AUPU's ARCHIDEX 2025 Triumph: Redefining Home Comfort in SE Asia
AUPU's ARCHIDEX 2025 Triumph: Redefining Home Comfort in SE Asia
The brand's success hinges on three key pillars: functionality, wellness, and localization. Take the Beauty Fan & Heater: beyond heating and ventilation, its integration of infrared therapy taps into rising consumer demand for 'wellness-at-home' solutions, blending utility with self-care—a trend resonating strongly across urban Southeast Asia.
In humid markets like Malaysia, the Cloth Dryer addressed a critical gap. Its ceiling-mounted design, UV sterilization, and rapid drying capabilities directly solve moisture-related challenges, aligning with local needs for space efficiency and hygiene. Attendees—from architects to homeowners—praised its ability to merge practicality with regional relevance, a hallmark of AUPU's market positioning.
The Central Kitchen Air Conditioner further demonstrated this approach. Traditional ACs struggle in kitchens due to grease and heat, but AUPU's specialized design—with targeted airflow and durable components—reimagines cooking spaces as comfortable, usable areas. This innovation reflects a deep understanding of how families live: kitchens aren't just for cooking; they're social hubs.
Technologically, AUPU's edge lies in seamless integration. AI-powered temperature regulation, motion-sensing ventilation, and smart energy management aren't add-ons—they're core to the user experience. These features don't just boost performance; they reduce operational hassle, a key differentiator in a crowded market.
Looking ahead, AUPU's upcoming Kuala Lumpur flagship store (S-01-05, D'Rapport Ampang) signals more than expansion—it's a commitment to accessibility. By moving from exhibition halls to a physical retail hub, the brand bridges the gap between innovation and adoption, making premium comfort tech tangible for Malaysian households.
In short, ARCHIDEX 2025 wasn't just a win for AUPU—it was proof that home comfort, when rooted in local needs and smart tech, can redefine how we live.
Hashtag: #AUPU
The issuer is solely responsible for the content of this announcement.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Entrepreneur
2 hours ago
- Entrepreneur
4 Signs It's Time to Abandon Your Patent
How to make smart, strategic calls on when to abandon patents — and why doing so is essential to long-term innovation and budget health Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own. Patents are often filed early, before a startup knows what the market really wants. That's smart, but it comes with a challenge: Not every idea turns out to be worth protecting. Markets shift. Products pivot. And eventually, founders ask: Should we keep paying for this patent or cut our losses? It's a tough call. Abandoning a patent midway can feel like giving up. But continuing just because you've already spent money? That's the sunk cost trap, and it quietly drains your budget. Many startups keep prosecuting every idea, paying rejections, annuities and attorney fees. But a smart IP strategy means knowing what to keep and what to walk away from. Here's how to make that call strategically. Related: How to Identify the Patent-Worthy Innovations in Your Business Built-in checkpoints in patent lifecycle — use them Roughly, you can split a patent's entire lifecycle cost into three parts. The first third goes to drafting the application, another third is for arguing the patent through issuance, and the final third covers patent maintenance fees for the next 20+ years. In a way, these financial checkpoints are decision checkpoints, too. When drafting, consider whether the invention aligns with your core business or is just a side experiment that may never get to market. During prosecution, evaluate whether it's still worth the legal wrangling, as each round of argument is costly. And when renewal fees come due, ask if the patent still supports your product, blocks competitors or adds leverage against others in the market. Unfortunately, many startups treat these pivotal stages as administrative formalities. Instead of evaluating whether continued investment is justified at each stage, many companies default to pushing forward — whether by extending prosecution unnecessarily, filing continuations without a clear purpose, or simply paying maintenance fees — without assessing strategic alignment. That's how portfolios get bloated with low-impact patents. The only solution here is patent pruning: Abandon some patent filings at the right checkpoints. Related: Don't Let Patent Costs Crush Your Startup — Here's How to Protect Your IP Without Breaking the Bank What are the signs that it's time to abandon a patent? Every dollar spent defending or maintaining a weak patent is a dollar not spent protecting something truly valuable. Therefore, you must look for the signs at different checkpoints to spot a patent to discard. Here are some signs to look for: 1. No market validation A patent is only valuable if the protected product actually sells. If your invention fails to gain customer traction, the patent will be a failure. Experts emphasize focusing on "high-impact" problems with real demand. Without that market pull, even a granted patent is a dead weight. For example, Google Glass — once hyped as the future of AR eyewear — never found a viable consumer market. It was pulled from sale in 2015 (and again in 2023) due to poor adoption, illustrating how patents tied to unvalidated products offer no return. 2. Shifting industry direction Industries evolve, and a patent can lose value if the tech horizon moves on. In practice, companies are advised to ask whether their invention still aligns with "the target industry and market." If adjacent innovations eclipse your solution (for example, cloud services replacing old networking hardware), the patent's relevance vanishes. In that scenario, it makes little sense to keep paying maintenance fees. Better to refocus on protections for innovations that fit the new direction of your field. 3. Prior art kills the novelty Sometimes, what initially feels like a breakthrough ends up being something others have already attempted or fully disclosed. If prior art eclipses your claims, the chances of securing meaningful protection drop significantly. At that point, even if you receive a patent, it may be so narrow that it offers little real-world value. Continuing to prosecute a case like this can quickly become a drain on time and legal budget. 4. Weak business use case Every patent in your portfolio should earn its keep through business impact or the potential to do so on your current roadmap. If it's not protecting a revenue-generating product, blocking a competitor or supporting licensing efforts, its value is questionable. Startups often hang on to patents without a clear path to monetization or strategic use. But unless a patent strengthens your market position or serves a legal or commercial purpose, it's just another expense on the books. To actively prune your patent portfolio, just looking for signs isn't enough. As the portfolio grows, you need a deliberate, repeatable process for patent abandonment assessment. Build a patent pruning system: Health checks and ranking framework An effective patent pruning system should take two things into consideration: 1) lifecycle stage and 2) multiple perspectives. For the first one, you want to start by ranking each patent across key lifecycle stages: At the idea stage : Is this innovation aligned with your product roadmap or market differentiation? Post-filing : Has the landscape shifted? Is the application still strategically relevant? Pre-renewal: Is the granted patent still supporting revenue, blocking competitors or enhancing leverage? The higher a patent scores at a certain stage, the more you want to invest in it. Please note that not only your legal counsel team but also others, such as product, technology, marketing and finance, must contribute to this ranking system, as pruning cannot be undone. The goal is to ensure that patents are evaluated through a business lens, not just a legal one. Consider using patent management tools that provide full portfolio visibility and enable seamless collaboration as part of your patent pruning process. Related: 4 Surprising Patent Myths That Could Cost You Big — What You Need to Know Now Pruning a patent portfolio isn't just about saving money; it's about fueling what's next with the reclaimed budget. In 2020, IBM stepped back from chasing patent volume. "We're no longer pursuing patent leadership," they said. "We're being more selective." The result? Fewer filings, stronger focus and more investment in high-growth areas like AI and quantum computing. That's the lesson: Pruning isn't cutting back. It's reallocating toward where your business is growing. Because IP should follow your future, not fund your past.
The Verge
2 hours ago
- The Verge
Apple's Liquid Glass redesign is shaping up to be a snoozer on Macs
Apple's macOS Tahoe 26 public beta is finally available, and with it the same Liquid Glass design language that's coming to the rest of Apple's operating systems. It's a simultaneously weird yet milquetoast update. I've been testing the developer beta on an M4 MacBook Air since WWDC in June, and after using it through to the latest dev beta release (which is similar to the public one), I've had some ups and downs. But, frankly, it's mostly been a lot of 'meh.' My first 24 hours with the first Tahoe developer beta left me baffled by Liquid Glass (with Windows Vista comparisons abounding), but I conceded that the design might grow on me. Instead, I've grown to mostly ignore it. The translucency has been ever-so-slightly toned down to a frosted look (though Apple's tweaks continue). I do think it's slightly improved over the first dev beta, but not as good as the outgoing macOS Sequoia. I bet most people, whether trying the public beta for Tahoe or waiting on the full release in the fall, will upgrade and think, 'This is fine.' And they won't be wrong. But Sequoia's flatter, simpler design felt cleaner and more purposeful — and every time I see or use a Mac that's not on the beta I want to go back. Liquid Glass feels desperate, like Apple was fishing for ways to freshen things up for the sake of doing something different. Hey, everybody, look at the shiny new UI! No, don't pay attention to how underwhelming Apple Intelligence still feels, despite the endless overselling in TV ads. The major advantage of a Mac is that here the Liquid Glass-ification feels less obtrusive since there's so much more room to breathe. I'm relieved Apple made Control Center more opaque since the unparseable initial take on the Control Center in the first dev beta, especially on the iPhone or iPad, where it's inescapable. But I don't care what they do with Control Center on the Mac, because I never use it. Every time I see or use a Mac that's not on the beta I want to go back On a Mac, Control Center is just one of a few places you can access settings like Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, screen brightness, and audio volume. That's the beauty of a desktop operating system; you have tons of options for doing things, including Apple's odd iOS-ification of macOS starting in Big Sur, and you can use them how you like. And that includes dedicated keyboard keys for functions like media playback and brightness settings. But even though Apple is improving Liquid Glass a little, it's still making choices I find odd or out of place. The Menu Bar remains invisible by default, as in the first dev beta, but it can once again be given a background like the old way (and without resorting to killing all transparencies in the accessibility settings). However, when you use Show Desktop and clear all your windows to the side (either with a four-finger trackpad swipe or by clicking the wallpaper), the Menu Bar has a shadow-like outline beneath it, even with the Menu Bar fully transparent. It's functional, to show the borders of the desktop while your windows are temporarily hidden, but it's weird for something invisible to look like it's casting a shadow. The popup in the top right corner showing when you adjust volume or brightness via the keyboard still feels too high up and disconnected from your physical input. It doesn't look quite as ugly as it did on the first dev beta, but the old, center-aligned popup near the bottom of the screen always felt nicely anchored (it's also how macOS worked for as far back as I remember using it). I hope Apple continues to tweak and refine Liquid Glass, but for now I'm just letting its mediocrity wash over me. I barely pay attention to it now. It's glass, after all; something in real life designed to be invisible and inoffensive — something to look beyond. The parts of macOS Tahoe that I find most useful and important are the updates to Spotlight and the inclusion of a fully baked Phone app via your iPhone. The latter is quite simple: the dedicated Phone app allows you to take and make calls on your Mac without having to touch your phone. In the past you could field an incoming call on your Mac, but now you get a full app that works just like it does on iOS, complete with the ability to listen to voicemail and dial numbers via your keyboard if you're inclined (and actually have phone numbers memorized). It's helped me be slightly less procrastination-prone in calling doctors' offices, contractors, and other businesses while not fully detaching myself from my work. Normally, I'd push those essential calls off, and then next thing you know it's well past 5PM and they're closed for the day. The Spotlight updates are best for the Shortcuts sickos. And, candidly, that ain't me. On a PC, I frequently use the Windows key to search and open apps, but on Macs I've never used Spotlight that much. But the new features in Tahoe are getting me to dabble. I appreciate the clipboard history most. I'm slowly building muscle memory for the Command + Space and Command + 4 sequence, which calls up the clipboard history. I've read that Raycast is more fully featured than Tahoe's Spotlight; e.g., Spotlight's clipboard history only shows things you copied in the last eight hours, where Raycast's history can span up to three months or indefinitely if you pin them. I know Raycast and other dedicated application launchers can do more detailed and intricate tasks, but the improved Spotlight and clipboard are good enough for me — for now, at least. I imagine Apple may slowly flesh out these features over time, and that might be a healthy on-ramp for the power user-curious. I'd like the clipboard history to get a touch more robust by the time of Tahoe's full release in the fall. However, Apple is likely to not be as freewheeling as an app like Raycast, since one person's expansive clipboard history is another person's privacy nightmare — likely the reason for the eight-hour time limit. Now that the public beta is out, many more people will be able to try out Tahoe and see what they think of Liquid Glass. Thankfully, outright performance seems normal now, after battery life took an initial nosedive in the first dev betas. But anyone interested in dabbling should be aware that there are bound to be bugs in a beta — especially with third-party apps. I've noticed Signal and some Adobe apps acting up when displaying lots of white, temporarily looking like washed-out gray (though it's not visible in saved files or screenshots, and some Lightroom Classic tools like cropping and the auto white balance eyedropper work fine but don't always get picked up by your cursor). If you rely on a single Mac for your everyday work, I'd wait until the full release in the fall to get your first taste of Liquid Glass. A fresh design for a major operating system can feel invigorating, but for Macs and Tahoe it's a snoozefest for now. Posts from this author will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All by Antonio G. Di Benedetto Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Analysis Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Apple Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Gadgets Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Laptops Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All macOS Posts from this topic will be added to your daily email digest and your homepage feed. See All Tech
Forbes
4 hours ago
- Forbes
Regulated But Not Restricted: Software Transformation Despite Compliance Barriers
In highly regulated industries, innovation is stuck in the past, running on 1990s-era technology wrapped in a 2020s coat of paint. In 2011, Marc Andreessen declared that software is eating the world. By 2023, Shyam Sankar observed that software had already eaten the world. But now, the question is: Is the world eating software? Software has become ubiquitous, as cloud, mobile, data, artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT) have fused into everyday life. But while software transformation is advancing at a breakneck pace when it comes to the mundane, it's stalling out in highly regulated industries like healthcare and finance, those that could benefit from progress the most. The average American interacts with software daily, almost hourly. Fitness trackers have evolved into medical devices, self-driving cars are rewriting mobility, and AI copilots are reshaping how we work. Software is no longer just eating the world—it is being consumed, regulated, and embedded into critical, real-world infrastructure. Yet, in highly regulated industries, innovation remains stuck in the past, running on 1990s-era technology wrapped in a 2020s coat of paint. Compliance constraints have slowed adoption, leaving industries like defense, finance, and healthcare struggling to integrate modern software-driven value into their core operations. Finding a productive way forward requires keeping the intent of regulation alive while making adjustments as needed. Enabling Software Transformation in Regulated Industries When faced with compliance barriers, most organizations take one of two counterproductive approaches: They either give up, assuming regulations make modern software practices impossible, or they try to shoehorn modern practices into legacy compliance frameworks. Instead of settling for 'no,' it can be beneficial to reframe the problem as 'yes, if.' What has to change for the desired outcome to be achieved? When it comes to outdated policies, it's sometimes possible to identify strategic modifications that maintain the intent of compliance while enabling progress. Regulatory frameworks are designed to protect against specific risks—for example, data protection laws safeguard consumer privacy. They're not meant to stifle innovation. If it's possible to make a business case for an exception, it may be possible to make a change. By addressing underlying concerns instead of mindlessly following outdated rules, transformation may be possible. Of course, there are limitations. While regulatory structures can be reframed, they can't be ignored completely. If you're an auto manufacturer, you build your cars to fit existing infrastructure—the roads and highways already available. You don't build a car that's so big and unwieldy, it doesn't fit on the road, and then insist to the government that the roads should be wider. In the same way, regulated industries must focus on being fit for purpose as they innovate, rather than innovating for innovation's sake. Small Changes Can Mean Big Impact Ultimately, the question isn't whether software can transform highly regulated industries—it undoubtedly can. It's whether these industries, given their regulatory constraints, can consume and adapt to software at the speed of relevance. The world demands trustworthy, scalable, and compliant platforms, but are we truly prepared for the next wave of software-driven transformation? Until we find ways for highly regulated industries to innovate more freely, software transformation will stagnate in these areas, meaning untapped potential and missed opportunities for security, efficiency, and potentially life-saving innovations.
