gatorguy

StrangeDays said:

charlesn said:

Thank you, Apple--I guess--for saving me money again with another mediocre upgrade. STILL with the dated looking fat bezels? A bump to the near useless 6E when Wifi 7 is already here and supported by Apple in other products? No landscape camera? 

What on earth are you talking about? It's got the same processor as the iPhone 15 Pro,..

A binned version of it, one less GPU core, but for practical purposes it won't matter for a mini that's not intended as a performance machine.

danox said:

This is probably about using company time to use some type of social media site on the job

A cursory look through the complaint makes it fairly clear the restrictions applied to more than "on company time", so no.  

charles1 said:

The photo is upside down.

I think the photo is right side up, noting the OOF person at the bottom of the shot.  It's the camera upside-down. 

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

davidw said:

gatorguy said:

rob53 said:

"All four deal with methods of improving user security" Nothing ever created for sale so was it ever really a patentable product? It was simply an idea that never was used in a product so why should something like this even be patentable? 

Every tech does the same thing, asking for patents on stuff they have no plans of making, including Apple. 

Actually, the thing that should had made it not patentable, was that they were just "ideas".  Ideas are not patentable 

Then the patents were not simply "ideas" were they, according to your own research? You are correct, you can't patent mere ideas.

All you saying that the US Patent Office had never been wrong when they issued a patent?

Huh? Was that meant as misdirection?

Question: Were those Masimo claims invalidated because they were mear "ideas"?
Oh, you don't know? The reasons are available to you. 

You appear to have done the least amount of research you wanted to bother with, enough to give you something to say, whether pertinent or not. Strive to be better.

There's no shame in not being 100% spot-on 100% of the time. I know I'm not, and don't try to hide it. If you're inaccurate in your replies, or perhaps not as informed as you thought, just own it. You don't have to double-down. Move on, but still learn.  Adjust your understanding when you get new information. You win when you know more than you started with.

If you have the time, you could start with researching why certain patent claims were invalidated, which is not the same as invalidating a patent if you're unclear on that. 

StrangeDays said:

gatorguy said:

Apple is probably correct in thinking a ring would cannibalize smartwatch sales. 

And yet, there are numerous examples and quotes from execs repeatedly stating that is not how they operate or make product decisions...  They would be happy to lose a sale for a product to...themselves, with another product. Such reasoning simply isn't how they operate their roadmap so it's always silly when outsiders claim that's their reasoning.

The real question is whether they feel whatever concepts they have deliver actual value.

Don't we have examples of execs saying stuff that, in hindsight, may not have been what the leadership actually believed? Yes, I'm quite familiar with the official cannibalization comments from Cook and Jobs. But they don't always mean what they say, ie big phone, stylus, targeted ads.

But as for your "value" comment, I would 100% agree.

I don't believe a ring would add much value over the existing Apple Watch. Yet it definitely introduces buyer confusion, potential customers waffling on what to get, and comparisons on price and features with smart-ring products they have no market reason to compete with. I believe it risks a reduction in Apple Watch sales for a ring instead, and not necessarily an Apple-branded one.  Is that cannibalizing watch sales? To me, it would be.