I think they were saying a reasonable minimum required cloud support period should be 2 years per $100 of the device's cost.

Apple doesn't produce their displays, flexible or otherwise.

With a reported 320+ million daily users, I would imagine there would have to be at least some CPU usage on those servers.

Peak load is going to be a concern, regardless of code optimization. The peak load problem is one based on human factors, not software. All optimization would change is the scale. That is, you'd still have the same concern just with potentially fewer servers overall. It might affect the cost/benefit of the work, but that is it.

The alternative to dynamic overclocking is to have more, or more powerful, servers to handle the peak load. This problem exists regardless of how (un)optimized you believe their code to be.

I had a similar thought. I appreciate when both system are included, as it usually saves me time getting an exact conversion if I care, but that obviously isn't the way to do it.

The first source I found, cannot vouch for 100% accuracy.

https://www.citizensadvice.org...

That is just factually incorrect. Nintendo very much has every right to take the buyer to court to recover their property. It is their property, regardless of what Sega did with it. That is just how the law actually works.

From how I'm reading what you wrote, it sounds like you either made a grammatical mistake or are contradicting yourself. As such, I'll just state how it generally is. I'm absolutely sure there is more nuance, but the general concept is correct.

In short, Sega was not authorized to sell the dev kits. The dev kits are the legal property of Nintendo. Functionally, this situation would be similar to the selling of stolen goods. That is, the person selling the goods does not have ownership or authorization to sell them. Local jurisdiction, and facts specific to an individual case, may change how this plays out in court on an individual level. In general, the legal owner is entitled to the return of their property. That means, usually, that the buyer would have to relinquish possession. At that point, the buyer would have a case against the person that sold them the goods. Situationally, that could mean the buyer is out of luck. They may be able to go after the seller to recoup their losses, but there is no guarantee they'll be able to recover it.

With regards to the buyer's obligations to validate the purchase, they're not obligated to verify the sale is completely legit. They are, however, still subject to the consequences of the purchase. As such, it's in their best interest to at least make some attempt to verify. For example, I wouldn't expect just anyone to know that dev kits aren't supposed to be sold. However, if you're a person regularly involved in those kinds of sales it might be something you should know.

Do you have a point to make, or just here to try and insult me?

I never said, or implied, that. All I said is that Nintendo retains ownership of dev kits it provides to developers. Nintendo would usually have the right to have their property returned. I'm sure there will be jurisdictional differences, but generally the buyer would then turn to the seller to recover their costs.

We're talking about dev kits that are very much under a contract between two businesses. The buyer wouldn't have done anything wrong by buying it, but that doesn't necessarily mean he gets to keep it either. It would functionally be similar to unknowingly buying stolen property.

Technically, it's not. As the summary mentions, Nintendo retains ownership of their dev kits. As such, Sega would not be authorized to sell the dev kits. From a legal standpoint, I'm not sure if that would provide grounds for Sega to demand the property back. From what little I can easily gather, I don't think Sega has any right to demand the reversal of sale, only request it. Nintendo, however, would still have the right to reclaim the property.

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree, how is that relevant to this story? They had no involvement.

It's usually a matter of in network vs out of network. In network is free. Usually, only a "small" amount is covered out of network. Local major CU covers $3/mo, my bank covers $10/mo. At the rates being discussed, that is less than one per month from the CU and two from the bank.