Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 510 posts

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#321

Post by LadyCailin »

adrian_b wrote: post #314
prng2021 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We’re all just memetic LLMs, remixing stuff with mildly differing levels of variance.” Einstein upended every other human beings notion of space and time. Copernicus also proposed something preposterous for his time. Would you say they just remixed stuff with mild variance?

Copernicus has only revived a theory first proposed millennia before him (in Ancient Greece), but initially rejected for insufficient evidence. Even for Copernicus, his theory was based more on faith than on evidence, because it became possible to measure the stellar parallaxes only much later. When Einstein published his theory of Special Relativity, it did not contain any fact or formula that had not already existe…

This might be confirmation bias to a degree, because of something called “the adjacent possible”. That is, that ideas that are too far ahead of their time, simply don’t catch on, and so no one has ever heard of them. However, the individuals inventing these things would be extraordinary individuals, I would argue. Clive Sinclair might be one example of this.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#322

Post by adrian_b »

cma wrote: post #320
prng2021 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“We’re all just memetic LLMs, remixing stuff with mildly differing levels of variance.” Einstein upended every other human beings notion of space and time. Copernicus also proposed something preposterous for his time. Would you say they just remixed stuff with mild variance?

I don't think we are LLMs, but was it a coincidence something like ricci calculus had just been developed?

The Ricci calculus has influenced Einstein only more than a decade later, in the development of the General Relativity (1917), for which tensor calculus was indispensable.

It had no influence on the theory of Special Relativity (1905).

Einstein is the one who changed the meaning of the word "tensor" to the meaning used today in most cases, when tensor means a general multi-dimensional quantity. I could not find any information about the reason why Einstein has chosen to make this change in terminology.

Before Einstein, "tensor" (a term introduced by Hamilton) was applied only to symmetric matrices (because general matrices can be decomposed into "versors", i.e. rotation matrices that rotate vectors and a "tensor", i.e. a symmetric matrix that stretches vectors).

While Ricci has invented the concept of tensor, he has not used the word "tensor". Nevertheless, because Einstein's theory had become extremely fashionable at the end of WWI, when Ricci's work has been translated and published in USA, the American editor has introduced the word "tensor" everywhere in the book and they added on the covers that this is the book needed to understand Einstein's tensor theory, in order to promote the sales of the book.

Thus, Ricci's calculus became known as tensor calculus, first in USA, then everywhere.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#323

Post by mort96 »

lijok wrote: post #211
mort96 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some nuance here. I like trademarks which disallow other companies than Apple from selling products called “Apple Watch” or other companies than Samsung from selling “Samsung Galaxy S” series phones. And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. But intellectual property goes way too f…

> And I like that if I make a piece of music or some art or whatever, some giant company can’t just grab that and use it for profit without making some arrangement with me. You’re describing intellectual property..

I know, that was the point.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#324

Post by mort96 »

moogly wrote: post #216
mort96 wrote: post #172

Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work…

Poor Apple. Oh wait... Two words: "rounded corners".

Do you think I’m in favour of that patent or what is your point

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#325

Post by mort96 »

Eisenstein wrote: post #261
doix wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the options are either use their hardware or "work with them". That seems pretty unreasonable to me. You're holding them hostage to collaborate. I'm not an Apple fan, but this feels like abuse of the patent system. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know if it's legal, but being forced to work with a company to access their parent feels like absolute bullshit. Ask for your $X per device sold and be done with it.

Why do you think it should be illegal to refuse to license your patented technology to another company?

What is your actual argument? That they’re willing to license the tech (despite their statement to the contrary), or that it doesn’t matter because it should be legal to refuse to sell licenses?

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#326

Post by mort96 »

asadotzler wrote: post #227
mort96 wrote: post #172

Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work…

A patent troll is a person or company that acquires patents solely for the purpose of licensing and enforcement, rather than using the patented technology to produce their own products or services. This IS NOT A PATENT TROLL. Please don't water down our language by lumping all patent licensors in with patent trolls. The phrase was created with a purpose in mind and you're harming that with your use.

They seem close enough to a patent troll to me.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#327

Post by hedora »

Retric wrote: post #294
hedora wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Though that was a design patent, they also got a normal patent for the pythagorean formula (they didn’t invent pinch zoom, so they patented computing the distance between two fingers from two x,y coordinates).

FYI: Apple’s pinch to zoom lets you rotate and drag not just zoom. This kind of subtle differences matter quite a bit from a UI perspective. You could have a punch to zoom system where a pinching motion always resulted in fixed changes to zoom levels. You could describe both implementations as “pint to zoom” but one is a lot more user friendly than the other.

They also didn’t invent the rotation bit (or cosine, etc).

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#328

Post by mort96 »

huytersd wrote: post #213
mort96 wrote: post #172

Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work…

Hard disagree. If you come up with a good new idea you should be able to get rich off of it.

I don’t see why it’s the role of the government to ensure that a tiny selection of random people get filthy rich.

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#329

Post by mort96 »

aaomidi wrote: post #218
mort96 wrote: post #172

Patents are universally stifling innovation in pretty much every area of tech. They need to die. EDIT: And to be clear, this isn’t a case of just having to pay the people who developed the tech for a license. The patent trolls who hold the license aren’t willing to sell Apple a license, unless Apple switches to use their hardware or partner with them to work on Apple’s hardware. There is no excuse. Markets can’t work…

So monopolies are only good if they’re unbreakable? Literally a few days ago everyone here was telling us how important it is for beeper to stop working because they’re copying Apple. When is copying and modifications okay and when is it not?

I don’t know why you think monopolies are good if they’re unbreakable. Being government enforced, patent-based monopolies are some of the most unbreakaboe monopolies, are they not?

Re: Apple to halt Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 sales in the US this week

#330

Post by rickdeckard »

Not the most neutral article.

Worth to note that is not just some obscure small company coming out of nowhere to capitalize from Apple. Masimo is a decades-old medical equipment company, with several developments and patents for non-invasive PPG. Apple is obviously well-aware of their developments, and was in touch with them already in 2013, more than a year before the launch of the Apple Watch.

From the actual lawsuit filed by Masimo in 2020 [1]:

"In 2013, Apple contacted Masimo and asked to meet regarding a potential collaboration. Apple told Masimo that Apple would like to understand more about Masimo’s technology to potentially integrate that technology into Apple’s products. Apple and Masimo later entered into a confidentiality agreement, and Masimo’s management met with Apple. The meetings included confidential discussions of Masimo’s technology. After what seemed to Masimo to have been productive meetings, Apple quickly began trying to hire Masimo employees, including engineers and key management."

[1] https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/byvrlojrdve/...

Post reply on HN