they happen to think it's low enough.

Tell me, oh wise one, what other recourse did Samsung have?

Unless you work for either company, you don't know what negotiations have or have not taken place. You only have what is printed in the media. You believe everything you read?

Comment: Re:Curiouser and curiouser (Score 4, Interesting) 397

by sessamoid (#44466985) Attached to: Obama Administration Overrules iPhone Trade Ban

Rather, he emphasized that because the patent in question was now a widely held technology standard, banning the products in question would be too disruptive to consumers and the economy

That argument could be used to sooooo many other patent litigations, and somehow never is, except when the affected part is a big American company.

Actually, only recently have big corporations started trying to use standards-essential patents as tools of corporate warfare. The EU is investigating Samsung for just this kind of behavior.

Comment: Re:Strangely... (Score 3, Informative) 397

by sessamoid (#44466935) Attached to: Obama Administration Overrules iPhone Trade Ban
Because those patents were not submitted and accepted as FRAND. Samsung agreed to license these technologies in Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory terms. Anybody can use their patented technologies, and the only question is how much they get paid for them. When any infringement can be resolved with monetary payment, injunctive relief is not an appropriate tool. Samsung can always be made whole at any point in time with a monetary judgment.

Apple made no such promises to any industry group concerning the design patents in question. They did make such a promise over the mpeg4 container, which is just the .mov container that quicktime has used for ages, and they have never attempted to get an import injunction over that patent or any others that they submitted to standards bodies.

Comment: Re:Consider if you will (Score 1) 331

by sessamoid (#44466847) Attached to: Why PBS Won't Do Android

That by pure volume, there are WAY more Android devices out there than IOS devices. So the PBS arguments are bovine effluent. Look, YouTube works fine on my Android phone. Why not PBS?

Maybe because Youtube is owned by Google, who also makes Android, so they have a huge vested interest in making it work NO MATTER WHAT. Also, Google makes more in profit in a single quarter than PBS generates in revenue for several years. Google has essentially limitless resources to work with. PBS is always cash-strapped.

Either you're trolling or you have little experience with the real world to ask that kind of question.

Comment: Re:What about Netflix? (Score 1) 79

by sessamoid (#44461827) Attached to: Battle of the Media Ecosystems: Amazon, Apple, Google and Microsoft
Wait. So your Apple experiment is over because some third-party ecosystem wouldn't let Apple send the video stream to your TV? That makes perfect sense. That's like blaming Apple for the DRM in iTunes music that the record companies imposed on them, which a lot of people here did as well.

Center meeting at 4pm in 2C-543.