Executive leading HealthKit, other software platforms leaves Apple

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 96
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    Every fucking thread gets ruined by Sog making some anti-Cook rant.
    I thoroughly disagree. They get ruined by people fucking reacting -- often overreacting -- to @sog35.

    Honest Question: How would you prevent that?

    Implement hiding a poster when they collect enough dislikes.
    That's mob rule. I will have little interest in being member of a forum that resorts to that rule.

    I'd rather that people actually argue the points based on merits, or just ignore the poster. Otherwise, this forum becomes little more than a safe space because one felt triggered. 
    In a prior post, you were upset when members quoted and/or knee-jerk responded to members that disrupt a thread with rants.  


    One solution that could be implemented in the forum software is, in addition to the the ability for an individual member to block another member's posts:
    1. optionally block any post that quotes the blocked member 
    2. show the post, showing the quoted blocked-member's name -- but remove the context of his post. *

    * As a mod, I did this manually on one thread where 10% of the quotes were a [now-familiar] series of rants by one member, and a lot of quotes and challenges to those rants.  But, at that point, all reasoned discussion was lost and most members just moved on.

    Another suggestion you posted, was for a mod to post a delicate-touch warning early in the thread, ** something like:  guys keep it on topic, then actually ban a member who repeatedly ignored the warning.

    One problem with that is that mods have lives too -- and we cannot always police every thread before the rants start.

    I tried one such early warning after an early rant:  "@Xxxxx Consider this a warning -- I'm not going to allow you to hi-jack this thread".  Many members thanked me for this post, but you criticized me for it...  I guess I wasn't delicate enough!

    Seriously, if I had any influence with AI, I'd recommend that you, @anantksundaram become a mod -- I think it would be beneficial to AI and its reasoned members!

  • Reply 82 of 96
    Soli said:
    Just buy Fitbit, done. If you can spend $3B on Beats you can spend $1.8B on Fitbit which brings a long a much needed team for future wearables.
    Can you explain why Apple needs Fitbit when Apple's health and fitness features seem to be more accurate?
    The existing organizations building and designing fitness & exercise trackers / monitors seem to understand the needs of people interested in fitness and exercise/athletics better than the geeks at Apple.   Apple only sees the mainstream stuff which limits its horizons.

    But, that is not to say that buying something like FitBit would solve that problem.

    Hiring outside talent has seldom worked all that well for Apple. 
    Err, Ah... NeXT, FingerWorks, Chris Lattner...

    edited December 2016 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 83 of 96
    Soli said:
    GeorgeBMac said:

    Hiring outside talent has seldom worked all that well for Apple.  
    Why do people say that when Apple has had amazing success with acquisitions and partnerships? NeXT, PA Semi, Beats, SoundJam, Fingerworks, Siri, Anobit, AuthenTec, and Imagination Technologies are a few that come to mind. Without acquiring or working with these companies Apple would not be the company they are today.
    You said it much better than I.

    edited December 2016
  • Reply 84 of 96
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,540member
    nht said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    Every fucking thread gets ruined by Sog making some anti-Cook rant.
    I thoroughly disagree. They get ruined by people fucking reacting -- often overreacting -- to @sog35.

    Honest Question: How would you prevent that?

    Implement hiding a poster when they collect enough dislikes.
    That's mob rule. I will have little interest in being member of a forum that resorts to that rule.

    I'd rather that people actually argue the points based on merits, or just ignore the poster. Otherwise, this forum becomes little more than a safe space because one felt triggered. 
    When an online community has no mechanism to reign in asshats then it devolves into a cesspit and folks leave anyway.

    That can be active moderation or peer pressure or some combination of both.

    Trolls don't argue based on merit but repeated assertions that need to be refuted because if you don't they use that as "proof" that the community agrees with them that Apple is doomed and what not.

    Sane people who find a company's behavior, officers and products as abhorrent as these fucktards claim will simply stop buying those products and move to different forums that support their new toys rather than constantly shit on everything.
    Um...really? Why don't you explain the number of comments on this story -- or the Oppenheimer story -- where @sog35 showed up, versus pretty much any other story where he did not show up?

    Which ones do you think got more hits, and therefore, more advertising revenue for AI?
    So you are really saying it is about advertising revenue, and not about letting ideas flow?

    The issue of course is that sog35 does not present arguments per se, but rather presents the same set of talking points in every thread, and repeated in multiple posts on that thread.  It is not about exploring ideas, or even different points of view.  And it isn't just one post in a thread that can be ignored.

