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!"
Fully agreed, though I have a feeling Tim Cook isn't all that motivated by serious product quality. He was hired for brilliance in one thing (supply chain management). When Jobs left, the leadership harmony ended and the company returned to being run by administrators who only care about Wall Street and shareholders.
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.
Seriously? Facebook and Google have been progressively showing me information that is LESS relevant to me, my needs, my interests, and my requests. They have one focus: selling advertising. That does NOT align with giving the users what they want or need.
Wow that's sad to hear. I would love to know why she left.
My opinion is that the health technologies path is the right path for Apple. It fits perfect with its devices and services. A way more important way to use their mountains of money on than a car or VR. Everyone needs health services and the data and solutions would give Apple the revenue avenue stability that Wall St. punishes Apple for. They need not be so "new gadget" demand dependent.
i know the health industry is a red tape and regulatory and political hell, but who but a company with the funds like Apple can be as positioned to go there? I hope they have the real "courage" to go there.
Totally agree. This is a MAJOR growth area for Apple, and a contribution to life in a significant way.
It's a major area with so many possibilities and technologies developing daily, but sadly it's not something a start-up in a garage can do.
It would take major commitment. Major investment. And major will to follow it through. Maybe Apple could buy an established experienced company and give it a major infusion to get the ball rolling.
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.
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
Is that fair? As I understand it, to be sold as a health tracker the device/software are subject to review and approval by federal agencies -- that are costly in both $ and time (months or years). Isn't it better to get the AppleWatch platform out there so that Apple and 3rd-party developers can exploit its capabilities over time?
watchOS (with it's APIs), HealthKit and Swift language support are major commitments by Apple -- over time we should expect many health solutions.
From the preso, heres a shot of Standard, secure health record access through iOS HealthKit APIs:
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!"
From what I've read, Tim's style is very different than Steve's. Likely, Tim would ask the manager of the product to explain what the issues are, and the recommended actions. If not satisfied, Tim would just stare at the manager and say nothing (volumes in the stare) -- like your mom did when you were a kid.
I've faced Steve's ire -- trust me, mom did it better!
Yes, all good points... I think I may be too anxious for an Apple Watch fulfilling all of its potential. No tech innovation has ever done that fresh out of the gate.
But I think we both agree that the Apple Watch has not yet fulfilled its potential and, hopefully, Apple will develop that potential fully.
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.
You need to watch & listen to Cook's initial talk about the watch -- meeting with FDA, etc... Then, once it was actually released, it was all about fashion. Now, they are finally starting to talk up the fitness tracker aspect, but still maintain radio silence on the health care aspect (except for vague references to how wonderful the xxx-kits are) and how it motivates you to stand up every hour....
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.
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.
Seriously? Facebook and Google have been progressively showing me information that is LESS relevant to me, my needs, my interests, and my requests. They have one focus: selling advertising. That does NOT align with giving the users what they want or need.
I don't know if their data mining even works. Google's schitck is to follow me around various sites with ads for places or websites I have already visited, hotels I have already booked in many cases.
If Amazon sees me buying a humidifier their algorithms are convinced that I am now a dedicated humidifier collector, hoping to buy dozens more for my collection.
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.
I don't even like the dislike button. Maybe disagree would be more polite.
As for sog, he's entitled to his views. I think he is too hard on Cook but maybe we are all too kind to Cook.
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.
"Privacy" is about much, much more than your ability to search online or consume online media in private. It's about financial transactions; health records; credit card and bank/portfolio account security; corporate IP and product/competitive plans; trade secrets; attorney-client communications. Heck, at a larger level, its about national security, voting, IRS records, secret government-to-government communications, and so forth.
It's a question of valuing it, investing in it, standing up for it, and being willing to pay for it, so that we're not the pathetic sitting ducks that we're inevitably becoming just because we get free email, free shipping, and free social.
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.
An executive hired to lead teams responsible for HealthKit, CareKit, and ResearchKit -- as well as related machine learning algorithms -- has left Apple after just a few months on the job, a report said on Friday.
Yoky Matsuoka was only hired in May and reported to Jeff Williams, the company's COO and its head of teams for the Apple Watch and various health initiatives, Bloombergexplained. The reason for the departure is unknown, as Apple has refused to comment and Matsuoka herself has stayed silent.
