Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:APPLE STILL MAKES 90% OF SMARTPHONE CASH !! (Score 1) 601

Assuming technology and efficiency in production remains stagnant yes, but technology does improve and efficiency increases. Apples manufacturing and material costs per phone have remained remarkably similar, and ultimately, the minimum ATC of the lowest costing manufacturing plant comes to govern the price.
And if the market price declines below the minimum of a firm's AVC curve, the firm should exit the industry.

poetmatt - price and demand for the iPhone will be fairly inelastic, as the Android phones are not really seen as a substitute.

Comment Re:APPLE STILL MAKES 90% OF SMARTPHONE CASH !! (Score 1) 601


Apple's profits have been dropping like a stone, they've been suing android for that reason - and you assume that android growth doesn't = profit?

might want to go back to economics 101 - he who sells the most is going to find a way to profit more.

Look at how google's revenue has been, and how every smartphone manufacturer's revenue has been. Record revenue over the last 5 years? check.

Speaking of going back to Econ 101 - you might want to review the little fact that revenue does not equal profits.
He who sells the most will profit more? You sell 100 widgets at $10/unit with a manufacturing cost of $9/unit resulting in $1 profit/unit, for a total profit of $100. I sell 10 widgets at $50/unit with a manufacturing cost of $35/unit resulting in $15 profit/unit for a total profit of $150. Who's profiting more in this scenario?

Comment Re:damn, i was hoping HTC would die off (Score 1) 179

But you are comparing 1 company (Apple) to the multiple companies who sell Android devices (Samsung, LG, Sony, Google themselves and now apparently HTC). Certainly, Apple's market share has shrunk as other companies enter the market wit competitive products. This does not however, spell the imminent demise of Apple. if we look at Apple's quarterly report from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012, we can see they actually improved profit year-on-year.

As to your comment downthread about global smart phone sales, well it seems Apple is doing alright there.

Comment Re:One button again (Score 1) 1184

Again with the goalpost moving - your claim was that: "everybody believed they [lots of buttons] were essential". Being as LG was the 5th largest cell phone manufacturer at the time, clearly not everybody thought that way. They still make the LG Prada phone.
I reiterate - your statement is clearly not true.

The jury had 109 pages of instructions and 700 questions (which means they spent less than a minute per question). They ignored instructions, and skipped over the argument of prior art.

Update: One of the jurors has now spoken, and CNET's Greg Sandoval has it, in his article, Exclusive: Apple-Samsung juror speaks out:

        Apple v. Samsung juror Manuel Ilagan said the nine-person jury that heard the patent infringement case between the companies knew after the first day that it believed Samsung had wronged Apple....

        The decision was very one-sided, but Ilagan said it wasn't clear the jurors were largely in agreement until after the first day of deliberations.

        "It didn't dawn on us [that we agreed that Samsung had infringed] on the first day," Ilagan said. "We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom. Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art [about the same technology that Samsung said existed before the iPhone debuted]. [Velvin Hogan] was jury foreman. He had experience. He owned patents himself. In the beginning the debate was heated, but it was still civil. Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier. After we debated that first patent -- what was prior art --because we had a hard time believing there was no prior art, that there wasn't something out there before Apple.

        "In fact we skipped that one," Ilagan continued, "so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." ...

        "Once you determine that Samsung violated the patents," Ilagan said, "it's easy to just go down those different [Samsung] products because it was all the same. Like the trade dress, once you determine Samsung violated the trade dress, the flatscreen with the Bezel...then you go down the products to see if it had a bezel. But we took our time. We didn't rush. We had a debate before we made a decision. Sometimes it was getting heated."

This gets worse and worse.

Update 2: Dan Levine of Reuters has some words from the foreman:

      "We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist," Hogan said. "We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful, but not unreasonable."

        Hogan said jurors were able to complete their deliberations in less than three days -- much faster than legal experts had predicted -- because a few had engineering and legal experience, which helped with the complex issues in play. Once they determined Apple's patents were valid, jurors evaluated every single device separately, he said.

