or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › With Android Wear, Google fires first shot in hardware war against Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

With Android Wear, Google fires first shot in hardware war against Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 138
When it comes to design, Apple has nothing to worry about.
post #42 of 138

A few key points the article doesn't address:

 

1. Any device made by any company other than Google/Motorola is very likely to be iOS compatible as well as Android compatible. Why would Samsung, LG, or Sony make a peripheral that works only with a small percentage of the Android market (phones and tablets running Android 4.3 and up, currently 12.1%), while ignoring the much larger--and likely more profitable--iOS market (iPhone 4S and newer)? Maybe a Sony watch will follow the Android Wear protocol standards and thus integrate directly with the Android OS, but only support a Sony-watch app on iOS, but that might be more than good enough for many users. Just look at FitBit.

 

2. An iWatch doesn't add to the convergence of the iPhone or iPad. It's not disruptive to an existing market. It's just another peripheral. It doesn't bring much of anything unique to the table. It might be able to collect some biometric data, but a  less complex non-interactive ring, necklace, or bracelet could do the same thing, for a lower cost, along with fewer constraints on its fashion design. The second display that an iWatch would provide adds little value to the typical user compared to the iPhone's larger screen. The iPhone already provides vibration and sound. Because of this, I seriously doubt that Apple has any plans to introduce an iWatch. They may well team with major fashion houses to introduce trendy iJewelry. Given how often and quickly fashion changes, annual new models of iJewelry that capture the latest fashion trends (while providing little or no additional functionality over existing models) could prove quite lucrative for Apple.

 

3. It's generally accepted that a smartphone is hard to read in bright daylight. I suspect that users will be far less forgiving of a smart watch. People are accustomed to watches being easily readable in sunlight. Samsung's very best OLED technology is still far short of that expectation. As a result, I predict that smart watches will be rejected by consumers.

post #43 of 138
Well all this is speculation that Apple are making a "watch" and will again invigorate an existing industry/category.

Though I'm certain Apple will not mention the word "watch" at all. It also will not be solely about notifications or doing stuff that your phone already does. Currently all smart watches offer nothing new that a smart phone already does.

The questions aren't, what will the interface be? What will the design be? How will I reply to a message? YAWN.

But...

What are the benefits of a device that is always touching your skin?
How would you get people to wear such a device?
How would it be fashionable?
What relationship can electronics and the human body have together?
If it is about Health... why are Apple doing this? What does this say about Apple for the next 10 years?

Remember, the iPod when first advertised wasn't about its features or its power. It was people listening to music and dancing. That's it.

I recommend watching the "make it wearables" videos on Creators Project... interesting ideas brewing there.
post #44 of 138

What's the purpose of the round face? They say in the add that square is boring or something and they are bringing the circle back.

 

The circle serves a purpose for a 12 o'clock dial.

 

Square is fine. 

 

My bet is Apple goes square for functionality. Everything the have made is square.

 

P

post #45 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClemyNX View Post

'Et tu'
Doesn't means thing in French. It should be
'et toi'

What does French have to do with anything?

It's Latin (as someone else posted).

post #46 of 138

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #47 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfisher View Post

What's the purpose of the round face? They say in the add that square is boring or something and they are bringing the circle back.

The circle serves a purpose for a 12 o'clock dial.

Square is fine. 

My bet is Apple goes square for functionality. Everything the have made is square.

P

Round is fashionable for watch faces and other jewelry worn on the wrist. I hope that Apple goes with a round face.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #48 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

When it comes to design, Apple has nothing to worry about.

So true...it reminds me of MS desktop pictures that would ship with Windows. They were sort of good, i.e., bluey and kind of pretty but lacked the taste of Apple. Thinly disguised crap. And when you got into the OS's SW....ugh!