    Sometimes one member ruins it for the majority - is it your contention that the majority should then leave?
  • Reply 85 of 96
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,146member
    Soli said:
    Just buy Fitbit, done. If you can spend $3B on Beats you can spend $1.8B on Fitbit which brings a long a much needed team for future wearables.
    Can you explain why Apple needs Fitbit when Apple's health and fitness features seem to be more accurate?
    The existing organizations building and designing fitness & exercise trackers / monitors seem to understand the needs of people interested in fitness and exercise/athletics better than the geeks at Apple.   Apple only sees the mainstream stuff which limits its horizons.

    But, that is not to say that buying something like FitBit would solve that problem.

    Hiring outside talent has seldom worked all that well for Apple. 
    Err, Ah... NeXT, FingerWorks, Chris Lattner...

    Alright, you got me...
    ...  But NeXT?   How was that hiring outside talent?   NeXT was more inside than Apple buying Apple (as it existed at the time).

    By the way:   I may have come across as negative on Apple.  I'm not.   But I am frustrated because I believe in them and believe that, as good as it is, they can do better with the Apple Watch.   I hope that they will.  
  • Reply 86 of 96
    SoliSoli Posts: 9,272member
    Soli said:
    Just buy Fitbit, done. If you can spend $3B on Beats you can spend $1.8B on Fitbit which brings a long a much needed team for future wearables.
    Can you explain why Apple needs Fitbit when Apple's health and fitness features seem to be more accurate?
    The existing organizations building and designing fitness & exercise trackers / monitors seem to understand the needs of people interested in fitness and exercise/athletics better than the geeks at Apple.   Apple only sees the mainstream stuff which limits its horizons.

    But, that is not to say that buying something like FitBit would solve that problem.

    Hiring outside talent has seldom worked all that well for Apple. 
    Err, Ah... NeXT, FingerWorks, Chris Lattner...

    Alright, you got me...
    ...  But NeXT?   How was that hiring outside talent?   NeXT was more inside than Apple buying Apple (as it existed at the time).

    By the way:   I may have come across as negative on Apple.  I'm not.   But I am frustrated because I believe in them and believe that, as good as it is, they can do better with the Apple Watch.   I hope that they will.  
    How is NeXT "inside" talent. Even if you're talking about former Apple employees that left with Jobs to start NeXT they are still outside Apple once they leave, but then you have Bob Mansfield and Scott Forestall who never previously worked for Apple that were part of the acquisition. If you're talking about the technologies, NeXTSTEP's biggest hurdle to success was because Apple Computer, Inc. kept them from competing well because it was stated by Jobs. They did so many amazing things that were very different and better than what Apple was doing, not because it was some super-secret R&D lab funded by Apple or anything else "inside." Apple bought NeXT to survive, plain and simple.

    If you want others, just check out their execs. Tim Cook worked at IBM and Compaq, Angela Ahrendts was CEO of Burberry, and on and on.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 87 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,112member
    Rayz2016 said:
    robbyx said:
    To all the people freaked out about "privacy", seriously, what has Google or Facebook done that is so worrisome?  They collect information to help give you more of what you want. How is that bad?  I see people on forums screaming bloody murder over Google "stealing" their private info, and I just have to laugh at the histrionics.  I see no evidence of Google or Facebook doing anything other than providing more focused and relevant information to their users. 
    Google was fined for stealing browser information from Safari, even when users had specified that the could not use that data.  They took advantage of a big in Safari. That is pretty damn low. 
    No they weren't. They were fined for advising users improperly on how they should opt out of it. Google had told folks that if you followed their directions then no more tracking. They weren't correct. Users who followed their advice were still tracked.

    There's many different companies even today that don't honor the "Do Not Track" request you've set in Safari (and other browsers including Chrome). Do Not Track is not a mandate subject to fine if it isn't followed. But those companies can't tell you they're not tracking you when they are. That's the Google fine. 
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 88 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,112member
    I seriously doubt that privacy had any bearing on her leaving.

    The ultra slow state of development of the capabilities of the Apple Watch probably had a lot more to do with it.

    Apple initially marketed the watch with a focus on health - even pointing it as a tribute to Steve Jobs and the lessons they experienced from his illness.  But, when they failed to develop those capabilities, they switched to marketing it as a fashion accessory and tech trinket. 

    Opening the watch to Nike and opening the watch's metrics to fitness apps was a good, but tentative, step towards making the watch a first class, top of the line fitness tracker.  But, so far, all they've done is open the door -- it's still a mediocre fitness tracker and most serious athletes do not even consider it.

    And, as far as a health monitor/tracker, those capabilities have not even begun to be tapped.  The only health parameters it is capable of is heart rate and, not only are there many other cheaper heart rate trackers out there, but Cleveland Clinic tests showed that, at 90% accuracy it could not be relied on from a medical perspective.

    So, to date, the Apple watch:
    -- Fulfilled its role as a fashion / tech accessory
    -- Opened the door to being a high quality fitness tracker
    -- Has totally failed as a health tracker

    I can hear Steve Jobs calling:  "This is crap.   Fix It!"
    ....  Perhaps its time for some fresh blood with new ideas and initiatives?

    p.s.  Tim Cook has his name on this and has devoted a lot of his personal time and reputation to it.  I have to believe that he is not happy that the watch has neither, so far, lived up to its potential nor his expectations.   I think I can hear even Tim Cook saying:   "This is crap.   Fix It!"


    please show us where apple initially marketed AW as a general purpose health tracker then switched to tech trinket and activity. as far as i'm aware you're referring only to rumors, which makes your statement bunk. 
    Here's their current product page which shows how Apple sees the Apple Watch use now. 
    http://www.apple.com/apple-watch-series-2/
  • Reply 89 of 96
    brucemc said:
    nht said:
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    Every fucking thread gets ruined by Sog making some anti-Cook rant.
    I thoroughly disagree. They get ruined by people fucking reacting -- often overreacting -- to @sog35.

    Honest Question: How would you prevent that?

    Implement hiding a poster when they collect enough dislikes.
    That's mob rule. I will have little interest in being member of a forum that resorts to that rule.

    I'd rather that people actually argue the points based on merits, or just ignore the poster. Otherwise, this forum becomes little more than a safe space because one felt triggered. 
    When an online community has no mechanism to reign in asshats then it devolves into a cesspit and folks leave anyway.

    That can be active moderation or peer pressure or some combination of both.

    Trolls don't argue based on merit but repeated assertions that need to be refuted because if you don't they use that as "proof" that the community agrees with them that Apple is doomed and what not.

    Sane people who find a company's behavior, officers and products as abhorrent as these fucktards claim will simply stop buying those products and move to different forums that support their new toys rather than constantly shit on everything.
    Um...really? Why don't you explain the number of comments on this story -- or the Oppenheimer story -- where @sog35 showed up, versus pretty much any other story where he did not show up?

    Which ones do you think got more hits, and therefore, more advertising revenue for AI?
    So you are really saying it is about advertising revenue, and not about letting ideas flow?

    The issue of course is that sog35 does not present arguments per se, but rather presents the same set of talking points in every thread, and repeated in multiple posts on that thread.  It is not about exploring ideas, or even different points of view.  And it isn't just one post in a thread that can be ignored.

    Sometimes one member ruins it for the majority - is it your contention that the majority should then leave?
    1) The two are not mutually exclusive. Especially given that AI is a free site. 

    2) If you ignore him, or confront him with facts, he tends to shut up after while. He's been here a while, and I've seen certain patterns in his behavior. He thrives on people getting worked up. 

    3) What 'contention'? Stop being ridiculous. I 'contented' no such thing. 

  • Reply 90 of 96
    nht said:
    Soli said:
    Every fucking thread gets ruined by Sog making some anti-Cook rant.
    I thoroughly disagree. They get ruined by people fucking reacting -- often overreacting -- to @sog35.

    Honest Question: How would you prevent that?

    Implement hiding a poster when they collect enough dislikes.
    That's mob rule. I will have little interest in being member of a forum that resorts to that rule.

    I'd rather that people actually argue the points based on merits, or just ignore the poster. Otherwise, this forum becomes little more than a safe space because one felt triggered. 
    In a prior post, you were upset when members quoted and/or knee-jerk responded to members that disrupt a thread with rants.  


    One solution that could be implemented in the forum software is, in addition to the the ability for an individual member to block another member's posts:
    1. optionally block any post that quotes the blocked member 
    2. show the post, showing the quoted blocked-member's name -- but remove the context of his post. *

    * As a mod, I did this manually on one thread where 10% of the quotes were a [now-familiar] series of rants by one member, and a lot of quotes and challenges to those rants.  But, at that point, all reasoned discussion was lost and most members just moved on.

