305 posts • joined Thursday 5th November 2009 02:06 GMT
Re: Fanboi Mania - difficult to understand, from either camp
More devices sold means more developer attention and therefore more apps for the platform. So there is some benefit to customers in being on a popular platform. Also the sustainability and long term life of the platform (and linked app and content purchases) also depends on ongoing sales of devices although this isn't really an issue for iOS or Android at the moment it is a question mark over Blackberry and Microsoft still (and Meego, FirefoxOS, Tizen etc. to an even greater degree).
Re: @Joseph Lord
Agree that current law is too complex and also divorced from current practice and reasonable expectations.
Did you know that TV recording is specifically exempted for temporary short term private copies? If you are recording stuff to keep more than a week or two you are infringing copyright. In a way this makes the iPlayer's limited window logical although it probably puts most homes with a PVR or VCR outside the law.
I think if the current law was understood and enforced it would have less support than it currently does. Most people think their actions are reasonable and many don't realise they are infringing.
Re: Wrong: it is still copyright infringement to rip your CDs onto your computer
There is no personal use exemption in the UK. There if Fair Dealing aspect that is similar but not so strong as the US Fair Use. On the plus side we don't have a DMCA or other legal restictions on reverse engineering access to copyright material (although pay TV access controls have some protections I believe.
Copyright duration does matter - to those who want to obey the law and act fairly. Also anyone wanting to commercially use the material to create something new and interesting derived from the original. It is a separate issue from the photo ownership issue.
Are you saying that if copyright could be enforced then and only then would you and the copyright lobbyists of the major labels/studios agree to reasonable copyright durations? Anyway enforcement is the wrong point, what is really needed is public acceptance and compliance so steps towards a fairer balance could be a step to achieving that.
Copyright should be a balance between the interests of the public and creators. It should enable opportunity for profit to encourage production and also for control over the commercial exploitation at least to the extent that implied endorsements have to be agreed (moral rights sort of issues - maybe these should extend longer than the commercial right). However there should be a recognition that when works are published they become part of the culture and that there should be a type of public right to them at least after a relevant time (maybe 20-30 years).
For reference I a am paytard and have been with very few exceptions at least since University. I am also however a copyright infringer as I rip my CDs for playback on portable devices.
Yes they are ALL infringement in almost all cases (basically everything you list unless the rights owners have granted the rights explicitly). I'm also assuming that by watching "online" you mean torrenting or other unlicensed services rather than paying Netflix/Lovefilm who have negotiated (in most cases limited and restricted) licenses to distribute the content. Stuff on Youtube and similar sites may be a mixed bag with some content licensed legally or uploaded by the rights holders, some stuff has a deliberate blind eye turned and other content is straight infringing content. I don't think that by watching streamed stuff you could be deemed to be infringing provided you were not copying, distributing or publicly performing the work but I am not a lawyer.
I believe (only checked with a quick Google and the top items are all about government intention to change the law not that it has actually been done) that it is still copyright infringement to rip your CDs onto your computer and another infringing act to copy them to your phone/media player.
Now whether you or I agree that the moral situation is not as binary or clearcut and that not all acts of infringement are equal is a separate question.
Re: They'll just not be a part of the standards body
If you don't take part in the standards process at all you may not have to declare patents but your patents are unlikely to be essential to the standard. Someone else with a patented alternative approach will have argued for it and probably got it in as a quid pro quo for accepting another participant's technology in another aspect of the standard.
If you take part and do not declare relevant patents you are likely to be in severe legal difficulties as the rules have been tightened up since RAMBUS and even they suffered legally in the end.
There is still an incentive to take part in standards, declare patents, and collect FRAND pool rates rather than not taking part and probably being entitled to no licensing whatsoever as your technology doesn't get used unless it is included in a standard.
Re: Independent ISP...
Plusnet Fibre seems OK but not better. Daytime I generally get 40/12Mbps although sometimes at evening peak drops to about 20/12Mbps. Single static IP address is no hassle (£5 one off).
There were a couple of occasions a couple of months ago where the speed really dropped hard in the evening (less than 5Mbps) breaking iPlayer HD streaming although that was noted as an issue on their status site and it seems to be resolved since.
The Fibre install was messed up an I had no wired internet for a week and I had to get tethering working on my phone although I don't think Plusnet were to blame, general OpenReach incompetence issue that could have happened with any ISP I think.
I'm glad I moved from O2 before Sky arrived, don't like that Plusnet is BT but was much cheaper than better (A&A, Zen) options and I can move at the end of the contract (probably) to one of those.
I don't trust Google for privacy reasons but I do trust them with vague competence at updating software so I have uninstalled system Flash and if there is a site that needs it that I really want I copy the link in Firefox and paste into Chrome.
I only use Reader annually for filling in my tax form and then delete it, there are plenty of other PDF readers out there.
Adobe has become an embarrassment to the software industry with their poor security, crappy update practices and now this attack on someone trying to clean up their mess.
Re: Comparing apples to pears?
The Samsung IM division made a profit of 4.18 Trillion Korean Won for the quarter (according to Google that is about $3.6 Billion or less than half of the quarterly profit Apple declared ($9.5 Billion). The IM profit was the bulk of that for whole Electronics division.
On sales value they are just over half Apple (in the IM category alone) Apple posting $43.6 Billion and Samsung 22.47 Trillion Won ($20.2 billion). Samsung Electronics* total revenue for the quarter was 45.4 Trillion Won ($40.7 billion) pretty close to Apple's revenue.
Note the Samsung figures are for the IM division only unless otherwise stated as suggested above is a suitable comparison and subject to me missing a zero somewhere in the conversions (but I think it is right).
*Samsung has more than just the electronics division and I haven't looked at how that all adds up or even whether washing machines are in the Electronics division or not. I know the ships and construction equipment aren't.
Re: £250,000 fine for losing 77 million credit card numbers
There was a failure in security but credit card numbers were encrypted and they lost out big time on sales, PR and addition expense plus the value of games given away and PSN+ credits.
That combined with the fact the fine was for the UK data lost means it isn't unreasonably small. I would prefer the biggest fines saved for sale of data, malicious use etc. rather than cases like this.
Fair enough, I'm lucky enough never to have had to mess around with them myself (although I have found attenuators necessary at times). Do the "shitty diy ones plugged in at the tv end" help at all with digital transmissions? I thought it was more often the signal quality than the strength that was a problem on digital although maybe it depends on the TV/STB.
I don't know what connectors the filters will use but they are not expected to go straight into the TV/STB. If you don't have an amplifier there SHOULD be no problem and no need for the filter. The filter needs to be inserted BETWEEN the aerial and the amplifier where an amplifier is in use.
Most of the code in Linux is driver code to support every possible thing you can connect to a computing devices. This rate of change is why the issue of hardware support has to a great degree gone away. Nearly everything works with Linux now although in many cases there is significant room for it to work better so there is still work to do.
My guess is that only a small number of the changes in each release affect most users.
Re: I always thought
I agree with Matt. While I have no great wish for a particularly smart TV the ability to access iPlayer and Lovefilm is of significant value to me as is the ability to play over UPNP/DLNA recorded programmes from my MythTV device in another room (with the TV's video decoder and picture processing which result in significantly better picture than the direct video output from the server.
Penguin icon for embedded Linux on the TV not just on the MythTV server.
Re: Don't bring Lucy Meadows into this...
> The Lucy Meadows case is, indeed, tragic. And the press coverage was rather unpleasant. But not every journo is a monster in the same way not every doctor is a murderer like Harold Shipman. And the Samaritans note that suicide should not be linked to one problem.
And all practicing doctors are regulated by the GMC which has statutory underpinnings. What exactly is your point?
The only one I can see is that the "press" is lots of different people and is an overall mixed bag ranging from the excellent to the dreadful. With a good system of regulation in place the excellent shouldn't suffer and the dreadful will have to change. Now whether there are particular flaws that will make the system of regulation less than good is a matter of detail and not high principle.
I was trying to take the article seriously when after stating that newspapers are already regulated but the laws aren't properly enforced it described the ongoing criminal investigations as witch hunts and from that point it was very hard.
The current proposal may be very bad but I have very little sympathy for the whingers in the press and hold them accountable for it getting to this stage. The demand for the pointless (because they are already regulated by defamation laws and other general laws) principle of no statutory aspect to press regulation has prevented proper discussion of what might actually be a reasonable system, pushed the process into the realm of Royal Charters, the Privy Council and other closed door manoeuvrings.
I do worry that there may be impacts on Private Eye and other proper investigative journalism but I don't think that the effect of the regulation will be as bad as you fear but the section on the last page about your view of the practical effects and added power to PRs was the most interesting (and most persuasive) part of the article rather than the bulk based on a rose tinted and generally deluded view of the last few hundred years of British history.