That sucks. Probably part of the AirPort staffing shakeout \s
Nah. Whenever an executive leaves Apple it is because they 1) are not doing the job. Or 2) they realize they have run out of ideas and cannot do the job.
Look at her accomplishments: 1. co-founding Google X - which has failed in every project 2. helping to invent a robotic hand - but how much input and work did she actually have. Or did she simply manage the project rather than doing the engineering? Robotics was also sold off by Google as a failure. 3. VP at Alphabet's Nest Labs, where she developed the technology that lets the Nest Thermostat automatically adapt to habits and conditions: Did she actually do the programming as VP or simply supervised the actual talent that developed the technology? These accomplishments mean she may be great as a manager. But the projects she ran generally failed. So perhaps she simply couldn't move Apple forward.
Apple is very harsh to its vice presidents and upper managers. They bear total responsibility for their projects. If they fail, they are generally fired or volunteer to leave.
The day Apple uses my data for their profit is the day I quit using Apple products. If you want a major corporation to use your data please switch over to anything Google or Facebook.
So you will quit using Apple products and use what exactly?
Android? Samdung? Windows? They all gather data. All I know is I trust Apple to be the custodian of my data 1000x more than those other companies. But at this point Apple gives us very little choice to leave Google Search or Facebook.
Very little choice? I fail to see the logic in that. You can change your search engine in iOS. You don't need to use the Facebook integration of iOS or install its apps. You have 100% choice here. It's unrealistic to think that Apple could develop as good a search engine as Google has developed over 20 years. People choose Google because they are the best at giving the results they desire, and if some privacy must be traded for that, so be it. I've tried other search engines and continue to return to Google because I trust the results (not the company).
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?
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.
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.
I think it's clear that if Apple just wanted to build a simple fitness tracker they could. They're clearly building a smartwatch which contains health and fitness sensors and SW.
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.
Comments
Don't forget his buddy Mr II.
Fully agreed, though I have a feeling Tim Cook isn't all that motivated by serious product quality. He was hired for brilliance in one thing (supply chain management). When Jobs left, the leadership harmony ended and the company returned to being run by administrators who only care about Wall Street and shareholders.
It would take major commitment. Major investment. And major will to follow it through. Maybe Apple could buy an established experienced company and give it a major infusion to get the ball rolling.
But I think we both agree that the Apple Watch has not yet fulfilled its potential and, hopefully, Apple will develop that potential fully.
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.
If Amazon sees me buying a humidifier their algorithms are convinced that I am now a dedicated humidifier collector, hoping to buy dozens more for my collection.
As for sog, he's entitled to his views. I think he is too hard on Cook but maybe we are all too kind to Cook.
It's a question of valuing it, investing in it, standing up for it, and being willing to pay for it, so that we're not the pathetic sitting ducks that we're inevitably becoming just because we get free email, free shipping, and free social.
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.
Nah. Whenever an executive leaves Apple it is because they 1) are not doing the job. Or 2) they realize they have run out of ideas and cannot do the job.
Look at her accomplishments:
1. co-founding Google X - which has failed in every project
2. helping to invent a robotic hand - but how much input and work did she actually have. Or did she simply manage the project rather than doing the engineering? Robotics was also sold off by Google as a failure.
3. VP at Alphabet's Nest Labs, where she developed the technology that lets the Nest Thermostat automatically adapt to habits and conditions: Did she actually do the programming as VP or simply supervised the actual talent that developed the technology?
These accomplishments mean she may be great as a manager. But the projects she ran generally failed. So perhaps she simply couldn't move Apple forward.
Apple is very harsh to its vice presidents and upper managers. They bear total responsibility for their projects. If they fail, they are generally fired or volunteer to leave.
Very little choice? I fail to see the logic in that. You can change your search engine in iOS. You don't need to use the Facebook integration of iOS or install its apps. You have 100% choice here. It's unrealistic to think that Apple could develop as good a search engine as Google has developed over 20 years. People choose Google because they are the best at giving the results they desire, and if some privacy must be traded for that, so be it. I've tried other search engines and continue to return to Google because I trust the results (not the company).
Which ones do you think got more hits, and therefore, more advertising revenue for AI?
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.
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.