or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by wigby

Maybe you're right but I was under the impression that the apps would run better and faster but that's because there would be less wireless handoff from phone to watch required. But since the processing would all be done on the watch, I would think that battery would only suffer more.
Right now battery life is great but that will change as soon as we all start relying on power-hungry native watch apps. And even that power consumption is nothing compared to 4G which is exactly where Apple is heading with the watch in a of 2-3 years.
Apple Watch 2 will be released in the spring of 2016. There are too many internal improvements already made to wait an extra year. Besides, didn't we all just decide that version 1 is good enough for now but what we all really want is version 2 as soon as possible? I know i'll be buying another one as soon as it's released.
So your only gripe with "wireless charging" is simply the name. I'm not saying wireless charging is going to be the charging savior we all want but I've had my share of dirty and broken charging contacts inside iPhones and on most every lightning connector too. I wouldn't mind a contactless charging system that delivered charging speeds that matched current charging speeds, especially if it could be implemented into the latest iPhone with minimal engineering and design...
I think this is partly Apple's way of telling us they intend to keep 16GB low end size for one more year. The 16GB, 64GB and 128GB sizing/pricing was hugely successful for them last year because most chose the 64GB thinking they were paying the same and getting more when they were really just getting what they should for that fair market price of flash RAM that Apple themselves set. It allows more wiggle room for Apple to price cleverly this September and the following...
another "rubbish" everyone take a drink.
Average is the standard by mathematical definition. Substandard would be rubbish.
It's not that no one cares, it's that no one cares about people that say they can hear the difference. And most importantly, Apple doesn't care. They love music so much they would prefer audio snobs subscribe to a different service better suited to their ears. I'm not criticizing you/them because I'm a video snob and understand that no one wants to hear me go on about how sensitive and great my eyes are and how 1080p doesn't cut it compared to 4k, HDR and uncompressed video.
I think it might be a matter of degrees. Every company has data on you in some form if you're a customer. But Apple has less mined data than most service-oriented tech companies and that means less data residing on servers that could be stolen and less data being sold and used by advertisers.    We know there are no absolutes in security and privacy. Apple's just trying to clarify their position as closer to absolutely secure than Google and others.
If it's anything like Sirius XM, then it's standard. These artists are lending their name and exclusive stamp of approval on new music playlists or stations for Apple. Right now, the hottest artists are worth much more than $19 million because it's not about the music as much as it's about the endorsement. Same thing with Nike shoes. Do you really think all star athletes and customers really care about footwear that much? It's all about name co-branding.
New Posts  All Forums: