3 ms·

Given that the margins are so tight and the expenses so high as you've illustrated, explain to me how it's possible that the extra costs involved with licensing

Given that the margins are so tight and the expenses so high as you've illustrated, explain to me how it's possible that the extra costs involved with licensing patented hardware is not a significant factor? It doesn't really make sense to say that on the one hand, it's super tough and hard to make a profit, and on the other hand the costs of accessing patented hardware is an immaterial cost. Your post just really isn't convincing that a patent here has little effect on the ability for others to compete. When margins are as tight as you say they are then obviously the costs of licensing are going to make the margins even thinner or next to impossible for another competitor to meet. Love when people come out here with unironic defense here of monopolies by simply defending them as some meritocratic output of success or something.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>Love when people come out here with unironic defense here of monopolies by simply defending them as some meritocratic output of success or something. That wasn't my point. You must have misunderstood.
- swores 3y ago
  In my opinion, saying that without explaining what they misunderstood / what you disagree with them on is both snarky and unsubstantial enough to fall below the line of the HN guidelines. Especially as it's not clear to me that their interpretation isn't what you meant, and it's clear that they are arguing in good faith rather than intentionally misunderstanding. Though their last paragraph was itself snarky enough that I can see why you might have wanted to react in kind (not that that means you should). /my two cents
  - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
    I didn't detail further why he misunderstood, because in my interpretation of his comment, he had his pitchfork out and falsely accused me of "defending monopolies" just to engage in flame-bait which I didn't want to fuel, and I already went into enough details in my original comment to explain why he misunderstood and why my original explanation is not "defending monopolies" but presenting the facts, he just has to read it again carefully with an open mind and with his pitchfork down.
    - swores 3y ago
      Fair enough to not want to engage, but in that case you could just not engage rather than adding more snark. But ideally, even if you think they don't deserve your explanation, considering it's a public forum you could still explain why you think there wrong for the benefit of the rest of us who maybe also don't understand your argument.
      - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
        >Fair enough to not want to engage, but in that case you could just not engage rather than adding more snark. That wasn't snark from my end, I was just telling him he was wrong, as plead for him to re-read my comment again with an open mind. That's it. Actual snark would have added more fuel to his flame-bait which I didn't want to do. > considering it's a public forum you could still explain why you think there wrong for the benefit of the rest of us who maybe also don't understand your argument Because I don't have more information than that of my original comment, which is based on some years of experience developing products with e-ink displays and getting to know the tech and the company to a degree that allows me to have a relatively informed opinion to a degree on this topic. And, because you can never please everyone no matter what you do, and some members can be overly contrarian and needlessly pedantic at times when it contradicts their entrenched belief that "evil corp is evil", expecting "sauce or GTFO" for every opinion on the matter (even though they themselves provided no proof for their "evil corp is evil" opinion), but I don't have or can't publicly share any documents to provide proof or more deep insight into the matter, nor the time to perform investigative journalism on the spot based on public OSS data, just to win an argument here. Like I said, it's just my opinion based on my experience in the field, so take it as is with a pinch of salt, as an opinion of an average joe on the internet, not as a proper journalistic piece.

FirmwareBurner 3y ago

>Love when people come out here with unironic defense here of monopolies by simply defending them as some meritocratic output of success or something. That wasn't my point. You must have misunderstood.

swores 3y ago
In my opinion, saying that without explaining what they misunderstood / what you disagree with them on is both snarky and unsubstantial enough to fall below the line of the HN guidelines. Especially as it's not clear to me that their interpretation isn't what you meant, and it's clear that they are arguing in good faith rather than intentionally misunderstanding. Though their last paragraph was itself snarky enough that I can see why you might have wanted to react in kind (not that that means you should). /my two cents
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  I didn't detail further why he misunderstood, because in my interpretation of his comment, he had his pitchfork out and falsely accused me of "defending monopolies" just to engage in flame-bait which I didn't want to fuel, and I already went into enough details in my original comment to explain why he misunderstood and why my original explanation is not "defending monopolies" but presenting the facts, he just has to read it again carefully with an open mind and with his pitchfork down.
  - swores 3y ago
    Fair enough to not want to engage, but in that case you could just not engage rather than adding more snark. But ideally, even if you think they don't deserve your explanation, considering it's a public forum you could still explain why you think there wrong for the benefit of the rest of us who maybe also don't understand your argument.
    - FirmwareBurner 3y ago
      >Fair enough to not want to engage, but in that case you could just not engage rather than adding more snark. That wasn't snark from my end, I was just telling him he was wrong, as plead for him to re-read my comment again with an open mind. That's it. Actual snark would have added more fuel to his flame-bait which I didn't want to do. > considering it's a public forum you could still explain why you think there wrong for the benefit of the rest of us who maybe also don't understand your argument Because I don't have more information than that of my original comment, which is based on some years of experience developing products with e-ink displays and getting to know the tech and the company to a degree that allows me to have a relatively informed opinion to a degree on this topic. And, because you can never please everyone no matter what you do, and some members can be overly contrarian and needlessly pedantic at times when it contradicts their entrenched belief that "evil corp is evil", expecting "sauce or GTFO" for every opinion on the matter (even though they themselves provided no proof for their "evil corp is evil" opinion), but I don't have or can't publicly share any documents to provide proof or more deep insight into the matter, nor the time to perform investigative journalism on the spot based on public OSS data, just to win an argument here. Like I said, it's just my opinion based on my experience in the field, so take it as is with a pinch of salt, as an opinion of an average joe on the internet, not as a proper journalistic piece.