wiggin

maestro64 said:

It has been a while since I had chemistry and doing calorie measurements and calculation if I remember correctly it is the amount of energy require to raise I centliter of water one degree Celsius. Bases on this there is no direct way to determine how many calories the human body uses. All method today use indirect methods. They are all estimating so I'm not sure how anyone could say one device is better or worse than the other. Even the high cost machines are just making an estimate since the machine can not determine each person's efficiency, some people burn calories faster than others.

At best they are all making a guess.

Also if remember correctly Apple did testing and calibration on thousands of people not just 60. I would say Apple is probably a little better than most since they have more data. Face it even Apple with all its data is just triangulating onto a calorie number and sometimes it does a better job than others.

Well, chemically speaking, we know how much energy is released when a hydrocarbon atom breaks it's bonds and creates energy for your body to use. Those carbon atoms then leave your body when they combine with oxygen and are exhaled (fun fact...when you lose fat it leaves your body via your lungs ). So by measuring the ratio oxygen and CO2 entering and leaving your lungs you can determine how many carbon atoms are leaving your body and thus how many bonds were broken and how much energy was released. You then have a pretty accurate, if not perfectly direct, method of measuring the calories you are burning.

This is the method the study used as their "gold standard" for calories burned. But like everything it's still subject to imperfect and/or limitations in the testing methodology.

brucemc said:

macxpress said:

cjcampbell said:

Um, okay. Why not just give Apple TV the same capability? And let it play music on your stereo system?

And will it let you order stuff on Amazon Prime? Or, better yet, let your 'friends' order three tons of creamed corn on Amazon Prime?

And how exactly are you going to put 7 speakers on an AppleTV? AppleTV is its own appliance. It doesn't need to be screwed up with 50 other non-related items added to it. This is Apple, not every other company. 

People must have a different house setup than I do.  The AppleTV is tucked under the TV in the living room - not exactly an ideal location for a voice interface and standalone speaker system.  If I want to play music through my stereo that is connected to TV, I could, you know, use the Apple Music functionality of Apple TV.  And my Airport Extreme is in the basement, connected to the DSL modem with an Ethernet cable.  Also not the best location for this rumoured device.

Maybe those advocating this have a really small apartment where these all-in-one Apple TV/Router/Speakers products would make sense...

Not everyone has a stereo connected to their TV. Many people only have a sound bar just to get better sound than their TV's build-in speakers. I'm not saying this what Apple is/should be doing. But theoretically, if the speakers are good enough and powerful enough. one could envision a merging of AppleTV with a sound bar.

tmay said:

Please make a model with a router, Apple.

Thank you in advance.

In the traditional sense? Highly unlikely, I'd think. Placement requirements for a router are not always inline with ideal placement for speakers. 

However, if it's going to have an A-series chip and run a form of iOS, it could perhaps function has a smart home hub for Home Kit. This currently requires either an Apple TV or an iPad, but neither of those are ideal solutions. The Apple TV needs to be places by your TV, and an iPad is mobile and may not always be in your home. You have a little more flexibility with a speaker such as this as to where you place it to provide coverage for your Home Kit devices. Is there any reason way you couldn't have multiple hubs in your home? Apple TV in one part of your house and this speaker in another.

Which brings us back to router...perhaps not a router in the traditional sense, but could it be a node on a mesh wifi network to compete in that space as well? This would fall in line with what I've previously suggested might have been the reason why the Airport group was disbanded and merged into the Apple TV group. To create a smart home ecosystem where devices would serve dual purposes. In addition to their "normal" function (TV for Apple TV, smart speaker, etc), each device could also be a node on a mesh wifi network to provide wifi and smart device coverage throughout your home. 

What if you have multiple Apple IDs (because there is no good way to combine them)? On the iTunes screen shot it appears you might be able the change the Apple ID for that and have it separate from the iCloud Apple ID...but then the payment info screen seems to only be associated to the iCloud Apple ID.

I haven't installed the update yet...gonna let the rest of ya'll be the guinae pigs for the new file system for awhile first.   But I'll be curious how it all shakes out.

sog35 said:

cincytee said:

sog35 said:

they can use an iPhone Plus then.

or next year the 6+ inch iPhone X1 Plus

You miss the point. Apple will not earn a phone sale from me if the iPad mini is discontinued. I don't want a phone; I want a tablet. The choice is sale or no sale, not sell one product instead of another.

You are going to need to buy a phone eventually

Doesn't that pretty much blow your cannibalization theory out of the water?

And if that was a main driver for Apple to take the actions you seem to have inside information on, wouldn't that also mean that the iPod touch would have been discontinued many years ago? Why would Apple continue to sell cheap iPod touches when they could sell you an much more expensive iPhone instead (as if the huge price difference between the two, in your mind, is of no consequence to the consumers).