 

Google can copy the "chamfered" edges, thin fonts and pretty backgrounds, but it's so obvious that it's a copy. A poor copy at that. The watch is too thick! Hello!  :)

 

So far, Samsung, Sony, HP, MS, Nokia, BB, Google/Moto have produced crappy, Googley/Androidy/Windozy guff! :)

 

P.S. Did anyone see my letter to the editor in this month's MacWorld (April 2014) "Photo Power-CLH126?" It's me! I've been "published!" Yepeeeeeee! :)

post #49 of 138
Originally Posted by WS11 View Post

[£85 for what amounts to a wallpaper]

 

Great going, Android.

 

And being only a surrogate device for your phone doesn’t cut it. Half this stuff becomes useless without one.

 
[one word at a time e-mail]

 

That’s absolutely horrible for processing and comprehension.

 
[notification animation]

 

I like this, though. That’s what a watch should do. ‘Course you’d need it to make a noise to get people to notice it.

 
[game] 

 

It’s a watch, for heaven’s sake. Your entire finger covers the screen. Unplayable.

 
[time-based weather] 

 

Cute. Again, an actual WATCH feature. Makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #50 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

First shot?
Wasn't the first shot years ago? Apple & Samsung have both been making hardware for quite a while.

And Google Jumped The Gun AGAIN like THIS ?


lol.giflol.giflol.gif





post #51 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I do! I want something that records biometrics and keeps track of them over a long period of time by periodically syncing with my iPhone which syncs with iCloud. I also want some basic features like telling the time, weather, and seeing the from of certain senders or message types via a vibration but only when a specific accelerometer and gyroscopic motion is observed by the device that tells it I'm lifting my wrist up in a certain way to read it. Most importantly, I want this wrist-worn device to know when it's been clasped to my wrist and when it's been removed so that it can be used with an iOS-based iDevice or Mac to allow for auto-locking/unlocking with the BT connection.

"You'll shoot your eye out, kid!"

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply

Why does Apple bashing and trolling make people feel so good?

Reply
post #52 of 138
So whatever happened to Google Buzz, Google Wave, or Google TV? That's right, nobody wanted them and Google had to shut down the projects.

The market for a $200 "smart watch" that requires a smartphone to function is very very small.
post #53 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS11 View Post

I'm also interested to see what automotive companies will do with smart watches.

BMW's i3 and Samsung's Galaxy Gear:

[images]

I'd like to see a car that will unlock when the BT of the watch gets close enough to initiate a secure handshake, but that also means it should be smart enough to disable this service if you remove the wrist-worn wearable. I can see some of the image's features being included but I think they go overboard with the features and therefore the complexity.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #54 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by waybacmac View Post
 

The more I read about this Google watch the more I am impressed with the concept and the more doubts I have about the actual product. The software interface that Google has created is stunning, but it is also the easy part. Touch screen, voice control (mic and speakers), dial illumination, activity monitoring…so many things to be powered. How? The watch is almost presented as a stand-alone device, but I imagine it will work in tandem with a smartphone, probably only ones with the newest version of Android. That might limit its initial usability. Bluetooth - another power requirement. The Motorola mockup watch faces give the impression there may be a real watch movement involved. How can they fit it all in the size of that mockup? Or are those watch faces just digital images? Again - power? And this is all going to come to market this summer? So many questions unanswered. Something just strikes me as wrong. I keep thinking of the old saying, "if its too good to be true…"

Its obvious that Google was working on this during the last year instead of a 64 bit version of Android, that will have to wait till 2015.

But I do think Google is serious about the Android Wear because the Announcement included get a SDK to developers within 6 months.

If Apple is going to announce a watch I think they will need to let developers start working on the SDK at this years WWDC in June,   Otherwise the iWatch might not happen this year.    The google watch is really about another way to expand "Ok Google Now" as an entry point to their services .   

post #55 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by K2kW View Post

Its obvious that Google was working on this during the last year instead of a 64 bit version of Android, that will have to wait till 2015.
But I do think Google is serious about the Android Wear because the Announcement included get a SDK to developers within 6 months.
If Apple is going to announce a watch I think they will need to let developers start working on the SDK at this years WWDC in June,   Otherwise the iWatch might not happen this year.    The google watch is really about another way to expand "Ok Google Now" as an entry point to their services .   

I would be more surprised if Apple did release an iWatch SDK. Google's goal here is advertising so they want HW vendors and 3rd-party app developers to think up all the ideas so they don't have to. This hasn't worked out too well for others in the past. It's just sloppy all around. I want a wearable for my wrist but I don't want a smartphone for my wrist. I want something with specific functions are as efficient as possible for the state-of-the-art. I want was is referred to as an appliance.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #56 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Round is fashionable for watch faces and other jewelry worn on the wrist. I hope that Apple goes with a round face.

They'll go with a straight face.
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #57 of 138

So many people here saying that wearable tech is pointless and will fail. You're clearly not in the right generation or target segment to desire this type of product. But I'm sure millions of consumers will want it, even though it might not be in the immediate future, but eventually.

post #58 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleaknik View Post

Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.

Do you want a wearable? If so... why?

Only if it is damage proof. I don't generally wear watches unless I go out somewhere because during my normal daily life I tend to get banged around a bit crawling under desks and reaching into tight spaces so I doubt I'd get one.

post #59 of 138
I see.. Google made a killing with Motorola .. So much so they dumped the company ! ! And all the phones they have made so far... Major block busters .. And the glasses are huge hit !
The author is so in tune with reality !
Oh ya and android! Such original game changing invention ... Shame on apple for knocking it off!

Right?
post #60 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post


IF Apple does announce a smartwatch, look for Android Wear to change direction very quickly to match everything Apple announces.

 

 

On a related note, something I have been wondering recently about is, what if things panned out in such a way that the iPhone was unveiled after Android was released?

 

People would have immediately noticed that Android was a Blackberry-based OS and nothing like the iPhone OS. That may have really changed the perceptions of people and the way the whole war unfolded.

post #61 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post


But mud isn't something that consumers want to buy.

 

... or see for that matter. I think it made about $21 Million at the box office.

post #62 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfisher View Post
 

What's the purpose of the round face? They say in the add that square is boring or something and they are bringing the circle back.

 

The circle serves a purpose for a 12 o'clock dial.

 

Square is fine. 

 

My bet is Apple goes square for functionality. Everything the have made is square.

 

P

 

In all probability, with Ive as the designer, the chances of a round face seem more.

 

People talk about how iOS 7 is 'flat', but what about how it is 'rounded'? The numeric keypad now has circles, the call-related buttons are round, the contact photo is in a circle...

 

It all started off with the iPod Nano and its round icons...

post #63 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by WS11 View Post
 

 

Here are some people's thoughts:

 

 

 

They really look nice, except for a couple of daft things like the game on the watch and the emails.

 

If this does pan out, then Google/ Motorola does have a nice product on their (and hopefully, customers') hands.

 

I noticed, however, that none of the mockups seem to show any health-tracking stuff.

 

Wonder what Apple will come up with.

post #64 of 138

It's an interesting point this article makes: has Google in fact stepped in and redefined the market with a clearer concept than everyone else? "Pulled an Apple"

 

The idea of augmented reality without the goggles. In which case even if they win they will kill Glass. Was Glass just a red herring, a cover under which to develop this product? 

 

Would Steve have reached this concept sooner -  he had a way of seeing the potential in products. We will not know until Apple releases their product, and we see if it is essentially the same as Wear or not. It does seem to be more fitness centric though, from the rumors so far.

post #65 of 138
I guess I'm just showing my age, but this whole "I look at my phone to tell the time" thing just floors me. Congratulations, you've reinvented the pocket watch, only this time without a fob, so you have to fish around in your pocket for it and drag it out. 110 years after Louis Cartier invented the wristwatch for Alberto Santos-Dumont specifically so he wouldn't have to do exactly that.
post #66 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleaknik View Post

Do you want a wearable? If so... why?

I have worn a smart watch for many years, mainly one or another version of the Casio DataBank (which, ironically, is virtually out of production except for some feeble models).

