sirlance99

rob53 said:

"It was also reasoned by Masimo that the U.S. public would not be affected by an Apple Watch import ban as the sensor isn't "essential to the public health or welfare." This was due to Apple's warnings in fine print that the measurements from the sensor "should not be relied upon for medical purposes," Masimo declared." If the Apple sensor isn't of any medical value then why is Masimo suing Apple? Is Apple's implementation inferior to Masimo's? Is Apple's implementation even similar to Masimo's? Who actually owns the original pulse oximetry patents? Is Masimo violating someone else's patents? 

sdw2001 said:

This is about nothing more than money. And I don’t  just mean Masimo.  Their market cap is 6 billion. Apple’s is 3 trillion.  Right now Apple feels it’s cheaper and easier to announce they’re going to comply with the order and fight it in the courts. If necessary, they’ll simply buy the company outright.  Announcing they are actually going to stop selling the latest. Apple Watch is a brilliant move.  The Biden administration can use any win it can get right now. They’ll probably make a big deal of announcing they saved Christmas or something.  

byronl said:

Rogue01 said:

How are there big changes when Gurman has no idea?  'A revamp, but no mention of what that entails'.  Typical Gurman response.

They can do whatever hardware changes they want, it still runs iPadOS and baby iPad apps, so the base model and the iPad Pro both do the exact same thing, with similar performance.  Neither can take full advantage of the SoC.    The only real revamp was in 2018.  Since then, each new iPad has been exactly like the previous one.  So they are going to waste M3 chips in an iPad when they should be using them in the rest of the Mac lineup.  Same reviews each year, great hardware, but limited by the OS.

Apple needs to scrap iPadOS and just put macOS on the iPad since the hardware is now the same.

MacOS is not made for touch

mpantone said:

planetary paul said:

Obviously the intention was to kill off the company. Some serious litigation is in order methinks.

Whose intention?

Certainly not Altman's. He had a large equity stake in the company. It was his baby.

Certainly not the board of directors. They represent the shareholders.

Certainly not Microsoft. They have 49% ownership. Destroying OpenAI would mean flushing most of their investment stake down the toilet. (That's what Elon Musk is singlehandedly in the process of doing with X/Twitter.)

My hunch (unsubstantiated) is that the BOD identified irregularities that pointed to fraudulent behavior by Altman, akin to Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) and Sam Bankman-Fried (FTX). Liars don't commit just one lie. Lying permeates almost everything they do. Not just their business dealings, also their personal lives.

If the boards of Theranos and FTX had identified such issues early enough with Holmes and SBF, those companies might still exist today.

We won't learn what it is but some general information will probably come to light someday. Not today, not tomorrow, but the reasons won't stay hidden forever.

Remember that this is a privately held company that lost -$540 million on revenues of $28 million in 2022.

Silicon Valley is pretty small. My guess is that the biggest and best connected venture capitalists and IP law firms already have an idea of what went wrong.

The shareholders can revolt and elect a new BOD but Microsoft has 49% control. My guess is that some minority shareholder, probably some bigshot VC got suspicious from Altman's behavior, started poking around and found something rotten.

The people who would benefit from an OpenAI collapse are the competitors, companies like Alphabet, Meta, maybe Amazon, IBM, a bunch of startups, etc. Maybe a disgruntled former OpenAI employee, a jilted lover (we saw SBF's former girlfriend testify against him). But not someone with a sizable equity stake in OpenAI.

Silicon Valley has plenty of hubris and guys like Altman have an excess of it. Executives like Holmes and SBF have made people see red flags when people talk it up without showing real results (that is, profitability). My guess is that this will eventually end up with legal action against Altman and possibly other senior execs. The CFO would come under heavy scrutiny, there's always a money trail behind any sort of corporate shenanigans.

"Fake it until you make it" is not a real business strategy in the real world. That might be fine in a movie but it doesn't work in high tech especially when you're playing with someone else's money. The numbers eventually don't add up.

This is going to get more interesting.