tjwolf

sirozha said:

jasonfj said:

Surely this is a concept from twenty years ago. What’s the point of wasting the space when any connectivity can be wireless. 

The point is to use the iPhone as the trackpad, the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth clients, and the computer. Docking the iPhone would change the apps from the iOS mode to the macOS mode. Undocking the phone would change the apps back to the iOS mode.

You need at least 20 Gbps to be able to push video wirelessly, which is not possible with today’s technology. 

Docked phone would become the foundation of the MacBook, and Apple would be able to justify a higher price of the phone because a phone and a relatively inexpensive dock would equal a MacBook. 

This is my idea of 3 years ago, of which I wrote extensively in several Apple centric forums. I should have patented it then. 

If pushing video wirelessly is not possible with today's technology, how has AirPlay been working all these years?  Audio too!  Sure, it won't drive a 4k or 8k resolution at 60+fps, but you don't really need either in a small-factor laptop screen (except maybe for gaming).

This concept is eerily similar to something Palm attempted years ago, but I can't remember the device.

avon b7 said:

The obvious follow up question for Tim was:

Do you think the financial orchestration that resulted in Apple allegedly paying 0.005% for one year was 'fair', given that, in response to the demands of the EU for Apple to return billions of euros to Ireland, you defended Apple's position by stating that Apple had 'values'? How do Apple's values fit into the claim of it paying 0.005% as a result of financial orchestration?

As for changing the system, he is fully aware that the whole thing is being debated at institutional levels anyway, and has been for some time.

That 0.005% taxes Apple supposedly paid is being disputed by Apple and even the Irish government!  Heck, the Irish government didn't even want those billions the EU fined Apple for its supposed malfeasance.   Whatever the real percentage is (once you take into account what Apple pays for a given sale across all countries), Apple paid what it owed.  What you call "financial orchestration" is Apple paying as little taxes as it can - and as it should, as a for-profit corporation.  As another person already commented, values have very little to do with this.  Apple values what its investors value: profits.

The AW tells you that your heart rate is elevated, but it doesn't tell you *why*.  I recently went to the ER because my AW told me the same thing as this blogger.  It turned out I was just dehydrated.  I'm not advocating people not go to the ER when their AW tells them their heart rate is abnormally high.  But in my case, I wish I had thought of dehydration as a possible cause and measured again after having had a few glasses of water.   Would have saved me hours in the ER and quite a few dollars.

WTF?  What does this mean for all the open-source stuff developers depend on?  E.g. apache projects?  Will Apache go through through this signing process?  What about stuff installed via 'brew'?  Java VMs, etc., etc.....

The title of this piece uses the word 'glasses' - which implies AR - whereas the article itself consistently refers to 'headset' - which most people would (hopefully) associate more with VR.  The features described are also more likely in a VR headset than in, presumably, much more minimalist/stylish AR glasses.  For instance, what earphones could you possibly put on AR glasses which are also big enough to act as independent speakers?  Makes no sense at all.  But I can imagine a VR setup with such (over-ear?) headphones.