I went looking for the views of Private Eye and The Guardian and found this from Alan Rusbridger which I hadn't previously read but agree with to a great degree although it is probably weak in considering impact on magazines and purely online journalism.
And anyone talking about 300 years of freedom of the press should be hit round the head with plank of wood with "D-Notice" written on it until they shut up about 300 years.
Re: The press have brought this on themselves.
You are right that allowing full trust in the government without oversight would be a massive mistake but the post you are responding to is right to the extent that the press* has brought it on themselves.
Neither government power nor press power should be completely unchecked and appropriate legislation ensuring regulation of powerful bodies is not in principle wrong.
I definitely wouldn't want anything stopping Private Eye, The Independent, The Guardian, The Telegraph or any other paper, website or blog that seriously investigates government and holds them to account for their behaviour but major publishers have significant power and influence and ensuring that isn't abused is also important.
* I think the majority of the problems really came from News International and Associated Press although there may have been some problems at the Mirror and others too.
Re: I can think of few people@Joseph Lord
Some fair points, and quite a number that I agree with. It is being rushed for no good reason*, serious reform of defamation and privacy laws that included opportunities for the poorest to make use of them may be a better alternative but there are still areas that probably wouldn't cover such as unfair comment about groups rather than individuals. Your second paragraph I mostly agree with.
Looking at the downvotes you received my guess (I didn't cast one) is that they resulted from the appearance of siding with with the newspaper editors against the democratically elected representatives of the people (described in a way to talk them up to slightly compensate for your original description although the truth is probably somewhere between). I don't agree with quite a few parts of your last paragraph but a particular releveant point to make is that another estate that holds the government to account is lawyers and judiciary and despite being overseen by a statutory regulatory body you don't see lawyers not bringing judicial reviews.
* The rush appears to have been caused by Cameron throwing his toys out of the pram to bring this to a head and then having to find a face saving solution to avoid being beaten. Labour pushed the process threatening to attach changes to all sorts of bills but at that point Cameron was dead against any statute. Had he agreed to a properly thought through bill I think they would have stopped that.
Re: I can think of few people
> I can think of few people less suited to deciding on press regulation than [politicians].
Apart from the editors and owners of the biggest selling papers in the country who have proven themselves fundamentally incapable over decades of providing an acceptable framework and many of whom presided over a catalogs of unacceptable conduct in their own papers.
I'm not saying that the current proposal is necessarily the right answer, I think a proper thought out law setting out the framework would have been better but Cameron blocked that so that he could try (and fail) to argue on a technicality that this wasn't statutory underpinning etc.
The whole Royal Charter controlled by the Privy Council without Parliamentary oversight would have been FAR worse as effectively the government of the day would be able to meddle without Parliament and public review.
I would be in favour of a particular scale or theshold of the normal reach or circulation of a website or publication before it came under this law. It is particularly the abuse by those with the biggest platforms that should be addressed and therefore those with large platforms should fall under it. Maybe under this definition Stephen Fry's tweets would fall under it but I don't see why they shouldn't if they reach millions of people he needs to use that platform responsibly.
Relative measure OK
Maintaining sales between Q4 and Q1 (after the Christmas peak and initial launch excitement heading into low season except for Chinese New Year where relevant) is pretty good even with a longer time period for sales available. If it had been a great launch this would a great result for MS...
...however the bad news is that BOTH quarters are catastrophically small compared to major rivals (Apple and Samsung). Based on the figures in this article Apple outsold them by more than 30x in Q4 despite pre-Christmas iPad mini shortages.
Mass broadcast is efficient
Broadcast is massively efficient if you look at the bits delivered rather than those transmitted. 3 million people watching the same 4Mbps stream is 12Tbps. Admittedly broadcasting QVC to twenty people nationwide is a lot less efficient.
Maybe channels that could show public service benefit (including entertainment of sufficient numbers or of otherwise under served communities) could be given exemptions.
Yes my last debit card came with it VISA Paywave. I think I have successfully disabled it with a Stanley knife cutting a slit on three sides of the chip. Chip still works but didn't work for contactless because basically I managed to sever the antenna.
Prior use rights don't help much
They protect the larger existing businesses that have been going a long time but do nothing for startups. The real improvement would be raising the bar for the novel inventive step. If two or three existing implementations exist it is a good signal that it is not novel or beyond someone skilled in the art.
