or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Mac_128

The Watch is 12.2mm thick for the 38mm watch and 12.46mm thick for the 42mm. Apple does not include the the bottom sensor array in their measurements. This is verified in Apple's official schematics of the watch: https://developer.apple.com/watch/bands/Band-Design-Guidelines-for-Apple-Watch.pdf
And yet, rotating bezel watches have been around for years without any such issues. In fact, I can rest my right hand on top of my left hand and comfortably turn the bezel without ever covering the display too. And it works on either hand without having to change the design orientation of the watch. Too bad a left-hander who wants to wear the Watch the way it was designed to be worn, with the digital crown at the top right, won't be able to do that without covering the...
It's more than just that. High end jewelry store The Hourglass was selling the Watch on June 25.  http://www.thehourglass.com/apple-watch-edition-available-now/ Apple's actions speak louder than words, especially now that they are adding another high end jewelry store to the mix with London Jewelers. Could it be the slow roll out, and supply constraints that kept Apple from immediately jumping into bed with jewelry stores? They charge $17,000 (so far) for an Edition Watch...
Do you just enjoy spewing baseless propaganda? Or are you just that out of touch about a subject you seem particularly fixated on?http://forums.macrumors.com/threads/apple-watch-coming-to-london-jewelers.1908373/http://www.thehourglass.com/apple-watch-edition-available-now/http://www.londonjewelers.com
 I will at least commend you on your current selections of more representative photos of the smart watches you hate, rather than your previous intellectually disingenuous approach. Although a candid photo still doesn't look the same as in person, even for Apple. Funny how you chose the worst photo you could to make a subjective point from the exact same series of photos:  Taste is subjective, your transparent agenda is not.
I would go so far as to say the digital "smart" watch has been traditionally square from the beginning, starting with the first LED watches in the 70s. Who knows why. Since then square has typicaly been associated with digital and smart watches, and has also taken on a bit of a tech-geek reputation. Apple pretty much went down the path most travelled as far as the square shape. And it that sense it was brave considering how most square digital watches have been perceived...
So why then even offer a traditional round watch face at all? That's just tradition of how we kept track of time before the digital era. Nothing is easier than wondering what time it is and having a display tell you exactly using numbers, without having to look for hand positions as they relate to a round representation of time inside a square case.And since when has any Android licensee gotten anything right, much less the first time out of the box?
If Apple isn't competing with luxury watches, why charge $17K for the identical device in gold?You keep changing this mantra of yours that the Android-based watches are trying to pass themselves off as luxury watches. Has one of these companies officially stated that? You can buy a $100 Fossil that looks like a luxury watch, but that doesn't make it so, nor does it mean Fossil had any intention of competing with luxury brands.
 Exactly. People want what they want. Jony Ive has already acknowledged this with respect to wearables. If someone can devise a round watch UI that doesn't compromise the information people want from it, then there's no reason not to wear one. Moreover, Watch is a fashion item as Apple has laboriously highlighted in its marketing. Many fashion items, including clothing are often incredibly impractical, yet it doesn't stop them from being widely worn. Frankly, I just don't...
New Posts  All Forums: