I disagree with your assertion that Masimo has the money to compete. Apple's upside to employing these folks to build the tech into the Apple Watch is FAR, FAR greater than Masimo's potential sales growth for existing pulse ox devices (or patent licenses). With Apple Watches being licensed as medical devices for ECG & pulse ox, this gives clinicians even more reason to leverage them with patients for convenient 24/7 home monitoring. It's not the same market Masimo is serving, at all.
I specifically did not address any of the corporate competitive dynamics, although it is worth noting that this is more of an existential issue for Masimo than Apple.
My core point is is that Masimo has far more than enough money to pay strategic employees enough money to keep them. Again, I doubt they would have to go as high as $5m/year for each of the relevant engineers. Masimo could spend that without making a major dent in their finances.
Could Apple up the ante and make offers of $5B/yr to each engineer? Sure, but we are likely talking about the difference between Masimo offering $150k and Apple offering $500k. These are numbers any public company can afford.
This product WAS generally marketed to the healthcare field, not to people directly.
It was literally described in the page you referenced: "Arm your patients with continuous measurements in a comfortable, lifestyle-friendly
wearable—helping you deliver a true telemonitoring experience."
> automates the collection of clinically accurate measurements to help support: -Post-surgical recovery -Chronic care -Patient management
I say "was" because it was possible to buy it as a consumer, but there's still no direct competition, as:
"Please note that all Masimo consumer products have been discontinued. These include:
I posted this above, but in new Lexus RX models at least, the Lexus vehicle management software trumps the AA interface so you're forced to setup their mobile app if you want to use AA (for things like navigation).
On a related note, the Bluetooth stack in my F150 doesn't work very well with phone calls. I can place calls fine, but receiving calls will not route them through vehicle audio. I have to turn on speaker phone to participate. It's a known problem "won't fix" from Ford, regardless of the fact that they've sold millions of these trucks (mine is a 2017 and has never worked).
That sounds like sync 3.. there was a known problem with Bluetooth connectivity but there was a fairly easy way to fix it. I cannot remember but I will look at my ford vehicle tonight for what I did
They want their hands on that juicy data that Google and apple are getting. It's why GMC opted to make their own instead, and why you have to jump through their hoops first.
I recently had a similarly unfriendly experience in my inlaws' new Lexus, which has an accompanying mobile app for vehicle management and some advanced setup features. How did we learn about this almost completely required app & mobile setup process? If you start driving with Google Maps via Android Auto it will terminate the AA interface after a few minute and replace it with a nag screen about setting up the Lexus mobile software. There is no alternative but to comply.
I bought a 2020 car recently. It comes with Android Auto, whereas previously I'd just mount my phone to the dashboard. But with Android Auto, every time the voice gives out a navigation instruction, music playing from the infotainment is paused; in my previous car the voice would play from my phone, on top of the music coming out of the car's sound system.
So I've ordered a mount so I can mount my phone to the car again...
Oh, I agree that it's infuriating, frustrating and disappointing. My US-based stance is that, while there have been some encouraging developments on the right-to-repair front, more generally the rollback/demonization of regulations, de-fanging of CFPB et al all project a future where this sort of behavior is the norm for an ever increasing number of "critical" devices and we have no recourse. So, I think we have to be ready to vote with our dollars and reject these options, bend these devices to our will when it's possible and work around them when it's not.
What I wonder is what this means for Coreweave, Lambda and the rest, who are essentially just renting out fleets of racks like this. Does it ultimately result in acquisition by a larger player? Severe loss of demand? Can they even sell enough to cover the capex costs?
I wouldn't even necessarily give one to anybody. If you're looking for a job just point to this block post in your resume/site and that's equally impressive.
Giving the actual card though leaves a feeling of guilt... sort of like those old surveys you would receive in the mail, with a $1 bill included. A hyperlink is forgettable.
Fwiw, I was hired by Google in 2015 to help answer questions like "if Google were to add a CRM to the GSuite portfolio, should they build one, buy one or partner with key players". My team's charter was to create business cases with various options and run them up to chain (at the time, Prabhakar was running product for "Google for Work"). On more than one occasion we presented cases with 3 year ROIs in the $xxxM range and were shot down every time with a "too small" comment. A couple years later, Google had partnered with Copper CRM and supported extension builds into Workspace/GSuite, but had also begun a major enterprise rationalization project to consolidate a multitude of Salesforce instances into a single one, at the same time as adopting standard enterprise features & processes of Anaplan.
This led to consolidation of a number of back office IT teams that ultimately ended up with far more enforcement clout than they'd historically had. By the time Ruth changed roles, most of the "normal" business processes had been fairly standardized. Fwiw, the Cloud instance of SFDC, which is by far the most complex & customized, has been in full use for almost five years now and is the canonical source of truth for sales data.
I wonder if the Cloud SFDC is the one that was compromised. It's a little telling Google didn't go into details about which arm of the octopus got attacked (or if they did, I didn't see that reporting yet... Unless Cloud is the implied victim because the description of the attack showed up on the Cloud blog).
I feel you about the ROI. In hindsight, it's a little funny to me that Salesforce is doing revenue numbers a little under half of Google Cloud; you'd think that would be large enough value to get Google interested in biting into that pie.
I'm surprised Google could get away with only a single SFDC instance. AWS has multiple SFDC installations and is forever having to deal with "Oh, yeah, that data is in this other SFDC installation"
Yeah, they have the world class Salesforce engineers there. One of Google's Salesforce's last tech leads wound up becoming the Director of the proprietary Salesforce language Apex.
The floor plan tool isn't really in house. It's just an extension of the industry standard real estate management platform they use Tririga (https://www.ibm.com/products/tririga) ... in the same way that go/teams in just an custom visualization of a standard employee directory.
You might be surprised how much of what runs Google (Anaplan, for example, for XWS) is fairly industry standard.
Not necessarily manufacturing. I led a Microsoft takeout at Sanmina (global high-tech contract mfr) all the way back in 2008-2009, and the result was 23,000 users moving to GSuite and mostly just Legal & Finance keeping Office as a fall-back only if LibreOffice wasn't sufficient. At the same time, several thousand Windows laptops were replaced with Chromebooks, and nearly all non-engineering workstations were replaced with ChromeOS devices or thin clients.
What I wonder (and possibly someone here can comment) is whether Google (or MSFT) are using the same commercially available tools for LLM-augmented coding as we see, or if the internal tooling is different?