This sort of takeover can make sense
The existing markets are regionally split with no overlap and the business models and business they are in are essentially identical making it theoretically a good idea although that obviously depends on the price paid. There can really be efficiencies of scale (reduction of local management, branding materials etc.) and negotiating power increase (both for content and kit).
I think Liberty Global own these already in Europe:
UPC (NL, Ireland - was NTL, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia...)
CableCom - (Switzerland)
Telenet - (Belgum 50% stake)
UnityMedia and KabelBW - (Germany)
Aster - (Poland)
Can't remember what the biggest Austrian cable company was called but they own that too and it may now be UPC branded.
It's always been a puzzle to me why phone companies are so bad at doing business on the phone rather than giving customers a better example.
Re: Will buy when
GT6 as a launch game? Do you remember how long GT5 was in development? I think it was meant to be available soon after PS3 launch but it didn't ship until November 2010.
I really wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
If this passed there will be a massive rise in the price of ...
...the university places that will leave people eligible for this permanent citizenship.
> "It's much too complex and risky a design, in their rush to produce more efficient lighter planes they've thrown away too many tried and tested things."
> Not really. Most of the aircraft is fine, the only big issue seems to be the battery. That *could* be fixed by switching battery chemistry (albeit at the expense of some weight and some space).
That only one thing didn't work doesn't refute the grandparent comment's point. They pushed the boundaries in lots of areas and of course most succeeded, this was a commercial project not a research one but at some point lots of small risks add up. A 1% risk of a battery problem sounds manageable but if there is also a 1% risk of an engine fan blade issue, a wing strength issue and dozens, hundrends or even thousands of other issues then sooner or later you might be talking real possibilities or even probabilities of something going wrong although you don't know which.
You take small risks in 100 different areas of design and lets say 99% succeed, the one that doesn't happens to be the batteries but it could have been something else. The cost will depend on the time to get an airworthy approved solution, lost sales and any damages to the grounded airlines (I've no idea what sort of warranty or SLA a new passenger jet comes with). Until that is known and the aircraft is in service long enough to shake out any other issues including major component lifespans we won't know if the post you responded to was correct that it was "much too complex and risky a design".
There is a saying about the bandwidth of a station wagon of tapes and I have a similar one for broadcast. "Don't underestimate the delivered bandwidth of 5 million homes all receiving the same broadcast signal." At 5Mbps that would be 25Tbps sustained.
Now those numbers only happen at mass live events - Olympics 100m, World Cup Finals etc. but for anything that gets 1 million viewers (live or recording) is very efficiently served by broadcast. Over time it would make sense to have less but higher quality channels broadcast and using the internet for more niche content (all the crap on Freeview) but broadcast still has life in it for a good while.
And as others say *most* people don't actually use/want on demand. They like having things just there to choose from and not too much choice either. You and I like our On Demand content but to an extent I can sympathize with the majority having spent 30 minutes picking what to watch on Netflix on occasions. You may be right about the next generation, my son barely understands the concept of TV channels and schedules as we just keep a stockpile of things recorded and use Netflix/Lovefilm so it will be interesting but I am not yet convinced that model will die.
Re: what i'd like to know is
That clause says that the states (governments) can't stop people broadcasting content from other countries (e.g. jamming or banning ownership of suitable receivers). It does not prevent any commercial organisation cannot decide to target particular territories or that content producers must grant broadcasters full European rights if they grant any rights.
Re: This is very shortsighted
The main German channels are FtA on satellite and included in basic packages on cable that are often included with rent. Many TV's can receive cable (DVB-C) and satellite (DVB-S2) without needing a set top box. The satellite service is really quite FtA although a (fairly cheap) pay platform was being started for HD a couple of years ago I haven't followed it's progress. It was planned that there would be Conditional Access Modules which can be inserted into European TVs to provide these services without the cost of a set top box.
DTT has about 5% of market in Germany
Compared with almost 50% (counting second TVs) in the UK. Germans nearly all use cable or satellite. In many homes basic cable is included with the rent. Analogue was the same way. Belgium and the Netherlands also have very little terrestrial use although there is some.
I don't think that there is really any useful precedent for the UK in this. The closest equivalent would be if ITV removed themselves from Freesat with it's about 1M homes and went Sky, Freeview and Virgin only except RTL's cost saving is probably larger than ITVs would be (if you don't count any bonus from Sky paying them not to be on Freesat). It isn't like removing themselves from Freeview which is main TV service for about 10M homes and used as a secondary service in another few million.
