or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by auxio

 Google has convinced people that software and hardware is worth nothing with their business model.  As someone trying to make a living off of creating technology and selling it as a product in it's own right, and has no interest in being involved in the advertising industry (or commoditizing user data), I simply don't want to support this model.  Apple is doing the same and I applaud them for it. The TV/entertainment industry is finally starting to go in the other...
 I'll one up you and say that Apple is going to not only register a religion but also declare their own state in Cupertino (hence the new campus).
 I'm astounded no one came up with such a simple and intuitive means of watch control until then.  Truly on another plane of thinking Samsung is.
And what you're saying is, if I have an audio mixing board with a big knob that controls the volume on the face, and a small knob that controls the volume on the side, they are nothing like each other.
 I'm trying to understand how rotating a round object that's facing you in order to cycle through items is hardly similar to/nothing like rotating a smaller round object that's perpendicular to you in order to do the same.  The only differences are the angle and size of the object you're rotating. I'm not saying that Apple has any reason to sue over this since, as you pointed out, there's nothing really new here.  I'm just saying that it's essentially the same style of...
 And if the only purpose of these products was to look at them side-by-side in a museum, I'd agree.  However, there is a functional element here that you're glossing over: the purpose of the rotation is to change the selected item.  And in that regard, they are very much the same. EDIT: I changed "selected app" to "selected item" since I later realized that rotating the crown on the home screen of an Apple Watch just zooms into the app in the centre of the display rather...
 And if we really break things down, that statement is completely irrelevant to the point I was making.  You originally said: My argument (via sarcasm) was against the idea that it's "nothing like Apple's".  Using a rotating bezel to manipulate selection is very similar to rotating a crown.  The fact that both of these are based on existing watch controls doesn't change the fact that saying they are nothing like each other is plain wrong.
 Which is absolutely nothing like using a rotating crown. /s But seriously, I do think it's different enough that Apple probably won't have a case against it.  Even though I definitely believe that the look of that app selection screen is very much inspired by/mimicing the Apple Watch. Also, the problem with rotating the bezel to select rather than a crown is that you're going to end up covering part of the watch face with your hand at times during rotating.  Unless the...
 In a truly free market, wouldn't it be up to the media source to decide whether to disclose their funding sources?  If not, then you would need a law in place in order to force them to disclose, which is no longer free market since companies which don't want to disclose aren't allowed to be part of the market.  Obviously individuals like yourself can ask them to disclose, and can choose not to view media sources which don't, but they're in no way obligated to do so in a...
Did you completely skip over the first half dozen or so posts in this thread?  That's my point.  If you took the time to follow the discussion, you'd realize I'm on the same side as you.
New Posts  All Forums: