Qualcomm trying to ban the sales of Iphones in the US

[Drak3]

Just now, dizmo said:

As much as I love that song, is it really rap? 

I don't think so

Rap/Rock mix. Bite me. Still better than Kayne West, "Epic" Rap Battles of History, Little Wayne, or nearly every other tone deaf dumbass that's big today.

[Drak3]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

Rap metal started by Anthrax.

A) Don't give a shit

B) Irrelevant

C) Don't give a shit.

[AnonymousGuy]

I'm voting for Apple because I hate plaintiffs that do some sort of "let's meet in the middle" bullshit and start off demanding a bagillion trillion dollars and halting all sales and getting to fuck the defendants wives too.  "oh but hey let's meet in the middle and I'll only take $2 million and a cookie...see isn't that better?  I'm so reasonable and now you look like the asshole if you disagree with the person compromising."

 

fucking lawyers. There was a case that I forever love where Samsung and Apple (I think) were in court and the judge was basically like "I'm going to toss this case out if you don't come back with a reasonable damages figure" when one of the sides was asking for an absurd amount of money.

[captain_to_fire]

47 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Hahaha, that's hilarious!! Apple. Taxes. You made my day. 

I mean just look at the conclusion of the great Apple vs. Samsung pissing match of 2012. It was home court advantage for Apple. This time, it won't be home court advantage for any of them since they're both American companies, it will probably be about how much taxes can we get between these two companies. 

 

more iPhone sales = more taxes from Apple

more taxes from Apple = lawmakers leaning towards Apple

lawmakers leaning towards Apple = Qualcomm's request sent to the shredding machine

 

Yeah, I don't see Qualcomm's request happening anytime soon. And just think of the backlash if there's no iPhone in stock for both consumers and businesses to buy. 

 

OP @g12601 you should make a poll about this. Who are LTT members leaning towards? Apple or Qualcomm.

Edited July 7, 2017 by hey_yo_

[ARikozuM]

6 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

OP @g12601 you should make a poll about this. Who are LTT members leaning towards? Apple or Qualcomm.

Yes, please! And make it public, so we know who to burn at the stake whether the bet should be 4:1 or 5:1 for Apple. 

[Ertman]

I am fairly ignorant to what the basis is for this case, and honestly I don't much care. Two behemoths  fighting it out in court is fine as they can both afford the legal costs.

 

The purpose of cases like this is to determine if patent and other intellectual properties related to a given company are being infringed upon.

 

Let the courts work this out and we can leave all the karma and personal opinions about how a company makes you feel out of it.

[Kobathor]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

Depends on what market. In the US, it is mostly Apple and Samsung, I believe in a few other markets that's also true. 

 

If Samsung stepped up Exynos production we'd be fine. Which would likely happen if Qualcomm didn't exist. 

Yeah, I thought of the Exynos stuff, but I haven't seen low-end Exynos CPUs (which could totally just be me and prob is.) I wonder how it would affect prices, since Samsung would be putting the SoCs into their phones, along with selling them to other companies.

[handymanshandle]

2 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

And everyone else.....

 

In terms of profits they are competing with oil companies, not tech companies. 

Apple, your friendly international snake oil dealer.

[dizmo]

54 minutes ago, Drak3 said:

Rap/Rock mix. Bite me. Still better than Kayne West, "Epic" Rap Battles of History, Little Wayne, or nearly every other tone deaf dumbass that's big today.

Where's the rap? Limp Bizkit is a rock group. Korn's certainly not rap. Just sayin'.
Haha, yeah, a lot of mainstream rap is garb. Though there's something about Fetty Wap's voice...

47 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I know Apple isn't the only one.  I don't single them out for it.  As for suing, in Apple's defense, not every lawsuit of theirs is about patent trolling.  It's just one thing Jobs saw profit in.  For example, Louis leaving schematics open during videos without consent was in their right.  That's perfectly fine.  I also don't hate every employee who works there working on their tech and what not.  What I do despise is a lot of the shady things they do have been done through their leadership.  Apple has a lot of creative people working there, but at the same time, they are held back.  They invest more in their marketing than they do in their products, but ya a lot of companies do that.  Again, there are a lot of companies that do this and they despise me too.  I avoid a lot of them in the gaming community.  

Yeah, I find the tax evasion the most hilarious. You'd think more people would be up in arms with that. Then again, in the US I get the feeling people are always happy when someone "sticks it to the man".

If you don't invest in marketing, you don't get sales. Samsung and Apple are perfect proof of that. They invest billions, but they reap what they sow. If no one knows about it, then what's the point of putting in all the hard work?

17 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

-snip-

more iPhone sales = more taxes from Apple

more taxes from Apple = lawmakers leaning towards Apple

lawmakers leaning towards Apple = Qualcomm's request sent to the shredding machine

-snip-

The funny part was you thinking Apple pays taxes. They're one of the largest tax evaders in the US.

They were investigated by US Congress.

[Drak3]

Just now, dizmo said:

Where's the rap? Limp Bizkit is a rock group. Korn's certainly not rap. Just sayin'.

Limp Bizkit isn't straight rock. They're rock/rap. Korn's Nu Metal, but they've also done rap. All in the Family being prime example.

[dizmo]

2 minutes ago, Kobathor said:

Yeah, I thought of the Exynos stuff, but I haven't seen low-end Exynos CPUs (which could totally just be me and prob is.) I wonder how it would affect prices, since Samsung would be putting the SoCs into their phones, along with selling them to other companies.

I know there's lower midrange, so I imagine it wouldn't be too hard for them to throw them into entry level as well. Actually, I imagine the entry level Samsung phones use their SoCs. The reason you don't see them in loads of other devices is supply. IIRC they barely have enough to fulfill their own devices. They do sell to a few companies though, the higher end chips. I prefer them, and was pretty happy when Canada got the Exynos versions instead of the Snapdragon ones.

[suicidalfranco]

5 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Qualcomm v. Apple

 

Who will win? I'll give you a hint, Apple didn't lose to Samsung, or the FBI  

actuslly apple did lose to sammy, and they had to ask the president to veto the rulling

[PlayStation 2]

this thread went the exact direction I expected it to and that's not shocking in the slightest

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, suicidalfranco said:

actuslly apple did lose to sammy, and they had to ask the president to veto the rulling

Apple only lost in UK. Apple had the home court advantage in the US.

[suicidalfranco]

9 minutes ago, hey_yo_ said:

Apple only lost in UK. Apple had the home court advantage in the US.

say that again

https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/4585700/president-obama-vetoes-samsung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads

[Dabombinable]

5 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

Unfortunately even Android flagships aren't much better in that regard -- two years of OS support is pretty pitiful. 

Which is why you get a device which allows you to unlock the bootloader. Because those still get updates even 5 years after they were released (and can actually see performance improvements).

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

19 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

this thread went the exact direction I expected it to and that's not shocking in the slightest

 

[Arika]

26 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Fight! Fight! 

kiss kiss kiss

[captain_to_fire]

13 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

say that again

https://www.theverge.com/2013/8/3/4585700/president-obama-vetoes-samsung-patent-ban-on-iphone-4-and-select-ipads

I was referring to the great Apple vs. Samsung pissing match of 2012 https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-v-samsung-patent-trial-recap-how-it-all-turned-out-faq/

 

[spartaman64]

6 hours ago, Hunter259 said:

Yay lets ruin competition in the US by only having Android phones yayyyy /s

 

Stupid thing to say.

android phones are in competition with each other but that said i hope they can work something out and iphones not be banned

[laminutederire]

6 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Bruh they give you solid sounding headphones that cost $30 retail, a $20 wall adapter, a $25 cable, and a $10 headphone adapter. 

 

If you need a different cable buy it yourself. 

You do know that their retail price for the cable is ridiculous. You can buy good quality wall adaptateur with two USB port + a 1m cable for regular android phones + a usb A to usb C cable for still less than 45$. And that's when you but them from companies like Anker. If you are the one producing them it's even less costly and you end up with paying significantly less than that. So they could very well include both, or another adaptator, without being costly for them anyway.

 

5 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

There's plenty of space if they make the plastic bottom thinner. 

iPod alternatives were trash, smartphones barely existed before the iPhone, and tablets offered such a miserable experience prior to the iPad. A product doesn't have to be a new category to innovate. 

Unless when they say they invented those when they didn't and tried to prevent competition using that same argument?

[DrMacintosh]

1 hour ago, spartaman64 said:

android phones are in competition with each other but that said i hope they can work something out and iphones not be banned

iPhones wouldn't be banned anyway, even if Qualcomm won Apple could still import and sell iPhones with Intel Modems. 

[DrMacintosh]

9 minutes ago, laminutederire said:

Unless when they say they invented those when they didn't and tried to prevent competition using that same argument?

Lol what?

[laminutederire]

1 hour ago, DrMacintosh said:

Lol what?

He was saying that innovation doesn't need to be disruptive to be valid, to which I answered that it doesn't need to indeed,  but that when it isn't disruptive, you can't say it is, especially when others did the same before.

[79wjd]

2 hours ago, laminutederire said:

He was saying that innovation doesn't need to be disruptive to be valid, to which I answered that it doesn't need to indeed,  but that when it isn't disruptive, you can't say it is, especially when others did the same before.

It doesn't really matter if the previous attempts didn't penetrate the market to any meaningful amount.