[All numbers all approximate as knowing them is no longer important to my job. Ofcom market surveys are very useful for the UK, I don't know of any freely available data for Germany but it may exist.]
Re: Politician's logic
I need to add to my post above that I believe homosexuality and homosexual acts should be legal and it is a stain (one of many) on my nation's history that they were ever criminal. I hope no one read into my comment any belief that there was anything remotely acceptable about it. I only believe that this case may not be much better and that comparisons need not be inappropriate.
Re: Politician's logic
A man punished for a crime and punished according to the law commits suicide.
Another man who did something that probably amounts to a crime (not convicted and fairly minor anyway based on my view of the indictment that I read) commits suicide under threat of massive criminal penalties (35 years) having already spent all his money on legal bills and where the victim didn't want to press charges.
Stated as above the parallel doesn't seem ridiculous to me and the prosecutions handling of the case should be looked at. MIT has announced that they will look into how they handled the issue and decisions that they made.
I'm not saying that this person's contributions match Turing's but they certainly exceed mine so far and he was only 26. I'm also not saying that what he was accused of was OK and should be legal but the idea that charges worth 35 years were appropriate even as a means to pressure a guilty plea to some lesser charge seems ridiculous to me.
Re: Verified by VISA is horrible
That sounds like a good feature although almost as effective would be SMS messages sent out after any cardholder not present transaction that you could respond "FRAUD" to if they aren't genuine with no VBV.
I would mind VBV much less if the password setting/resetting process was better (although I have avoided it for the past few years so it may have improved) and that it was hosted if not at your own bank then at least at visa.com so at least it was visibly at a company that people know that they have a business relationship with and are more likely to notice if it is a fraudulent misspelled domain than whatever it is that I normally get redirected to and asked for my date of birth.
How do YOU know the result of the terminal authentication BEFORE you enter your PIN? If they don't charge you they can get your PIN and magstripe (if you let them stripe it). You only get to find out it might not have been valid when you see fraud on your account OR notice that you weren't charged for something and the not charged thing is your only clue as to where it happened. The fact that your card knows it is in a non authenticated terminal (or maybe isn't even connected to a terminal at all) doesn't protect your PIN. This is why after authenticating the terminal the chip should reveal a secret number or message (known to the user) to be displayed before the PIN is requested.
The only way I can think you might be able to detect a fraudulent machine is if you enter an incorrect PIN and it doesn't reject it (therefore it isn't connecting to your card).
Re: PIN is different from Chip+PIN
Yes I should have said that if a crook has PIN plus magstripe they need to force a non chip transaction. This could be by technical measures but more likely just sending the data to a country where chips aren't used. During the transition to chip there were places here where it could be done (ATMs that hadn't been upgraded) but I doubt those options still exist.
The good news is that the chip can't be quickly or easily cloned so the PIN is only useful with the card OR the data from the magstripe.
The bad news is shoulder surfing the PIN is the least of your worries. How do you verify the machine you are typing your PIN into is A) genuine and B) hasn't been tampered with to record the PIN.
As far as I can tell there is no mechanism apart from whether you trust the shop and the staff member serving you. There aren't any holographic stickers or any proper security features like the device displaying a secret from you chip to you before you enter the PIN.
Verified by VISA is horrible
An online retailer redirects you to a third party donain unrelated to your card provider which asks you for personal details and asks you to set a password. Then liability for fraud is shifted to the customer.
Even if it is actually secure the user education message of the process is horrific.
Chip and Pin is kind of OK but never enter you PIN if the card has been out of your sight OR swiped rather than just the chip being inserted.
iPad Calendar crashes if you open March month view...
...when there is an event spanning the March/April boundary (or something like that). There does seem to be a date related blind spot in Apple's software development.
Not a technology problem...
...it is a content and licensing problem. Premium content raises the most money when sold exclusively by territory. Unless you can bid enough to buy exclusively or at least make a non-exclusive purchase lucrative enough to outweigh a premium sale you or Intel won't get the best content at least for the first run.
It doesn't make sense for Intel to spend a sufficient amount on content to scare the cable companies and Sky's of this world.
Likewise the BBC doesn't have FULL rights to enough content to offer a worthwhile iPlayer outside the UK. Whether the format is bought in or the production company retains substantial rights or it has been sold to a US channel already there are some restrictions on most content outside of the news and current affairs programmes. Now those may over time be negotiated and managed but with no amount of money could the BBC just offer an iPlayer with the same content in the US. BBC America show a mixture of BBC, Channel 4 and probably some ITV content too where the rights can be obtained affordably which might be possible for BBC iPlayer to do too but the content line up will not be similar to the UK one and in practice would probably be a subset of Netflix's offer.
