Apple wouldn't license Broadcom ARM cores. They have their own. I could see Apple using Broadcom ASIC cells for Wi-Fi, but that wouldn't be a Broadcom part at that point; it would be an Apple part, because it being a Broadcom part would imply that Broadcom can make the part available to other companies.
...and we will do this for another 10 years. So, are they saying that after 10 more years, they're not going to do it anymore?
I think the 10 years only applies to FTC supervision, not the expectation of the right to repair.
It's an out-of-court settlement. After ten years, if they lock down repairs again, it's not a breach of the agreement, so the government will have to care enough to file a lawsuit.
I feel like the real way to solve this problem is to wait for the all-electric Chinese-made tractors to get good enough, then let John Deere shrivel on the vine. They're only able to pull this stuff because there isn't much competition.
Apparently broadcom does have fabs and they make chips and apple uses them for that. I don't really think of broadcom like that but yeah I guess they do. So it's Apple designed chips being manufactured by broadcom.
You missed my point, which is that if Apple is designing them, they're Apple chips, not Broadcom chips. That's the part that didn't make sense.
This article seems nonsensical to me. If Apple is designing the chips, how are they Broadcom chips? Either Apple is designing them (or has designed them), in which case they're Apple chips, and Apple is paying Broadcom to build and maintain fabs for them, or Broadcom is designing them, and Apple is paying them to make them in the U.S.
Depends on whether I want to wait for the longer shipping.
For me, there are three classes of products:
That last category has been the largest category of my purchasing for the last year and a half or so. For example, my Chinese-made contrabass flute (Alibaba) saved me probably about $15,000 over a name brand. So even though I'm still trying to get the middle section to stop leaking, it's playable, and it is totally worth the extra minor repair work to save ~80% off of such an expensive purchase.
...you create supermarket from never having been in the supermarket business.
Sure.
It becomes successful, without leeching off your competitors.
It becomes successful, and you sell your house brands at a price lower than your competitors can sell their brands, because you don't have to pay yourself the retail markup. Okay, supermarket analogy still applies so far, except that your customers also live in a town (operating system) that has only your supermarket, and you use technological means to prevent those customers from going to another supermarket unless they buy a new house (phone).
All of a sudden they start whining, and The Man decides you should not only allow them to sell inside your store, you are supposed to do it for free, even use your resources to help them sell, and not devote 100% of your time to your own business.
False. None of the competitors are demanding that. They are demanding that either A. you level the playing field so that you don't have an unfair competitive advantage from being the only supermarket or B. you stop using technological and legal means to prevent other supermarkets from existing.
That's what the EU is doing here.
Not remotely.
If a company came out with a service that would burn your data into a crystal that you could wear as jewelry, and the crystal was reasonably durable (ideally diamond, or something similar), that would be a useful (or at least novel) way to store valuable data long-term. Assuming there was also a convenient way to read it back when required, of course.
This, however, isn't that. The whole point of git is that it distributes copies of your repository onto every client that clones it, so that the likelihood of everyone accidentally losing all copies at once is minimal.
It really does not make sense to have a cap only for out-of-network, when in-network arguably are less cost for the institutions. But of course banks are spending a lot of money on both parties so...
At some level, it does. When these laws were passed, I think the main goal was to stop companies from charging exorbitant fees to other companies' cardholders when using their ATMs to withdraw money and similar. You wouldn't want to do that to your own customers, because you'd lose them as customers, so why would the government regulate it?
But now, years later, in the context of retail sales, card companies want the opportunity to charge higher fees to retailers so that they can give rewards, confident that the retailers will charge customers the average fee rather than passing on the exact fee that they get charged on a per-customer basis, and as a result, that jacking up the prices for your own cards won't cause you to lose customers.
The truly perverse (incentive) part is that customers are forced to chase the higher fees or else they're paying more as the stores up their prices to the newer, higher average.
The only sane way to solve it is for cash-back rewards to be banned outright, with the only allowed exception being retailer-issued cards that grant cash back exclusively at their store by using their own low-fee network (e.g. airline cards, Amazon cards, Apple cards). Because those retailers have every incentive to keep prices low, this very narrow case doesn't have that problem. But even those shouldn't be allowed to give cash back everywhere.
Let us not be under the illusion that business owners would lower their prices if it wasn't for those 'dang fees'. Once they realized you'd pay the hire price, if the fees are gone, the businesses are just going to go 'yummy more money for me'.
Depends on how crowded the market is. If there's healthy competition, they might, or one of their competitors might, forcing their hand.
Actually, the people who forget that seem to be in the business of marketing and press releases. QC has been the apocalypse that would turn the world on it's head breaking crypto left and right in the next 2 years for at least 10 years now. It still can't do prime factorization better or faster than a sixth grader with a pencil and paper. And the sixth grader won't charge as much.
Perhaps it will be useful one day, but not today. It may well take 100 years. Remember about 3 years ago when the size of quantum computers was going to double overnight? And how it went radio silent shortly after? The problem with QC isn't that it will never get here at all, it's the damned hype machine that promised it would be here now.
It's the same hype machine that told us we would be using crypto currency for all of our everyday transactions by now. The same hype machine that claims AI will replace everyone next year.
It makes no sense to spend more to tiptoe through costly incremental steps of infrastructure buildout buying stuff you crave to be rid of when you can hop right to the conclusion. Fuel is bad. You use it and then you need more fuel. That's a vulnerability to the fuel supplier, the logistics, the free market for fuel, changing government meddling. Fix it right once without fuel and be done with it for 30 years. It's not like there won't be another problem to solve the next day.
>as they are not allowed to use oil or coal
Or natural gas. No carbon. Carbon fuels amplify the already obscene thermal output by at least 2.5.
Also, none of them is dumb enough to go fission. The time to power is an order of magnitude greater than their expiration date if they don't have it. And their server and power costs are bad enough. They don't need to compound those expenses with the costliest source of energy available.
This is as bad as Europeans crowing about "free" healthcare or higher education. It's not free. They paid for it with their tax euros.
...and wouldn't it be nice to get something in return for our tax dollars? Other than billion-dollar ballrooms and pointless wars, I mean?
That's not how this works. There are a few ways to send an image to the bare display, but HDMI isn't one of them. If you actually look up the item list from TFS you will see that.
You didn't expect them to actually explain how you could manufacture an e-ink panel starting with sand and some chemicals in your kitchen, did you?
What's this criterion does is provide non-falsifiable cover for rejecting anything.
Do they need cover to reject anything? In my projects, I reserve the right to reject anything, for any reason, solely on the grounds that they are my projects, and if someone doesn't like it, they can fork off (their own repository).
Only great masters of style can succeed in being obtuse. -- Oscar Wilde Most UNIX programmers are great masters of style. -- The Unnamed Usenetter
