Not quite. The textual restrictions of the Fourth Amendment only apply to the actions of the state, but the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy (which is considered part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence) is a status that applies to everyone, everywhere.

The "Fourth Amendment Right to Privacy" as it is commonly known isn't found in the text itself. Instead, the early history of the Fourth Amendment informed a longstanding presumption in this country that there is a right to privacy in some kinds of property, persons, actions, speech, and information (otherwise there would be no need to have a Fourth Amendment). But there are many situations in which there is no such expectation, and the Court easily could have declared employer-owned or funded communications equipment to fall into that category.

By assuming that there is a REOP here, it does indeed protect citizens from private action as well--if there is no REOP, then you have no privacy interest that would be actionable under the ECPA or SCA and the employer, public or private, wouldn't need to argue an exception; it would simply be automatically entitled to monitor. That's a worse result for what should be obvious reasons.

No, you're the one with a funny definition.

"A system that maximizes freedom" by forced redistribution of power or wealth isn't a free market. It may be a "fair" or "equitable" or "egalitarian" or an "open" market, but any system that imposes restrictions on the actions of some or all parties is inherently less free than one imposing fewer or no restrictions. The perfectly free market, in other words, must by definition be totally unregulated. But unlimited freedom is not a virtue unto itself.

Orderly freedom is restricted freedom, and it's highly desirable. But call a spade a spade. It's not literally "free"--quite the opposite. And that's a good thing. People should not be free without parameters, because it is a terribly chaotic and unfair way to live.

As soon as you say "the most freedom for everyone", you're no longer talking about freedom, but about equality of access or equality of opportunity, which is inherently not free. The free market is a simplified, elementary model--the economic equivalent of treating a falling cow as a frictionless sphere.

No more or less unremarkable than Snapdragon, Tegra 2, or any of the other similar products that are of great interest in this space. Those are all fairly standard ARM cores, too, but nobody's saying anything about their limited scope of customization as being "off the shelf".

It's more likely that this is one of those things that provides a springboard for bitching about Apple out of selective and convenient comparisons, because that Apple logo is a waving red cape in the bullfightingshit arena. Instead of exploring the technical achievements and engineering, it devolves into a bitchfest by people with nothing better to do than call each other fanboys.

It's not at odds. It only seems that way:

That's completely accurate. The opinion holds that it is assumed but not decided that Quon had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text messages (see e.g. III-A [p. 9]).

A REOP doesn't mean you can't be searched. It means that searches have to comply with the Fourth Amendment. This search did comply, given the workplace exception, pp. 15-16, and therefore the city is entitled to conduct such audits of the equipment it pays for.

At $18,000. It never sold in volume.

Not economically at the necessary yields.

There's plenty of interest, just not at the prices they'd necessarily cost and the low volumes they'd necessarily entail.

Absolutely. But 200ppi is where you begin to enable resolution-independent scaling, so it would be ideal to offer if anyone would reasonably buy it. But they wouldn't. It's just not a feasible technology yet on that scale. It's taken us until this year to get it from 3" to 3.5". There's a long way to go to 22" at under $2000, which I think is an absolute ceiling for this kind of display with consumer features.

Using a 3" display. There have been 300 ppi displays before at 2-3", but none this large.

Jumping to 3.5" at the same density is an increase of 36% in pixel count, and yield problems with that is why this previously hasn't been achievable in volume, even with a 5-25% lower pixel density.

326 compared to 300 is still significant. You're talking about a technical field in which improvements of 1% are hard-fought. You're also talking about a size in which there are no 300 ppi displays on the market.

Less than a year.

How is a difference of 0.6 inches "much" larger when a density increase of 25% (or, for the screen you're referencing here, 45% trivial? Either they're both not trivial (which is the case) or neither is trivial (which would be wrong of you, but at least consistent to state). It's a showing of the clear bias of the ignorant when talking about display densities.