    Another suggestion you posted, was for a mod to post a delicate-touch warning early in the thread, ** something like:  guys keep it on topic, then actually ban a member who repeatedly ignored the warning.

    One problem with that is that mods have lives too -- and we cannot always police every thread before the rants start.

    I tried one such early warning after an early rant:  "@Xxxxx Consider this a warning -- I'm not going to allow you to hi-jack this thread".  Many members thanked me for this post, but you criticized me for it...  I guess I wasn't delicate enough!

    Seriously, if I had any influence with AI, I'd recommend that you, @anantksundaram become a mod -- I think it would be beneficial to AI and its reasoned members!

    I am certainly not perfect... but believe me, I honestly try hard to practice what I preach! :-)

    I am flattered that that you think I should be a mod. But I don't have the temperament for it. Also, given that I have a full time job, it is bad enough that I am constantly sneaking in comments when I should be working. Being a moderator would therefore be out of the question. 
  • Reply 91 of 96
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    Just buy Fitbit, done. If you can spend $3B on Beats you can spend $1.8B on Fitbit which brings a long a much needed team for future wearables.
    Can you explain why Apple needs Fitbit when Apple's health and fitness features seem to be more accurate?
    The existing organizations building and designing fitness & exercise trackers / monitors seem to understand the needs of people interested in fitness and exercise/athletics better than the geeks at Apple.   Apple only sees the mainstream stuff which limits its horizons.

    But, that is not to say that buying something like FitBit would solve that problem.

    Hiring outside talent has seldom worked all that well for Apple. 
    Err, Ah... NeXT, FingerWorks, Chris Lattner...

    Alright, you got me...
    ...  But NeXT?   How was that hiring outside talent?   NeXT was more inside than Apple buying Apple (as it existed at the time).

    By the way:   I may have come across as negative on Apple.  I'm not.   But I am frustrated because I believe in them and believe that, as good as it is, they can do better with the Apple Watch.   I hope that they will.  
    How is NeXT "inside" talent. Even if you're talking about former Apple employees that left with Jobs to start NeXT they are still outside Apple once they leave, but then you have Bob Mansfield and Scott Forestall who never previously worked for Apple that were part of the acquisition. If you're talking about the technologies, NeXTSTEP's biggest hurdle to success was because Apple Computer, Inc. kept them from competing well because it was stated by Jobs. They did so many amazing things that were very different and better than what Apple was doing, not because it was some super-secret R&D lab funded by Apple or anything else "inside." Apple bought NeXT to survive, plain and simple.

    If you want others, just check out their execs. Tim Cook worked at IBM and Compaq, Angela Ahrendts was CEO of Burberry, and on and on.
    A failing Apple that had wondered from the path bought NeXT to get Steve Jobs and his insight.  THAT was the outside buying the inside.   Yes, they did it to survive.  They knew they had lost their way.  They knew they were going bankrupt.  They knew they needed the genius of Steve Jobs.   It's the only thing that management team did right during that period.  They transplanted Apple's own heart back into Apple.
  • Reply 92 of 96
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    robbyx said:
    To all the people freaked out about "privacy", seriously, what has Google or Facebook done that is so worrisome?  They collect information to help give you more of what you want. How is that bad?  I see people on forums screaming bloody murder over Google "stealing" their private info, and I just have to laugh at the histrionics.  I see no evidence of Google or Facebook doing anything other than providing more focused and relevant information to their users. 
    Google was fined for stealing browser information from Safari, even when users had specified that the could not use that data.  They took advantage of a big in Safari. That is pretty damn low. 
    No they weren't. They were fined for advising users improperly on how they should opt out of it. Google had told folks that if you followed their directions then no more tracking. They weren't correct. Users who followed their advice were still tracked.

