FileMakerFeller

"Hey, we can make a lot more money by degrading the user experience - and the best part is, we can raise prices for the people who don't want the degraded version!"

rmusikantow said:

I am interested  in whether this device will succeed or flop. It is wonderful high tech, but will only be as good as the software  and video that supports it. I see it, for me, mainly as an entertainment device. I don't see myself working on my computer wearing this device. Not seeing the added value.

Reports of screen fidelity within the AVP are saying that it's easily accurate enough to read text without straining and it should be possible to do fine detail work. So I'm curious to see if it can replace a monitor and I can do FileMaker development in the spatial environment. Exciting times!

Also big potential for the devices to get "lost" or damaged or stolen. But the data is important, so I'm glad someone's taking the risk.

We're looking at potentially tracking heart rate for mental health patients, but there's no way our publicly-funded unit could justify using Apple Watches at this stage. It's much more feasible with the cheap junk wristband devices that you can get for ~AU$20 but then you have to hope that patients continually wear them and that the data from them is steady enough to be useable (or that any degradation can be detected and adjusted for). We get measurements from the clinical visits, but high frequency data collection can reveal so much more - for instance, letting the patient see the effect of their diet and their exercise regimen on their cardiometabolic health. People with severe mental health problems will on average die ~24 years younger than those without, largely due to diet and exercise, and we want to minimise that difference. 

beowulfschmidt said:

Apple's "carbon neutral" claim is based on the absurdity that one can buy someone else's actual reduced carbon production to claim "neutrality" without actually reducing one's own carbon production.  Apple could actually increase it's carbon production while still claiming to be carbon neutral just buy purchasing more fiat certificates.

Carbon offset credits work by giving entities that work to reduce carbon in the atmosphere a "product" that they can sell. It's a product with easily-understood financial characteristics that fits neatly into market-based economies the world over. Entities that sell more products make more profit, thus financially encouraging them to increase their efforts (in addition to whatever moral motivations they have). So buying the offset credits stimulates demand for the activity of removing atmospheric carbon, which is the ultimate goal.

Now, Apple could directly invest in these activities but that requires management and oversight effort and skill acquisition that the company may not wish to expend. That's the prerogative of any company or individual: choose what to work on yourself, and choose what to outsource.

As long as the certification process for carbon offset credits is largely uncorrupted (and I acknowledge the inherent optimism in that assumption), buying offsets is a valid approach to mitigate the effects of one's own carbon emissions.

chasm said:

So let me get this straight: a Chinese organization that has no way of verifying anything whatsoever makes claims that Apple is shuffling things around a bit to make the Apple Watch (NOT a “niche product” unless the only thing you’re comparing it to is the iPhone) carbon-neutral. In response, Apple directly refutes this made-up claim, with evidence.

But the first two commenters are all-in on the CCP mouthpiece claims. Makes you wonder more about them than Apple, in my view.

You appear to have missed this paragraph from the article:

AppleInsider said:

IPE was named in Apple's 2022 Annual Progress Report as a "leading non-profit environmental research organization." Apple was the first recipient of IPE's Corporate Information Transparency Index Master's Level Designation for its disclosures. 

Apple seems satisfied with the Institute's credentials. The crux of the issue is that Apple stopped requiring suppliers to publicly report on their carbon emissions; suppliers still have to make that report to Apple. Does Apple then release that information as part of their own reporting? Even if it does, it's difficult to verify.

And it's important to note that IPE is claiming that it is possible that Apple could be using accounting tricks to declare the Watch 9 carbon-neutral, while simultaneously acknowledging that it is unlikely given the company's history. I read this situation as a call for stringent reporting standards so that any environmental claims can be independently verified. Not a contentious request, in my opinion.