or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Mac_128

It's amazing that the telephone was so popular, considering for over 100 years people had to hold an often heavy receiver up to their ear with their arm. There is absolutely no difference in holding a handset up to ones head and holding a watch up at that level -- indeed the watch weighs much lass than a princess phone handset of days past.I'm also wondering if anybody criticisms this particular problem has ever had a FaceTime conversation with an iPad ... I have them all...
You know Taylor Swift owns her own label, right? So Apple is paying all the other labels but just not Swift?
Why is it being assumed that anyone would want to do anything significant on an Watch, phone call, FaceTime, text, game, et al.?FaceTime would be included for the same reasons they allow phone calls to be received and made -- not so you can chat for an hour with your Aunt Martha -- there's only 3 hours of continuous talk time on the watch. It's there for one reason-- convenience. And nothing's more convenient than answering a FaceTime call without having to dig out your...
I had thought about using the watch without straps, just as a thing in my pocket; but without wearing it, not only do you lose the benefits of fitness tracking, but you also lose wrist authentication for Pay and notifications. Seems pointless. Then again, Tom Ford doesn't need to get his money's worth out of anything. It's a glowing endorsement from a fashion luminary though ...
I don't really see Apple and FitBit as competitors at all. Yes the Watch offers fitness tracking, but in a premium product that not everyone wants or needs. There's no question the Watch is worth the price, and the additional amount above the cost of a FitBit is justified. However, many people aren't interested in spending that much money for a fitness tracker, especially if they aren't interested in anything else. As long as FitBit sells the majority of their products...
Im actually surprised he didn't do that at the developer's conference to pump up the watch developer's enthusiasm. But even if he doesn't, and Apple doesn't break it out in their reports, there's no real hiding the revenue, since it's the only new product added to a pre-existing category with a predictable track history this quarter.
Very good point. I wonder if these manufacturers will now have to ship "display" models with the brand name presented on them somehow?  With shoes, it's right there on the heel cushion. Oh well, Apple's going to eliminate a bunch of them anyway, so they may have sections like a department store, where there will be a Belkin area, and so forth (like Calvin Klien, etc). So very classy! ;-)
It strikes me as the way shoes are displayed at high end stores, and folded shirts are often presented just this way. And yes, the prices are hard to find. But you know the old saying -- "if you have to ask..." I wonder if this explains why the Watch didn't appear in stores until now ... they were waiting to make the stores more presentable for the watch!
If I were Monster I would not be claiming having anything to do with Beats. The reality is that Beats wouldn't be worth a dime without the marketing efforts and celebrity of Iovine and Dre. This can only be bad press for Monster.
I think that's the entire basis behind Apple' MFi program.A $29 Apple dongle is not necessarily any better than a $10 one, sold by a company who wants to make a quality product so customers continue to buy from them. The $10 one just doesn't pay a substantial license fee to Apple for the privilege of associating their brand with Apple, which is designed to suggest to the customer the product is superior to any other on the market.
New Posts  All Forums: