yea dunno why they used such a old setup.a amd strix halo apu can win a fight with a 4060 even a 4070.
strix halo was way too expensive, even before the RAMpocalypse.
valve was aiming for "slightly above average steam hardware survey", not balls to the wall performance. That's why i has restrained in my recomended hypotetical setting.
Um, let someone else test them. They don't call it "bleeding edge" for nothing.
They are being tested as we speak. Engineering samples are being sent to the main hyperscalers (Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Facebook), smaller Hyperscalers (Oracle, IBM, OVH, Destuche Telecom, Telefonica-Movistar) and the AI Datacenter crowd for pre-validation and feedback.
These drives are aimed squarely at hiperscalers first and foremost, we consumers are an aftetought. We will see consumer version of these drives long aftert Hyperscalers adopted them en-mass
If this is going to lower the price of 5 TB drives, bring it on: I have a good use for such drives, but not really so for 100+ TB drives.
No, it will not. A drive housing or the pivot arms of a RW head do not care if the drive platers are high coercitivity exotic materials, or if the heads are ePMR or HAMR.
More production lines that made housings and pivots and motors for 5TB drives will be converted to handle 100TB ones, and more of the remaining normal housingns and pivots and motors will be used for 15TB and up drives.
Expect low capacity drives to slowly dry up.
Plan accordingly
They went with an split design with 16GB of DDR5 on the computer (Via DIMMs) and 8 GB VRAM on a RDNA 3 dGPU (soldered) instead of going with a Unified design of 24 GB of LP-DDR5 (via CAMM2) on a SoC with RDNA 3.5.
LP-DDR5 is showing signs of getting more expensive, but not as fast as GDDR and DDR5, so, over all, less of a problem for Valve. Also, in not the same negotiation power when you buy a bunch of GDDR and another bunch of DDR5, than buying a mega-bunch of LP-DDR5
So, the GPU is hamstrung both in the Ammount of VRAM (8GB) and the Feature Set (RDNA 3 Vs RDNA 3.5). Not only that, had went CAMM2, they could in the worst case scenario, pivot from 24GB total (12 CPU and 12 GPU) pivot to a 16GB config (10GPU and 6CPU) Both more balanced for a primarily gaming machine.
All those technologies (LP-DDR5 CAMM2 and iGPUs with RDNA 3.5) were known to Valve during the design phase of the machine (Valve is a somewhat large customer of AMD to they get advanced access to roadmaps and prototypes)...
But alas, it is what it is....
But, a
Leica Cameras, as in point and Shoot and Profesional Cameras are very good.
Their optics are very good to.
Some of their image processing technologies, like using RYGB sensors (Red, Yellow, Green, Blue) are very interesting.
And, in a world were phones with high end cameras use the Carl Zeiss branding ad nauseam, some phone brands partner with Leica for some needed diferentiation.
All of this is valuable stuff.
At launch, Project Genie offers three different modes of interaction: World Sketching, exploration and remixing.
That's two. Where is the third?
World Scetching
World Exploration
World Remixing.
LOL, kidding, you psychopaths.
Who in their right mind would pay that much for this crap?
Game studios who want their art directors to feed prompts to via command like to a GenAI, and iterate and refine those prompts until s/he is satisfied with the overall look, feenm and interactions on the level before showing the result of that and thelling the artists and level designers "build that on the level editor" instead of the current method which is:
Send a bunch of initial prompts via email to the level designers and artists, the level gets contructed in the level editor, the level is not to the liking of the Art director, more propmpts ensue, lather rinse repeat, until the level is to the liking of the Art Director.
Tools like this will significantly shorten the "lather, rise, repeat cycle", whic saves time and money. The ammount of people remais roughly the same.
They'll replace the marketers with AI slop. Nothing of value lost, nothing gained. Nobody ever bought Autodesk because of sales and marketing. Ther products are bought because they are industry standard, and/or the best tool for the job. Might as well sack all of these people, and not a single sale lost.
For individual and SMB customers, Austdesk sales is not important, but marketing is. Specially to making customers aware of other autodesk products beyond AutoCad...
But for Big enterprises, with thousands of seats, and huge training budgets, that can shift tools relatively easily?
Sales in those cases is important, who is gona wine, and dine, and golf a big customer to convince not to shift to an autodesk competitor? And who is gonna dine and wine and golf a big customer to ditch a competitor and go to autodesk?. Not an AI, that's for sure.
Having said that, propably some marketeers can be replaced by AI, and the sales area was bigger than needed. Hense, the reductions.
So, as long as said Superior image processing tech lands into the Cheaper TCL TV i am OK with this.
Having superior image processing does not significantly impact the BOM, is just significantly superior algorithms running on a slighly more powerfull SoC.
Superior upscalers for 480i and Vintage Video Game content, superior uspcalers for 480p and 720p content.
As for interpolation, in 30FPS TVs film is already interpolated from 24FPS to 30FPS. May as well interpolate to 60FPS (normal cheapo pannel frequency) and stop whinning. If you do not want the brighter image that come with the interpolation, apply some post processing filters.
All those would be worthy additions to TCL cheaper pannels going forward.
What will distinguish the bravias from the TCLs then? Probably superior pannels, and moar connectors on the back
JM2C YMMV
I'm aware that they're considered to be essential. The question is, why? Are there any viable alternatives? If not, why not? Were standards manipulated to specifically include patented technologies? Who established the standard, and to what extent were government bodies (FCC etc) involved in the ratification process?
