charlesn

masteric said:

Surprising since my son and I both have Apple Watches from the Apple Store. We have Visible (owned by Verizon) and zero issue activating our Apple Watches on Visible. Just added my son's Apple Watch 10 to his Visible account on Saturday. Zero issues. 

Although owned by Verizon, Visible is run as a separate company, and it seems clear to me so far that the Visible exec team did their homework in looking at what Verizon does wrong--in particular, pricing and customer service--and has addressed those issues. There is also a wealth of information and functionality on the Visible app and website that I find far superior to Verizon's offering. 

melgross said:

anonymouse said:

Are we really certain that Apple didn't covertly engineer this coup? 

Yeah. He was under a lot of pressure. It had nothing to do g to do with Apple.

I've been following the Kiani story for a while and his ouster was a long time coming. First, he spent over $100 million of Masimo money fighting Apple in court, an absolute fortune for which he has little to show: for Watches sold in the US since approx January, Apple has had to put a software lockout on the pulse oximetry feature. Masimo got nothing else for its $100 million spend, while the loss of pulse oximetry has likely had little if any effect on Apple Watch sales. Plus, Masimo's remaining patents expire in 2028 if they don't get invalidated before hand. 

BUT.... this was nothing compared to Kiani biggest blunder, which was spendiing $1 billion to acquire several consumer audio companies under their corporate umbrella name, Sound United. THAT'S what really got him pushed out. Now if you're wondering why the hell a medical equipment company like Masimo would spend a billion to get into consumer audio, you have the same question that drove the Politan hedge fund, which owns 9% of Masimo, to launch a board fight to get Kiani pushed out. Apparently Kiani thought consumer audio was the way to open up retail channels like Best Buy to Masimo. Never made sense to me and I guess not to the Masimo board either. 

apple4thewin said:

Apple better have made some improvements to explain why they couldn’t just reuse the case and replace the chip and add sleep apnea.

When no Ultra 3 was announced, I also wondered (angrily, I might add) why Apple couldn't have at least given it the chip and display upgrades of the Watch 10. But after further research, I would now say, sheepishily, "Ummm... nevermind." 

The "advantage" of the S10 chip is simply that's it's thinner to fit in the new, thinner Watch 10 case. It offers no performance improvements, advancements or capabilities over the S9 that's in the Ultra 2. As for the next gen display in the Watch 10, it does offer a wider angle of view, but the current display in Ultra 2 is still 50% brighter--and for a watch targeted to the outdoor "adventure" market, brightness trumps angle of view. 

The whole Apple Watch family is in a weird place right now. Everyone knows that the killer new functions that would spark a massive upgrade cycle and attract a whole wave of new buyers would be accurate blood pressure and blood glucose monitoring, but figuring out how to do that via a watch has been slow going, even with Apple's near unlimited R&D budget. In the meantime, I'm sure Apple could figure out a new, faster chip--but faster to do what, exactly? I never have the feeling that my Ultra 1 is too slow at anything. A faster chip would make sense if Apple Intelligence features appropriate for the Watch were in a future version of Watch OS, but we're probably a ways away from that happening. So, for now, Apple focuses on what it can advance, which is design, giving us the thinner Watch 10 with bigger displays and the black Titanium Ultra. The whole idea of compelling upgrades for a wristwatch every 1, 2 or even 3 years is a radically new one in the whole 200+ year history of wristwatches, a history where quality watches were and still are often passed down for generations. I still have my grandfather's Hamilton Railway Special pocket watch that he used as a train worker in the 1930s. Swatch approached the problem of a watch business built on customers continually buying and upgrading by churning out an endless number of models with different appearances--the watch as fashion accessory. But Apple faces a different issue, needing to mainly motivate the buying cycle through meaningful tech advancements and we're now at a point where that has become very hard to do. 

pulseimages said:

lewchenko said:

The lack of 120hz on the 16 is a joke at this price.  Some can’t tell but it’s very noticeable when reading or looking at moving / scrolling text. So noticeable that using a 60hz display afterwards is unpleasant. Any mid range android has it. 

The CPU difference is negligible as is the GPU if you don’t play intensive games. 

Lack of telephoto lens is disappointing. I think the regular pixel 9 has one now. 

So I resent being pushed to the PRO just to get a decent screen. 

But that’s Apple all over these days. Extortionate bumps for storage, unfinished software, and withholding basic tech to make you spend more.  Sigh. But they know you will pay if you want it. 

Maybe if consumers weren’t sheep Apple would listen. 

Ah, yes... the Apple sheeple. The 1990s called and they want you back because that's how long that old chestnut has been around. And what has happened in the decades since? Oh, nothing much other than Apple spreading its flock from the US to the entire world, becoming the most highly valued company in the history of companies in the process. How do you suppose they keep hypnotizing mass populations? Is it something Apple puts in the drinking water to turn ordinary humans into their sheeple? Amazingly effective whatever it is! And so long lasting! 

Some initial thoughts after upgrading from 15 Pro to 16 Pro:

• Overall performance seems noticeably snappier. Not night and say, just snappier. 
• Cellular data seems noticeably snappier, too, so perhaps the rumored modem performance improvements are true.
• For me, this is the Goldilocks screen size: in-between the 15 Pro and 15 Pro Max, it's just right. 
• I definitely prefer the photo processing to my 15 Pro--photos look more natural, more like the scene as I'm seeing it with my eyes in terms of color rendition and lighting. 
• Not enough time yet with the Capture button to have an opinion. The real test though, even if I like it, is whether I keep using it long term. The Action Button for me has simply become a less good version of the Silent slider because, unlike the slider switch, I can no longer tell visually if my phone is on silent. 
• Not enough time yet to give the new sensor on the ultrawide lens a thorough test. 
• The one big camera con for me: I hated losing the 77mm telephoto lens. Now the 24mm main lens has to handle the huge 24mm-119mm range without true optical zoom, and I've seen what those results look like from testing last year of the 15 Pro vs 15 Pro Max in the 77-119mm range. It's not even close in that much used range, with the 15 Pro crushing the 15 Pro Max in image quality.