The reason you don't get the microformat densities at the 3-5" range, or smartphone densities on netbooks, or netbook densities on most notebooks, or notebook densities on desktop monitors, or desktop monitors on big-screen LCD TVs is because it's not feasible to do so.

This display is a major breakthrough in its size class--20-25% over its previous record-setting competitors. It's an even bigger leap forward in IPS technology, which has never been marketed anywhere near even 200 ppi. It is nothing short of revolutionary, and blind anti-Apple blather only discredits the fine work of the engineers and physicists who developed it, none of whom have anything to do with Apple.

If it had been a Nokia phone as launch customer, you'd be drooling all over it. Meanwhile, the previous groundbreaking LCD, used in the N900 and the Droid and several other products, was lavished with plenty of well-deserved respect and praise from all circles. This display is in all regards an even bigger achievement and deserves the same.

The Motorola Droid's display (not unique to the Motorola Droid) was itself a revolutionary achievement. Again, you're disproving your own point.

50 ppi is a major forward jump. Do you not understand that the reason the Droid was 265 ppi was because that was as high as could be achieved in volume? That they would have LOVED to go to 280 ppi or 300 or 226 if it were possible, but it wasn't?

I was talking about the full-length introduction, but I can speak to the promo clip, too. They're showing the effect of increasing density--a bit clumsily in the shorter promo spot, but it's not a claim of an actual image from the product, nor a comparison against another product. It's a blogger trying to stir up a tempest in a teapot.

The exaggeration was a 4x instead of a 2x doubling, not anywhere near 50x, and maybe some labeling droid will make them slap on a disclaimer at the bottom, but the only way to make it a false claim is if it were described as a screen shot or "actual size". Just showing the effect as you zoom out between a letter that looks blocky and one that doesn't means, that some detail must be enlarged for the physically larger comparison. The same thing occurs on a cereal box.

People wouldn't understand "retina display" if the zoomed-out version still looked blocky, and you can't accurately show 300+ ppi on a TV or computer monitor without some conceit.

Which kind of proves the point. It's not one at the distance it's meant to be used.

No more or less arbitrary than any other way.

It IS revolutionary, and unless Apple helped develop or fund it, it's got nothing to do with "iWorld".

66 ppi isn't a "little bit denser". It's a 25% increase, which is huge for a mature technology. At this size, nothing even close to this density has yet been achieved.

When you look at IPS displays, nothing even approaching 200 ppi has been marketed before.

In either case, it's a massive technological achievement in an industry you clearly don't understand.

Because it wasn't advertising. There was no representation that any device was being used, but only that the effect of higher density was being demonstrated, which is hard to do on a single fixed-resolution projector. And it wasn't anywhere near 50x greater. The type example was about 4-5x greater density.

The actual grid examples, as well as the demos of the actual product were accurate.

No it's not, which is exactly the point. Perfect multiple resolution is better. "High" ppi is no good on most computers, because of the lack of proper resolution independent scaling in any OS. The reason for that is that you need an even multiple for displays to scale properly. Geeks may accept (and even ignore) the drawbacks of 1920x1200 on a 15" display, but designers and non-geeks simply won't.

Higher resolution is better when you have content capable of taking advantage of it and when it can be displayed without distortion and misalignment.

150dpi is not better than 100dpi on a normal computer--it's too high for most people. But 200dpi *is* better than 100dpi, because you get sharper images while being able to scale without any distortion.

It's like saying, you want to go as high as possible for images, but without breaking the 99% of software and websites that are hard-coded in pixels with a fundamental assumption (dated though it may be) of 75-100 ppi. Therefore the optimum balance is the highest density that does not break the software. That is indeed in the 100-120ppi range, until desktop displays of 180-200ppi are available.

Mobile devices are all running new software with a great deal more support for flexible densities with controlled sizes, and because people accept the suboptimal scaling as part of the zooming paradigm. There is no fundamental 75-100ppi assumption in that space, so there is much more flexibility.

Such as?

The point of PDF wasn't about editable or not editable, which is probably why you think it was a solution in search of a problem.