Now the jurors are contradicting each other. Lordy, the more they talk, the worse it gets. I'm sure Samsung is glad they are talking, though. Had they read the full jury instructions, all 109 pages [as PDF], they would have read that damages are not supposed to punish, merely to compensate for losses. Here's what they would have found in Final Jury Instruction No. 35, in part:

        The amount of those damages must be adequate to compensate the patent holder for the infringement. A damages award should put the patent holder in approximately the financial position it would have been in had the infringement not occurred, but in no event may the damages award be less than a reasonable royalty. You should keep in mind that the damages you award are meant to compensate the patent holder and not to punish an infringer.

The same instruction is repeated in Final Jury Instruction No. 53, in case they missed it the first time. Did they obey those instructions? Nay, did they even read them? The evidence, judging by the foreman's reported words, point the wrong way.

In addition to that, the jury's findings were wildly inconsistent.
They found This captivate to be infringing on patent 381 (bounce-back on scroll) yet not the Galaxy S2, which has the exact same functionality.
On the other hand they also decided the Nexus S 4G infringed the 381(bounceback) patent, yet the Nexus S 4G runs stock Android, which does not do bounceback.

There are more examples, but as I assume you will ignore those as well, I'll just stop here.

Comment Re:One button again (Score 1) 1184

What made it a huge win for apple was the incompetence and wilful misconduct of the jury. (read the comments for further elucidation).

The LG prada went nowhere in the US - but in South Korea it sold very well, I saw it all over the place. Your claim was that "everybody believed they [lots of buttons] were essential". Clearly not true.
Stop moving the goal posts, you make me embarrassed to be an apple user.

Comment Re:One button again (Score 1) 1184

And before the iPhone, cell phones had lots of buttons, and everybody believed they were essential--until Apple released a one-button phone.

Yeah just look at all the buttons on the LG Prada phone

The first comment on that article is freaking hilarious in hindsight:

HmmI have to imagine it’s going to be tough for LG to win this one, simply because the entire industry is probably going to move to handsets that look more or less like this–an iPod sized brick with a touchscreen. From that perspective, they’re all going to look more or less the same.

Comment Re:First SK Communications now KT Corp (Score 1) 43

I would imagine those users already had their personal details stolen back in July 2011 when 35 million people (practically the entire population of South Korea) had their details hacked from another telecommunications provider - SK Communications. Is this a systemic issue in South Korea?

With the South Koreans' over-reliance on Windows, yes. Added to that software monoculture are some terrible security practices. These practices are widespread in the Korean IT industry, and I'm sure would make any competent sysadmin run screaming to the hills. Part of that is there is still the old guard in play there, and due to South Korea's slow adaptation of challenging upper management due to cultural values, this problem will likely remain in place for some time still.

Comment Re:Jobs (Score 1) 647

When Amazon uses predatory pricing to move local retailers out of the market, they have then gained what is considered an "established advantage". There is little reason for anyone else to enter the market because they stand no chance of beating the price of Amazon. Sure, the odd boutique seller might be able to capture some niche for Veblen goods, but that's not Amazon's competition, and those are niche markets, hardly able to replace retail employees now.
Your post contends that nearly everyone in the US has a degree. This is clearly inaccurate, as the census link shows. Even if we include Associate degrees, the number is 39%, which is still a far cry from nearly everyone. Not everyone in the workforce can do skilled labour/office work - even if you discount those "pesky immigrants" (as an anecdotal aside, I have worked with several Mexicans who are doing manual labour even having completed some degree of college or obtaining university degrees). As Amazon increases the automation in their supply chain (picking/packing/shelving/crating/shipping) the number of unskilled jobs decreases, with few options for those previously employed in those sectors. When that 60% start to find it increasingly difficult to find work that's able to sustain them and their families, you can likely expect increased social tension, further polarization of the classes, and while the GDP of America might grow in the short run, in the long term, the few are gaining at the expense of the many, who will have to further reduce their expenditure (consumption), and without the all important "C" variable in CIGNx, the economy is fucked.

Comment Re:Jobs (Score 1) 647

Eh? You say that, yet nearly everyone in the US has a degree. 90% of the people coming into the workforce are perfectly qualified for skilled labor or office work of some type.

Suddenly all your posts makes sense. You are clearly out of touch with reality. Latest census information shows that 30% of people 25 and older have a bachelor's degree or higher.
Additionally the fiction you spin about competition being able to move in once Amazon establishes a monopoly is cute.

Slashdot Top Deals

"There is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress." -- Mark Twain