EsquireCats

It's nice to see a children's warning on the button battery (many parents aren't fully aware how dangerous these are for children), it's also nice to see that it's not easily removed in comparison to other item trackers.

Meanwhile such a device seems obvious for Google, it's almost weird that they don't have anything in this space. I consider this another way Apple is moving ahead in the location/mapping industry.

While I'm not happy it's going, I did find this to be quite an ugly lamp.

It makes sense for the likes of Facebook to run Whatsapp. They need the billions of users out there to feed their profiling and ad-targeting network.

However why would Apple want to support billions of users? It doesn't provide any reason to move to the Apple platform, and being the dominant chat platform is an anti-trust inviting, worthless trophy.

steven n. said:

Patent sounds cool (and reasonably novel) but the Apple tie in? Based off of LinkIn profile because someone changed jobs???? Seriously????

It’s not really novel, it’s how earlier 3D glasses worked. Sending two streams at different polarisations is so well trodden as to be obvious. You can also find analogous concepts through all manner of data transmission mediums. 

This only makes sense for Apple apps which would be purchased later and thus compete with others in the market place. 
For free apps that come with the device, including those which are downloaded automatically, these already formed part of the user’s choice in selecting the device. The cost of the Apple device is not limited to the hardware, and there is no ability to buy the hardware without the software included.
For example a person may purchase an iPad because it comes ready to go with a suit of high quality desktop publishing tools. This isn’t a competition issue for Microsoft, the consumer made the choice of the iPad with apple’s software over an alternative device. Assuming otherwise ignores that (1) consumers choose devices for a variety of reasons, (2) app markers are free to entice device makers to pre-install their apps and (3) not all device makers share the same business model. 

It’s also doubly complicated because many of Apple’s apps serve to uncover hardware functionality of the device. Should it be a matter of competition if a 3rd party later comes to duplicate functionality of pre-installed app (which is already against the guidelines).

Finally many of the concerns don’t hold water the moment we put them into perspective of other products. Should a car maker not be permitted to offer a highly integrated sound system, for concern of shutting out after market stereos?