The BOM alone of this kind of a tablet(almost topend specs) will be ~150+. So the monetisation has to come from the content/advertisement route. Who else have content/ad business? Sony has the content! But Sony is so lethargic these days, cant count them as competition. Samsung could do something similar with some collaborative efforts with other vendors. However they havent done it yet.
This rumor turned out to be true:
I think Google and Amazon may have the advantage of having the content to sell, but I am not sure I agree that nobody else could do this.
"once Apple posts a $2.6 million bond to protect against damages suffered by Samsung if the injunction is later found to have been wrong."
2.6m$! That gives a good understanding of how many of these samsung tablets are selling in the US anyways!
Google is rumored to announce a 199$ Android tablet with quad core processor and 1GB RAM. This literally ends the story for all Android tablet vendors. No one other than Google/Amazon can sell a tablet for 199 and still make some money out of it. Google/Amazon can make money selling content and showing ads.
What are Apple's grounds that drive the ruling of US court?
Patents are double edge sword. It protects company asset. It slows down innovation. In this particular case, depending on the ground, it might actually help innovation.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.