tht

danox said:

tht said:

It needs to have:

Full fledged set of web browsers (Chrome, Safari, et al)
MS Office that is feature equivalent to MS Office for Mac (Excel, Word, Powerpoint and Teams)
Suite of comms apps (Teams, Slack, Zoom, Webex)
Terminal.app and installable CLI packages

They really didn't push to do this for iPad, but for Vision Pro? They really need to push to get as many PC apps as they can onto the platform. And iPads could ride its tail as it should be simple to get apps on  both platforms once you get one.

None of those Apps will sell any Apple device let alone a Apple Vision Pro, that is a laundry list for a weak HP or Dell laptop and Safari can't run on it.

Oh, you are sorely mistaken, or I just don't understand what you are saying.

Without those, Macs would have died in 2002 or so. There was a field of 6 to 8 platforms in the 90s competing in the PC space, and the only non-MS survivor was Apple. The only reason it survived was because Microsoft Office made it to Mac OS X. OS/2, BeOS, NeXTSTEP, all the workstation Unixen, Amiga, Atari, so on and so forth, all died and MS Office not being on the platform was a big reason.

Microsoft Office's dominance hasn't changed. You want to do office automation work in VisionOS, and have you company buy one for you, you need to have the IT required set of office apps. That's MS Office. If you don't have it, you will be regulated to a niche or specialist device, a device that doesn't serve the function of a PC. That is a fraught position to be in for a PC platform.

Today, no new PC platform will be successful without the top 3, and I'd argue VP really needs the 4th. The VP is definitely a PC platform, designed to be used as a computer for the office, for home, and on the go. As such, it needs a minimum set of PC applications which major portions of the PC market uses.

The XR apps are really for niche portions of the market, and mayhap there will be some app there that can drive sales of the VP, but if the dominant PC apps aren't there with it, it's a dangerous position to be in. There's a network effect of needing the apps and features everyone else is using, and all it takes is for a competitor to have those features plus the XR apps that drives the sales of the VP to starts eroding sales.

9secondkox2 said:

tht said:

9secondkox2 said:

Asus and xreal are further along than anyone so far. In terms of concept and form factor. Apple looks to be quite ahead in specs compared to everyone. 

That’s the concept apple should have pursued. Makes the vp look kinda outdated as a concept. 

And then there is the price. 

How do people who use glasses use AirMotion and Xreal frames?

In the past, I've used shades that have clip-on prescription lens - they clip on in-between the shades and your eyes similar to what you see in the AirMotion - and that wasn't a pleasant experience. Also have done the prescription glasses with clip-on shades, which were not that pleasant either. I just buy separate prescription sunglasses for driving and transition lens glasses for normal usage now.

And, Apple is indeed prototyping smart glasses. The rumors have been going on for a while. They aren't happy with what they have and aren't shipping until what they want is achievable.

Also, curious how mobile the AirMotion and Xreal are? The frames will need power, and I wonder how long a phone or compute unit lasts if it is powering them.

Being that they are actual glasses, I imagine you’d switch lenses. Both for the actual frame and the screen. If you can do it with scuba gear you can definitely do it with actual glasses. 

No, they are not like prescription glasses. 

It’s amazing that Gore has been on the board since 2003! Joined the board when he was 55. It’s been a very quick 20 years and he experienced Apple’s growth rocket. 

That was a good hire imo. Having a stereotypical CEO from another company, or a person whose job is “board member”, is too staid. With Gore, he brought some different perspectives. 

flydog said:

larryjw said:

Why does it seem that the ITC is a party to this case?

They should have no business before the federal court, making arguments to the Court. The federal court can read and consider the ITC's decision, but only Masimo and Apple are parties.

What am I missing?

A quick google search will reveal what you're missing:

As a quasi-judicial entity, the USITC investigates the impact of imports on U.S. industries, and directs actions against unfair trade practices, such as subsidies; dumping; and intellectual property infringement, including copyright infringement.

For larryjw, what is in front of the US Fed Court of Appeals is a decision on whether to prevent the ITC import ban on Apple Watches from taking effect. The ITC is part of the executive branch of the government. They are not a "Court". The US Fed Court of Appeals is part of the judicial part of the government. They in fact are a court, and can prevent decisions from the ITC from taking effect, just like any other decisions from entities in the executive or legislative branch of the government.

Since the current decision is about ITC's import ban, and not about patents, the ITC is in effect the defendant in front of the court, and they will try to convince the court that their decision is correct, their import ban should take effect ASAP and last until the patent fight between Apple and Masimo winds its way through court. Apple is arguing the opposite.

Another party in this mess is that Apple is submitting a software update to the blood oxygen measurement on the Watch that they think will not infringe on the patents the ITC is saying they are infringing. This determination of infringement or not seems to be dependent on US Customs, not the ITC. This decision comes on Jan 12. 

Not sure how the ITC and US Customs decisions play out or how they interact. The US Fed Court of Appeals will be the final word on with the ITC import ban takes effect. The Masimo vs Apple patent and trade secrets fight is winding itself through the court process in the meanwhile.

macdaddy1944 said:

This is just getting stupid. Why the heck does an apple just pay Masimo. Except that they’re trying to avoid being the target of more suits

It is in their own interest to never pay licensing fees unless forced to in the short term, and then design their way out of it in the next iteration. Every single company must play it this way. Masimo plays it this way. For some things, the lawyers say they can't win the patent fight for this or that feature, wherein there is no other way to do it, so they license. For others, it is cheaper to fight than to pay.

You have to remember no technology, no data was "stolen" here. It's the nature of the US patent system to award patents that are as generalizable as possible, such that the patent is basically an idea that anybody can think of, and they leave it to courts to have the patents invalidated, modified, and to have the companies fight it out. For example, Apple can get out of violating a section of Masimo's patent by simply not using a chamfer, which is one of the claims the ITC say Apple is violating. There's always a "rainmaker" patent. That one, two, or three set of patents that are sufficiently general enough that it could apply to company's product, so these court cases arise.

So, if you are Apple, or own a company that produces any kind of product, it really is in your best interest to always fight against patent license fees. Always. If you don't, you won't be able to afford to actually make a product. So if they can't get the patents invalidated, they will have to design around it.