Samsung, Sony, LG, HTC, Asus and any other Android vendor.
Any Windows tablet vendors.
Any web startup using Google.
Apple where they rely on Samsung components.
Even major players sometimes decide the risk is worth taking (or don't properly consider it).
I'm really not a Google fan as you'll see if you look at my other comments but I think you are being really unfair. Chrome did advance the state of browser security with automatic updates and not relying on Adobe for Flash fixes. This seems to be reducing a threat that occurs when software has already run as the local user on the PC.
Re: Moderation gone mad?
Thanks for the feedback. One of my posts was removed. I don't suppose you could indicate where I went wrong especially if you consider it legally unsafe. Not trying to have a go but if you really think there was a potential issue with it I would like to know in case I post something similar where it isn't removed.
I challenged Andrew O's view that "linking" constitutes criminal copyright infringement in the UK and commented that I thought Dwyer's decision to accept the fine in the US was a good one. I would normally paste or quote the post but repeating it doesn't seem like a good idea in this case.
Re: Hurry up Google - switch off H.264 on YouTube.
MPEG-LA doesn't infringe anyone's patents because they don't make or sell anything except licenses. I believe that they don't even sue people for infringement as that is left to the patent owners. Of course Google may have patents from On2 on H.264 in addition to those from Motorola (already being asserted against MS) but it may be there are limits on what they can demand as H.264 licensees (see ongoing lawsuit coverage).
There is then the question whether Google has a strong enough patent range OR other commercial incentives (such as "you can make the next Nexus and have early access to the next Android version" or just here is some cash) to prevent lawsuits from anyone with sufficiently strong patents.
I'm also not sure if an H.264 licensee gets the rights to implement the technology in non-H.264 codecs. It might be that many of the tempting targets are already licensed through the H.264 license although I haven't looked into it.
Big potential penalties
Fines for breaches of EU anti-competition law can in theory be as much as 10% of global group turnover (although they are not usually this high they can be in the billions as MS found out). 10% of Samsung's global turnover would be about £16BN based on their 2011 annual report although their third quarter was up 26% YoY so if they manage that over the whole year they could theoretically be liable for a £20BN fine.
Repeat offenders such as Samsung (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12/05/eu_fines_crt_cartels/) can expect larger penalties than first time offenders.
Re: Insanity of software patents
Maths does not emit light from a screen. The overall device converting a stored bitpattern encoded in H.264 to light emitted to your eye is more than maths.
I don't even think* that lamda calculus or the Church-Turing thesis covers any form of input or output within its mathematical framework.
Now maybe you can say that the invention (which would obviously have prior art) is a device for displaying colours based on mathematical results written to certain areas of memory and everything up to that point is maths (unless all physics is just maths but then every possible invention is just maths).
* it has been a while since I studied it.
Re: I actually like Apple "stuff"
Really why not buy the display you want in the form of a TV, don't connect the TV aerial, don't connect the ethernet. Plug in all your devices (PC/STB etc) by HDMI - job done.
Or better yet use the internal services for 12-24 months then connect the external box you want ignoring what is in the TV.
Pure monitors are niche products so will probably actually be more expensive than the mass market do everything TV.
The electronics cost (excluding the panel itself) is a pretty small portion of the total TV cost even including the patent licenses and much of it would be needed for image and audio handling even on dumb monitor (unless you are going even more niche by not including speakers). The cost of handling additional models and the associated stock control plus the additional software testing load of managing additional very different hardware configs would almost certainly wipe out any hardware savings on such low volume models.
[I used to work in Sony TV Product Planning.]
Re: If true it will do more than $1BN damage to Samsung
I should add that if they do announce in January it will be in their own press event in SF or possibly LA given the content play that will go with it and I have a feeling they might do it the same day that Samsung or Google has their CES press conference scheduled to draw journalists and attention away from them.
- Geek's Guide to Britain INSIDE GCHQ: Welcome to Cheltenham's cottage industry
- 'Catastrophic failure' of 3D-printed gun in Oz Police test
- Game Theory Is the next-gen console war already One?
- Analysis Spam and the Byzantine Empire: How Bitcoin tech REALLY works
- Apple cored: Samsung sells 10 million Galaxy S4 in a month