or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hillstones

If you only need the time, no one would buy an Apple Watch.  So your attempt at justifying the lousy battery life is just sad because no one would use it just for the time.  That is why they wear a regular watch that has a battery life for years, or carry their phone.  But now you can look like a total douche with your iPhone, an Apple Watch, and an external battery pack to keep the dumb watch powered up for a day.  I bet you will invest in more cargo shorts to handle all...
You keep believing in that fantasy.  Just because they signed on, doesn't mean they will ever offer it.  I don't know of any of the auto makers that claimed they would do it have it available.  Honda claimed the 2014 Civic would be the first to have CarPlay with their new DisplayAudio stereo.  Apple even used the Civic dash as a promotional photo.  2014 came and went, no CarPlay.  Even the 2015 models have no CarPlay and Honda has no idea when CarPlay would be available....
So now you have to buy an adapter to plug in your printer, or monitor, or backup drive and still have your new laptop powered or charging?  That would be a NECESSARY adapter and Apple now charges extra for it.  Pretty shitty on their part.  People hardly use ports?  Are you high?  USB flash drives, printers, power, USB devices like iPhones, iPads, iPods.  In your dream world, none are required?  So you want people to pull power every time they want to plug something in?...
An iPhone and iPad do not require daily recharging. With daily use, my iPad lasts a week. My iPhone, half of a week. The Apple watch...can't last a full day. But Apple will gladly take a fool's money. Just wait until the Apple watch is a year old with half the charging capacity from that tiny battery. Then you'll hear people bitch and complain.
Incorrect. Cook clearly said an iPhone is REQUIRED. Watch it again. Hop over to ArsTech and read the article explaining that the iPhone handles all the processing for the watch. This was based on the review of the SDK. The watch would even run faster with an iPhone 6 compared to a slower iPhone 5 because the 6 could run the apps faster. The watch is just a sub display for the phone. It is a $350 brick without an iPhone.
Amazing how you people have no idea how the watch works. The watch does nothing without an iPhone. Even Apple Pay doesn't work because the phone processes all functions, including payments. Read something other than AppleInsider and you might actually learn something.
Using two hands to pay with the watch is faster than one hand with an iPhone? Yeah, keep believing that. Apple will gladly take your money with that false statement.
Wasting $349+ for a duplicate device is what many people see. The smart watch market is a dead one. I can pay with the iPhone using one hand. The watch requires two hands to pay. One to hold the watch over the reader and the other to double-press the side button. That's supposed to be faster? People buying beer at a stadium will have to put their beer down to pay. They won't like that. Of course the watch battery will be dead by the evening sports game.
Hello? Are you not paying attention? The watch does nothing without being tethered to an iPhone. The NFC chip in the watch only allows older iPhones to make payments. The iPhone is required to make the transaction with the cellular signal. The watch will never do it alone, ever. People can pay just as quickly with their iPhone. The watch will not make a transaction faster.
Here is a good article on what iPhoto can do, but Photos for OS X cannot do.  Typical Apple behavior...removing existing features and then trying to claim it is better, when it really isn't.  At least you can continue to use iPhoto and Aperture with 10.10.3, and ignore Photos for OS X.   http://www.macworld.com/article/2893000/4-things-iphoto-can-do-that-photos-cant-yet.html
New Posts  All Forums: