As Analog Kid pointed out, the ban wouldn’t affect existing inventory for resellers — from what I’ve read, Apple online and stores would pause but resellers can continue selling their stock. So maybe they’ve loaded up on inventory in anticipation on this possibility?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
ITC Denies Apple's Request for a Stay on Looming Apple Watch Import Ban
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That’s my understanding. Apple must stop selling Apple Watches from 26 dec onwards. They also can’t import any more. It also sounds like third party retailers will still be able to continue selling their existing stock. They just won’t be able to replenish them once it runs out.
So what happens to existing stock currency being held by Apple in the US that they don’t manage to sell by the deadline? They try to push it to the retailers?
According to this post, the differences can be explained by differences in the testing baseline (point 5):
Also sorta weak that this is the only publication that has done anything about it. If this was a real issue, surely some journalists would have picked it up by now, considering any Apple scandal makes headlines for weeks.
It just doesn’t seem to hold any water.
ahhh yes, the usual tactic trying to be employed which is to be allowed to continue as normal whilst the appeal process goes ahead. Which is why appeals get dragged out because usually a company/business is allowed to continue as normal whilst appealing. Good on the ITC for denying the stay because it now forces Apple to make sure they do right with Masimo rather than being allowed to drag it out with appeals so they can find a way to get around having to deal/work with Masimo.
If the ban is enforced and Apple is prevented from selling the affected watches, even the existing stock they have but resellers will be allowed to sell their existing stocks, I can for foresee Apple moving all stock of the affected watches to a reseller prior to a ban being enforced.
Bans do not confine themselves to retailers, it would also mean existing stock cannot be sold to 3rd party resellers because a ban means no sale to ANYONE. Apple would have to move all affected stock out of their US warehouse to that of a reseller. The problem is how many resellers would have the capital to purchase all of Apples affected stock with such short notice? I think the way it would work is with some nifty legal paperwork in place, the reseller can then sell the watches as and when with a percentage of the sale price finding it's way back to Apple.
Apple will find a way to off load affected stock, even if it means shipping it out to countries abroad who wont be affected by the ban. I believe the specifics of the ban only refer to import of the watches in question, not exporting. Therefore Apple could export all the affected watches to Europe which is one of Apples most profitable regions for it's products.
Apple has probably imported boatloads of Apple Watch’s… Also, I am interested to see sales.. I think Apple is stalling because of all the free press.. People are probably buying in droves because of a “potential band” before the holidays.
This is going to come down to the last minute with a deal reached. Or new models with the sensor disabled
This is going to come down to the last minute with a deal reached. Or new models with the sensor disabled
Interesting, so what’s the ratio of top-line revenue to time in business, that a business is able to protect their IP?
I see it more as "so long as you earn enough money to engage the top lawyers to fight your case for you"....😛
Soooo wish I'd done this on my AW3, wouldn't be saddled with watchOS 8.8.1. Still at least I have an Ultra 2 to look forward to on Christmas morning.
I'm suspicious that the information we've been given is accurate. I understand that is the way Kiani is presenting it, but it simply can't be true. Maybe Tim Cook hasn't called him direct. It just seems impossible that someone at Apple has yet to suggest they send a basket of muffins and an iTunes gift card and call it a day, or some other equally absurd low ball offer. What is probably closer to reality and what has been suggested several times on MacRumors and other places is that Masimo has informed Apple they not interested in licensing the IP. What they want is to "work with them to improve their product", which probably means they want a supplier deal. If rumors are correct and they are asking for $100 a watch, that is bonkers. Apple regularly pays for IP, we just don't hear all the details because it is normal business and involves valuations that align with industry standards and normal practices. We only hear about it when it is something like this, where the patents validity is dubious or the patent holders valuation of the IP is so out of alignment with the business reality that there is no hope of the two companies coming to an agreement.
I'm not suggesting that Apple shouldn't be paying Masimo if they are using valid IP. One would think the smart move for Masimo would be to find a deal at a price that discourages Apple from creating a work around. Anyone should be able to see that this can only end in a few ways. Apple is going to win in appeals or get the veto. Apple is going to get a deal from Masimo that they can live with. Or they are going to implement a design change (ether software that Masimo can't argue with or hardware) that makes the patent claim irrelevant and Masimo won't get anything.
As for apple poaching his employees, that is crap. His employees are not his property or the property of the company. They are (or should be) free to take their experience and expertise and work for anyone they want. If there are laws or contracts they've violated then that is a separate issue that needs to be addressed. But any suggestion that is it somehow wrong for a person to leave a company and work for another company or that a company should not hire talented individuals based on past employment should be avoided. If you "don't have sympathy for big corporations stealing technology" I can't imagine you are on board with big corporations denying employees (or former) an opportunity to better their personal situations.
It might be a mistake to think of Masimo as a small company that is struggling to stay alive while titans of industry chop away at them. We are talking about a company that has a market cap of more than 6 billion and annual revenue above 2 billion. They are not Apple in terms of resources, but they are not running a GoFundMe campaign to fight off the big bads ether.
This is ridiculous. That patent should never have been issued, the technology was invented in the '70s.
From the outside, this seems like it would be a win-win situation. However, I think there is more going on than meets the eye. Masimo's stock has been up and down as the company has been handed some big wins and some big losses, including losing a proxy battle with investors over the summer and electing new board members. Their stock is trending up again but who knows for how long. Apple might be waiting them out to see who blinks first. Also, it's not clear that Apple stakeholders would be happy with a large settlement if there is still a chance the patents could be further invalidated (the broadest claims have already been invalidated, putting the patents on thin ice).
https://www.strata-gee.com/masimo-vs-apple-after-early-success-the-wind-shifts-and-its-a-foul-wind/
Well if the CEO is letting his heart rule his head then he is not a good CEO. Tim Cook never does, he knows his job is to run Apple and put his personal feelings aside.
My guess is Apple buying them isn't going to happen and will never happen.
I’m sure they have a plan for that — most likely a push to other retailers. I’m sure they had a contingency plan in place for quite a long time.
In that he pretty much farmed out his CEO duties to Tim Cook. Kinda like how Tony Stark put Pepper Potts in charge of running his company so he was free to run around playing iron man.
Tim cook is following Steve Jobs mantra. Good artists copy, great artists steal. Apple is the great artist!
Delegating things to more capable people seems like a pretty smart move to me. Jobs was a pretty bad person IMO, but as a CEO he seemed to have been really effective.
Rtings is in the business of reviewing and testing A/V equipment. Other publications, including MacRumors, picked up the story at the time. But most don’t have the in-house expertise and equipment to do the testing the Rtings did. It got plenty of attention at the time that it was news. It’s simply old news nowadays.
Not to mention, with Apple’s automatic updates for AirPods it’s quite difficult to get a hold of AirPods with older firmwares and keep them that way since they have a propensity to auto-update as soon as they are able to. This is part of the reason the complaints died down. Apple released the 2C54 firmware a mere month and a half after the initial launch. Anybody who bought AirPods Pro after that firmware update was released would’ve been silently, automatically updated and lost the better ANC soon after pairing them to a device. Most people who owned first generation AirPods Pros never even got to experience that firmware and how good the ANC was because the AirPods would have self-updated within minutes or hours of being unboxed and set up. And eventually, Apple just started shipping with newer firmware pre-installed, so you’d never have the chance to hear the good ANC even one time.
The debris/earwax/oils affecting the microphones isn’t the cause — or at least the entire cause — of the issue either. I got a pair of replacements under the Apple service program, and those ones brand new out of the box did not restore the original ANC because they were shipped with a newer, already-neutered firmware. I can tell you first-hand with my launch day AirPods Pro that the difference was noticeable. My spouse also tried the original launch day ones the day I got them. After trying the replacement ones more recently, they also noticed the significant reduction even though I said nothing about it. It was clearly noticeable without any bias or predisposition toward believing something has been changed.
People who never had launch day AirPods Pros have been doubting this reality since the day it was first reported. I had them, I experienced it, and there’s no reason to doubt anybody else who did. Rtings’ testing simply reaffirms what we all experienced first-hand. I just don’t understand why anyone continues to blindly come out to Apple’s unsolicited defense over the issue when even Apple themselves have never denied that they mucked with the ANC.
I’m far more likely to believe the thousands of launch day AirPods Pro owners who had the same experience I did over a company that only a couple years prior tried to cover up secretly slowing phones down when their batteries aged, rather than being upfront and admitting that they were doing this and why it was necessary to manage the limitations and lifespan of a component that naturally degrades with time and use. It’s far more believable that Apple secretly neutered ANC and refuses to admit it regardless of the reason: planned obsolescence, potential damage to the drivers, complaints about headaches and dizziness, or patent infringement avoidance.