bsimpsen

digitol said:

Caution! Apple watch and it’s measurements/monitoring is often inaccurate. This should not substitute for a Doctor. In fact, it’s almost criminal how horrible these devices are. Many things to account for, that isn’t taken into consideration for health, which may hurt certain individuals with underlying health issues or other circumstances. Apple watch is more of a toy. 

By your logic, clinical measurements and monitoring are often inaccurate because they don't take into consideration what happens outside the clinical setting. This is actually often true, as demonstrated in this story. Do you consider clinical tools to be toys?

I'm retired from a long career designing diagnostic ECG equipment, including ambulatory (worn-at-home) monitors. The Apple Watch is certainly no toy. Both of my parents have had A-Fib for years, and my Apple Watch was able to detect it in both of them. I routinely throw PVCs and I've been able to capture them via the watch.

When it comes to understanding the value of various kinds of medical monitoring, there is real understanding and toy understanding.

winston2010 said:

If I were Apple, I would make a x86 instructions compatible processor with ARM core.  Modern Intel processors used the same technique with RISC-like core and x86 microcode.  This way, no transition issues, if not 100% compatible with existing software.

Apple does not have a license to use the x86 instruction set. They'd need one to do as you suggest.

larryjw said:

lkrupp said:

Any ideas on how Apple will handle the X86 code of current apps to run on ARM architecture? I am not educated on this. Is ARM close enough to X86 that the transition will be easy or will it require a Rosetta-like translation framework like the move from Moto 68000 to X86 did. Will we have universal binaries again or something else during the transition?

Well, both ARM and X86 chips are micro coded. Could Apple microcode the x86 instruction set into the ARM?

No, that would require a license from Intel. That ain't happening.

If they do what's shown in the patent, I'll be forced to abandon the iMac. My keyboard is currently located 13 inches below the bottom of my iMac Pro. I can't raise the keyboard without provoking RSI injury to my right arm, and I can't lower the display without exacerbating cervical disc problems.

This would be the worst possible design for someone like me, the crap ergonomics of a laptop without the benefit of mobility.

I think they're just covering bases here.

I've long wondered when someone would merge head tracking (obtained from the camera) to modify sound sent to headphones to lock the sound source to a world frame of reference. At present, your headphone's sound stage moves with your head, and that breaks immersion. Locking the stage to a world reference would go a long way towards fooling your brain into thinking there actually is a stage. When using a laptop's world referenced speakers, psychoacoustic processing could incorporate knowledge of head orientation to alter the way sound is processed to give the impression of a world referenced 3D audio space.

People have experimented with head tracking to produce 3D effects on 2D displays...



I imagine there's something to be gained by using head tracking to alter audio as well.