    There's many different companies even today that don't honor the "Do Not Track" request you've set in Safari (and other browsers including Chrome). Do Not Track is not a mandate subject to fine if it isn't followed. But those companies can't tell you they're not tracking you when they are. That's the Google fine. 
    Google?  Isn't that the company who drove those little cars all over the world stealing user data by recording whatever was going through their WiFi when the car went by and then storing those TeraBytes on their servers -- and then telling the world "We didn't know we were doing it!",  "It was a rogue programmer" -- but they still neglected to delete that data from their servers....   Is that the company you were speaking of?
  • Reply 93 of 96
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,112member
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    robbyx said:
    To all the people freaked out about "privacy", seriously, what has Google or Facebook done that is so worrisome?  They collect information to help give you more of what you want. How is that bad?  I see people on forums screaming bloody murder over Google "stealing" their private info, and I just have to laugh at the histrionics.  I see no evidence of Google or Facebook doing anything other than providing more focused and relevant information to their users. 
    Google was fined for stealing browser information from Safari, even when users had specified that the could not use that data.  They took advantage of a big in Safari. That is pretty damn low. 
    No they weren't. They were fined for advising users improperly on how they should opt out of it. Google had told folks that if you followed their directions then no more tracking. They weren't correct. Users who followed their advice were still tracked.

    There's many different companies even today that don't honor the "Do Not Track" request you've set in Safari (and other browsers including Chrome). Do Not Track is not a mandate subject to fine if it isn't followed. But those companies can't tell you they're not tracking you when they are. That's the Google fine. 
    Google?  Isn't that the company who drove those little cars all over the world stealing user data by recording whatever was going through their WiFi when the car went by and then storing those TeraBytes on their servers -- and then telling the world "We didn't know we were doing it!",  "It was a rogue programmer" -- but they still neglected to delete that data from their servers....   Is that the company you were speaking of?
    Yup, the same one, tho the "stealing" of bits here and there was a side-note not a goal. Google's claim of "we didn't know" is questionable IMHO (somebody there knew even if management did not), perhaps even dishonest as you seem to believe, but the usefulness for acquiring personal data from whatever was snipped in those few seconds of scanning at your street is highly unlikely too. Certainly couldn't be much if any unless they parked outside your house for at least a few minutes since it was a moving vehicle doing mapping, and not slowly either if you've ever seen them.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 94 of 96
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 5,146member
    gatorguy said:
    gatorguy said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    robbyx said:
    To all the people freaked out about "privacy", seriously, what has Google or Facebook done that is so worrisome?  They collect information to help give you more of what you want. How is that bad?  I see people on forums screaming bloody murder over Google "stealing" their private info, and I just have to laugh at the histrionics.  I see no evidence of Google or Facebook doing anything other than providing more focused and relevant information to their users. 
    Google was fined for stealing browser information from Safari, even when users had specified that the could not use that data.  They took advantage of a big in Safari. That is pretty damn low. 
    No they weren't. They were fined for advising users improperly on how they should opt out of it. Google had told folks that if you followed their directions then no more tracking. They weren't correct. Users who followed their advice were still tracked.

    There's many different companies even today that don't honor the "Do Not Track" request you've set in Safari (and other browsers including Chrome). Do Not Track is not a mandate subject to fine if it isn't followed. But those companies can't tell you they're not tracking you when they are. That's the Google fine. 
    Google?  Isn't that the company who drove those little cars all over the world stealing user data by recording whatever was going through their WiFi when the car went by and then storing those TeraBytes on their servers -- and then telling the world "We didn't know we were doing it!",  "It was a rogue programmer" -- but they still neglected to delete that data from their servers....   Is that the company you were speaking of?
    Yup, the same one, tho the "stealing" of bits here and there was a side-note not a goal. Google's claim of "we didn't know" is questionable IMHO (somebody there knew even if management did not), perhaps even dishonest as you seem to believe, but the usefulness for acquiring personal data from whatever was snipped in those few seconds of scanning at your street is highly unlikely too. Certainly couldn't be much if any unless they parked outside your house for at least a few minutes since it was a moving vehicle doing mapping, and not slowly either if you've ever seen them.
    I find it inconceivable that Google management didn't know they were collecting that data.
    I find it inconceivable that Google management didn't know that they were storing that data on their servers.
    ...  And surprising that they continued to store even after European governments pointed it out to them.

    I find it implausible that Google could steal people's private data and then credibly claim to not be a thief.
    ... That episode told me all I needed to know about Google.
  • Reply 95 of 96
    sog35 said:
    I care. Together with Tim. 
    So then you don't do online banking?
    So then you don't do online shopping?
    So then you don't read articles on the internet?

    All those websites collect your data. Just because Tim Cook says he stands for privacy does not mean you are in some protected bubble.

    Frankly, Apple not collecting data is pathetic and archaic. Like a person who refuses to use a computer or go on the internet because of risks.
    Some good points, although for me not very comfortable. I'm going to stop using gmail, and stepping over to duck duck go. And will start thinking of other actions as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.