The PDF format started out as a way to ensure complete display fidelity across display media and platforms. Unlike a word processor file, you did not have to worry about rendering differences, formatting inconsistencies, whether the destination system had the proper fonts or supported a given typographical control. These were the days before you could embed fonts in your .doc file and before hardware was powerful enough to piece together a Photoshop or Illustrator file on the fly.

It was a lightweight format for documents consisting of type and media files. Then Adobe started cramming everything under the sun into it, piling on code year after year in its ever-bloated Acrobat (a development model shared with almost all Adobe software). The fact that it was a finished display format meant that end-user editing was generally not possible with the viewer software. That wasn't the point of the design, it was just a consequence of the focus on display rather than creation--one that some people liked and one that others despised. Hence editable forms and the whole array of "interactive PDF" tools that got crammed into Acrobat.

PDF itself is still pretty lightweight and powerful, and it's extremely useful for compositing (OS X uses a very similar framework in its desktop compositor, hence the seamless PDF integration with Macs--and PDF rendering speed blowing the doors off anything Adobe has shipped in 15 years).

PDF is an ideal document format for ensuring everyone gets the same file in that you can make it once and show it everywhere. LaTeX is a tool for professionals, geeks, and typesetters. PDF is the only successful format for everyone.

You are not actually disagreeing, but just looking at different issue altogether. You're talking about Apple spending more on average for their materials than Dell/HP, which is true, but irrelevant when you're comparing hypothetical identical products to determine markup and profit.

Essentially what you have to do is look at how much it would cost Dell to make the MacBook instead and see how much less they would charge. That markup the exact amount of the so-called "Apple Tax". What you're talking about is the combination of markup AND higher materials spending, which is not the current subject. Markup is the price difference of identical products, which necessarily requires materials of the same quality.

Let's start with definitions as we use them.
1. Retail price is [Cost of Goods (COG) + Gross Margin]
2. COG traditionally is [BOM + manufacturing]
3. BOM is [component cost + vendor markup]. Apple saves here through lower vendor markups by shifting the R&D costs in-house, resulting in a lower BOM for identical hardware than a firm who outsourced development of the same hardware.
4. Gross margin is [profit + business operations + product development]

5. "Costs" are [materials + manufacturing + R&D]
6. "Overhead" is business operations (capital, HR, marketing, transactions, legal, client support, logistics, regulatory compliance, etc.)--all things to run the business independent of what is sold)
7. Of course net profit is what's left over at the end.

So now for a detailed breakdown of the original example:
A. Shelf price: $125
B. BOM: $90.
C. Manufacturing: $5
D. R&D: $6.25
E. Overhead: $13

F. COG: [B+C]=90+3.75 = $93.75
G. Gross margin [A-F]=125-93.75 = $31.25
H. Gross margin as percentage: 31.25/125 = 25%
I. Costs: [B+C+D]=90+3.75+6.25 = $100
J. Net profit: [A-(I+E)]=125-(100+13) = $12

Sales price of $125 ($31.25[gross margin of 25%] + 93.75[COG])
Gross margin is 25%; net profit is 9.6% or $12.

--------------------
Now Apple:
A. Shelf price: $137 ($12 [9%] increase)
B. BOM: $80 ($10 decrease by eliminating middleman profits at ODM stage)
C. Manufacturing: $3.75 [Same. Manufacturing outsourced]
D. R&D: $14.25 ($8 increase due to shifting work in-house)
E. Overhead: $10 ($3 decrease by business efficiency gains)

F. COG: 80+3.75= $83.75 [$10 decrease due to lower BOM]
G. Gross margin: 137-83.75= $53.25 [$22 increase]
H. Gross margin as percentage: 53.25/137 = ~39%
I. Costs: 80+3.75+14.25 = $98 ($2 decrease due to in-house savings)
J. Net profit: 137-(98+10) = $29

Net profit is $29 or 21%, an increase of $17 compared to Dell.