You will need to read chapter one of the tanemmbaumb book on networks, there is a wholle section dedicated to Standard setting methods. And do some more research on top (but please, for the love of all that is holly, do not ask an AI assistant about it)
The TL;DR is:
a.) standards bodies (some govermental, some private, some mixed) covene to "define a standard", in this case the 3GPP (the 3GPP is completely private, but works hand in hand with the ITU-T and ITU-R, In the past, they worked closely with ETSI as well, but I do not know about that now)
b.) Companies invest a m37r1c 5h170n of money on R&D to get the best tech, and lobby agressively to get their tech/patents on the standard for 2 reasons:
1.) Easy revenue stream through FRAND licensing &
2.) If your tech is selected as part of the standard you have a leg-up on your competitors, as you understand that tech better than anyone.
c.) Of course, what you give up by having your patents into the standard is that you cna not charge "whatevur" for your patents, the patents have to be FRAND, and, although there are disagreements from time to time, FRAND is a very specific set of conditions, highly (but not completely) aligned with jurisprudence dictated in germany
d.) In the case of standards, there is no way around the essential patents. For if you do not use those standard patents, your implementation is non-standards compliant, and therefore, the equipment is not interoperable. Not a big deal if you are making a (smart) fridge, absolutely essential if you want to make a 5G cellphone that wants to talk to any RAN, or want to make a RAN that can talk with any 5G cellphone.
----- TL;DR over
The patent, in this case, seems to be a pattent that allows a handset to inform (via signaling) the RAND to explain their transmit/receive power situation when the handset is using more than one frequency band at the same time, which is a disctintive feature of 5G (this was non existent in 2G and 3G, a bolted on thing in 4G, but is integral to 5G).
IANAL, but IMHO, this patent royalties shall be paid by BOTH the handset makers (Apple, Samsung et al), AND the RAN makers (Nokia, Ericsson et al*), but not by the network operators.
Possibly Acer wants to double dip, or maybe the Operators are willfully selling/pushing no-name handsets that did not pay up, and acer considers easier to go after the telcos themselves than after some "fly by the seat of your pants" Zhenzen/Mumbai handset maker.
I find it hard to believe that Nokia or Ericsson is not paying up for an Essential patent, but some no name phone maker? would not surprise me in the slightest.
* Bigest makers of RAN worldwide are Huawei, and Ericsson trading blows for first place, Nokia in 3rd, ZTE in 4th and Samsung in 5th, then there are many more. But note that Huawei and ZTE are banned in the USoA, where this lawsuit is taking place.
From what I recall, Benq was making peripherals, like optical drives, speakers and so on
It'd be nice to know how or why these patented technologies wound up being used by every carrier . .
From TFS: "Acer also notes that some of its patents count as standard-essential"
'Nuff said.
Having said that, normally in telecom, the patent royalties are paid either by the handset makers (the apples and Samsungs of this world), the equipment makers (the nokias and areicssons of this world) or both.
More so if Mirnotoriety is right, and the patent in question is U.S. patent number: 8,737,333. which covers signaling between the handset and the RAN.
So, I think Acer is trying to Double-Dip here (charging the operators for something that the handset makers and RAN makers already paid).
I never knew that Acer was into cellular anything, let alone have patents
They were the owners of Benq. They later sold Benq, but that does not mean that they stoper doing R&D on Cellular, or that they could not re-enter the cellular R&D space at a latter date,
Mostly I'm surprised to learn that Acer still exists. Or perhaps the Acer computer company I dealt with more than 30 years ago disappeared and the name was picked up by someone else?
30 Years ago Acer was a force to be reckoned with. This Acer is that same acer, but is severely diminished from its former glory.
As it would apply here, getting your patented idea incorporated in a public standard should effectively void copyright-protection lawsuits. Public standards need to be insulated from monetary considerations?
Actualy no, it would be worse. Your standard would probably be subpar, because all the best technologies would be patented. AND you would have to walk a minefield trying to concot a standard that does not infringe any patents (including pending/submarine ones) and use only non patented technologies, or thechnologies whose patents expired. Take a look at the process of creation of VP9 and AV1 for examples of how hard and protracted this can be.
And even then, you are not certain that the resulting standard wil not be patent free. People make mistakes, so either the engineers making the "patent free standard" missed a patent, or the lawyers at certain company make a mistake and honestly believe that their patent applies to the "patent free standard" and sue.
The middelground the industry and Governments found is that, each patent that is essential to a standart has to be licensed as FRAND (google "FRAND Patent"). That way, companies have an economic incentive to bring their best technologies to the standard, and users of the standard know they will not be gauged.
Disagreements can happen from time to time, like this particular one, but this is the best we have got.
"Acer also notes that some of its patents count as standard-essential, hinting the carriers may be required to license them"
Many people will disagree with me, but I don't think patented ideas/concepts/inventions should be included in any standards.
If it's a standard it should be available for anyone who wants to make a compatible widget or device or program to use. Anything "restricted" makes the standard less useful.
It's very lucrative for companies to get their patented things included in a standard, and they push for this to happen for just that reason.
But it should not be allowed. If you have a patented idea, go ahead and develop it and license it as you choose. But if you're developing a standard, keep your patent out of it.
Patents essential to a standard ussualy have to be licensed under FRAND terms. Sometimes this is done through a Pool, to simplify licensing (but pooling the paptents is not a hard requirement for standard essential patents). Sometimes, Pools splinter. And sometimes each company goes at it alone.
Probably the disagreement here is either that the FRAND terms offered by Acer are not FRAND enough (in the view of the big three), or the three big-uns feel they do not need to pay a dime because their providers (the Nokias and Ericssons and Amdocss of this world) already payed the patent fees to Acer and therefore, they allege Acer is trying to double-dip.
One has to look out for engineers -- they begin with sewing machines and end up with the atomic bomb. -- Marcel Pagnol
