thrang

I have posted many times... IMO, this device, while slow to be adopted, will benefit Apple much more in many vertical business segments, healthcare, government, military, law enforcement, education, and assistive services, rather than just what the general public would use it for. It's also a developer focused launch once they show the frameworks and internal apps (and I suspect you will see some special third party demos as well), $3,000 is chump change for a serious developer to invest, and they will be the bulk of buyers for this version. The pump has to be primed. The third party solutions that sprout from that investment will form the basis of the Version 2's wider adoption.

It's not to say that gaming and other general public interest apps won't be large part, but other than the iPhone, Apple still has a wide open field in front of them in most of the sectors above, and more... this could be interesting....

Stabitha_Christie said:

thrang said:

If there is a paucity of candidates who do not fit the bill for a position, is it right to say the hiring company should lower its standards to hire someone just to tick off a demographic box. Or be expected to invest much more time and money to train them? If they wish to, they may, but they will likely start at a lower position to see how they progress. But if the fundamentals are not there, they will not progress far.

Who is suggesting this? Please cite an actual source. 

Hiring the best candidate for a position should be the criteria. That’s it. Meaning skill level, experience, references, clean background, compensation requirements, written and oral skills, teamwork capabilities, etc.

The absence to being naturally inclusive when evaluating such candidates is where companies should be brought to task, publicly or legally (ie, you don’t hire the best candidate because you may be biased against their race or ethnicity). But I have a tough time thinking that over the past decades, that’s the predominate issue any longer. There are large issues with our workforce, especially amongst many younger people who think they are worth/deserve more, and have questionable work ethic. That is self evident if you work in the world. So when you find a good candidate that ticks all the boxes, you hire

Meaning, look at the other issues I raised.

This thinking, repeated in countless stories all over, so miss the point. Don't you think nearly any legitimate company out there isn't looking to hire the best candidates available regardless of the demographic identification du jour?

If there is a paucity of candidates who do not fit the bill for a position, is it right to say the hiring company should lower its standards to hire someone just to tick off a demographic box. Or be expected to invest much more time and money to train them? If they wish to, they may, but they will likely start at a lower position to see how they progress. But if the fundamentals are not there, they will not progress far.

So why is there nearly no focus in these conversations about the gestational causes for these conditions (family/educational institutions/urban environments/excessive, work-disincentivizing welfare, etc.) You know, the areas we have provided trillions in social/educational/urban reform over the decades that been spent so judiciously invested and monitored (ahem). And then add elements such as the cost (economically, socially, opportunistically) of the uncontrolled borders, and you have quite a full buffet table of things to chew on before you say any company "should do more." Ha! Yes, of course are still people that have racists thoughts/tendencies, and that's very unfortunate. It's also wrong to those tendencies only apply to hand selected demographics. People of all races, ethnicities, religions, etc, can be quite horrible to others. And you will always have this, so forget about "eradicating" it. That's the wrong focus. 

If there is a problem, do the hard work and focus on the sources, which include the corruption of how taxpayer money has really been invested and the lack of (expected) results.

coolfactor said:

I think you've got that upside-down.

As is Aqara's pricing...

Certainly hope this ruling chills the nonsensical legislation being considered. And while other countries have zero requirement to consider US decisions, I would not be surprised if it makes other entities think a little harder about what they might pursue....

But yes, Bonehead Biden, Warrior Chief Warren, and others may still push their fundamentally misguided intrusion into the the free enterprise economy (among the definitions of "misguided" would be: thinking success=monopoly; believing the government can/should force businesses to relinquish legal business models, methods, and the recouping of enormous accrued development costs; to force companies to dismantle key competitive market advantages (see below), risking the business as well as consumers; that they can erroneously re-define a produce feature as an entire market; that they ignore the collective consumer perspective that no wrongs need to be righted; etc...

This aspect of the ruling is sparkling in its clarity of perhaps the main issue at play here - something I have always felt and posted here numerous times (bold emphasis mine): 

The ruling states that Apple makes it clear that by improving security and privacy, "it is tapping into consumer demand and differentiating its products from those of its competitors— goals that are plainly procompetitive rationales."