Why would Apple spend more on identical-spec parts, being an ODM instead of an ODM customer? It doesn't make sense.

In terms of total cost, Apple spends more on average for higher-quality materials and lot ratings. But in terms of relative margins, Apple spends less, because the direct comparison of margins requires that you control for costs, which means that you have to compare two hypothetical products with identical specifications and materials costs and look at what the pricing differential would be.

It's still an outrageous exaggeration. Apple's cost/revenue breakdown for the iPhone/iPod lines shows a gross margin of not more than 50%. In order for them to be priced at "double" the competition, the average gross margin on those products would have to be less than 1%. That is not the case.

Those are corporate financials, not hardware sales. Yahoo Finance figures aren't what's important--you have to compare the SEC filings. Apple's reported margins are about 40% for Mac, 30% for media, and 50% for iPod/iPhone--for an average of 41% corporate (but software sales and xServes and iPads and accessories all stand at different levels). HP's margin includes all the businesses they participate in, not just consumer PC hardware. Dell's margins include all of their businesses. Your scope of comparison is invalid.

And again, even the wrong numbers and a made-up average, the difference between 20% and 25% is 5%, which helps your argument none whatsoever.

You are out of your flippin' mind.

Starting price: $1099: Studio 17 i5. Starting price $1299: Studio 16. Starting price $1349: Studio 17 i7. Starting price $1099: Studio XPS 9000.

Just three examples taking literally 5 seconds to find, and that's even accounting for their current sale price, as opposed to their list prices, which range from $1400-1600.

A 1:1 comparison requires that they be at the same grade. If you're using a grade AA panel and your competitor has order grade A, you can't draw any conclusions from it. The conceit of the simplified example is identical hardware at identical costs, because that's the only way you can compare margins.

The example at the end of my first post is perhaps complex and underexplained (in an attempt to simplify), so although it paints the general picture, it doesn't quite add up. Here's a very simple example that should more clearly illustrate the bottom line of the complexities involved:

Dell widget. Costs $75/unit, overhead of $15/unit. $100 sales price. Net profits: $10/unit (10%).

Apple. Costs $70/unit (in-house savings), overhead of $10/unit (efficiency savings). $110 sales price (modest price premium). Net profits: $30/unit (27%).

That's how Apple pulls in piles of cash. But note you have to control for costs or you can't do any sort of math, so your point, while worth noting generally, doesn't affect the outcome here.

There are many such touches throughout the line, but you are comparing computers with unlike supply-side costs, which you simply cannot do. Forgive the car analogy, but it's like comparing margins of an Audi and a Chevy while pretending they have equivalent materials and engineering costs.

Apple's cost savings for equivalent hardware are a result of eliminating the middleman. One of the biggest savings for them is not having to pay Microsoft (with a Windows license running 5-10% of the overall price, highly regressive on the low end, and with a large part of that price profit for Microsoft, the fact that Apple doesn't have to pay a markup to itself is a huge savings by itself, to say nothing of in-house hardware engineering and cutting out the middlemen there in many parts of that process).

Apple outsources manufacturing, but does most of its own engineering and all of its design. People talk about the big items--chipsets, CPUs, GPUs, RAM, drives, displays--coming from the same places, but forget that most of the work and cost for a computer vendor is in everything else. Where Dell's power adapters, frame and casing, trackpads, keyboards, mainboards, batteries and lots of ICs are off the shelf or reference designs, Apple does all the legwork itself and sources the actual manufacturing only. Dell has a lot of places where they're paying a supplier's margins as part of their costs). A lot of Apple's "supplier margins" go back to themselves. If you were to add in reasonable third-party margins, Apple's overall percentages would start to look a lot more like HP's.

Apple's mainboards, lots of ICs, trackpads, keyboards, batteries, power adapters, cooling systems are their own engineering and design. Most competitors have a supplier design, engineer, and produce those pieces to specified parameters, which comes with a markup Apple doesn't have to pay.