 

I use my Casio watch to: 1) see the time at a quick glance, 2) remind me of appointments, 3) keep phone numbers (in the days before cell phones), 4) as my alarm clock to wake me up, 5) math calculations (I don't have a head for that), 6) keeping track of time zones when traveling without having to reset my watch, 7) as a stop watch, and 8) as a timer. It doesn't depend on any other device to do these things and runs for well over a year using an inexpensive, user changeable battery.

 

'Nuff said? :D


Edited by waybacmac - 3/24/14 at 2:32am

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #67 of 138
I see a lot of nice ideas and wishful thinking but very few hard facts about implementation. As I've said before, showing off the concept is easy - think the Communicator in Star Trek (TOS); actually making it is hard.

 

 


Edited by waybacmac - 3/24/14 at 2:31am

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply

"You can't fall off the floor"   From 128k Mac to 8GB MBP

Reply
post #68 of 138

Moto 360 doesn't look so hot from the side. It isn't really wearable.

Cant wait when the fossils enter the game.

post #69 of 138
Nah, the Star Trek Communicator was easy to design—all you had to do was drill a bunch of holes in the door of a Top cigarette roller. (Or was it Bugler?) Anyway, I think that's about the level of prototyping we're seeing in some of these "earth-shattering" products lately.

ETA: Show me something like the Star Trek TNG comm badge—then we'll talk.
post #70 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post
 

 

 

They really look nice, except for a couple of daft things like the game on the watch and the emails.

 

If this does pan out, then Google/ Motorola does have a nice product on their (and hopefully, customers') hands.

 

I noticed, however, that none of the mockups seem to show any health-tracking stuff.

 

Wonder what Apple will come up with.

So far it doesn't seem like the Moto 360 will have health tracking capabilities. Android Wear though does have fitness capabilities and can integrate sensors for stuff like activity tracking and heart-rate monitoring if the hardware designers wish to add those sensors.

 

http://developer.android.com/wear/index.html?utm_medium=App.net&utm_source=PourOver

post #71 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darryn Lowe View Post

I tend to get banged around a bit crawling under desks and reaching into tight spaces,,,

I guess my dirty mind is indeed a joy forever.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #72 of 138

War? How can it be a war when Apple hasn't declared it yet? If anything, Apple is developing their thermonuclear iWatch and will swat these Google flies with one detonation when they're ready.

post #73 of 138

One thing the article missed out that I think is really important: all existing Android apps will work with Android Wear without any changes, provided they support Android 4.3 - the notification API used in 4.3+ provides the OS with enough information to generate contextual UIs on a second screen (including thumbnails and interfaces to interact with the notification). This is an incredibly powerful point in Wear's favour - unlike Samsung's Tizen watches, there is no need for developers to go out of their way to make their apps compatible.

 

As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong - I haven't had access to an iOS 7 device recently), iOS notifications are non-interactive and also can't display contextual pictures (such as a profile picture for a tweet notification). If Apple were to launch an iWatch platform, developers would need to update their applications in some way to provide proper compatibility.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bleaknik View Post

Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.

Do you want a wearable? If so... why?

Personally, I see it as a zeroth-screen device: an instant-access platform for notifications and basic interactions, with my phone then used to deal with stuff that needs more detailed responses. I spend a lot of time getting my phone out just to dismiss an irrelevant email or an 'update available' notification - a smartwatch-style device eliminates that wasted time entirely. I don't actually have much interest in the healthcare side of things - I'm prepared to be proven wrong, but currently heartrate monitoring etc. just seems to be a bit of a gimmick to me.

post #74 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleaknik View Post

Honest question here... What's the market's desire for an iWatch? I saw Google's announcement, but I have no desire to have one myself--be it Apple or Android.



Do you want a wearable? If so... why?

 



  • Analog face for a watch

  • Heart rate monitor

  • Blood glucose monitor

  • Step/motion tracking (either by itself or as an accessory to something like the MapMyFitness and EndoMondo type products

  • Reminder/appointment/text notifications (*only*; I have no desired to respond to anything on my wrist).



If someone could combine all of those desired features into something that looks like a classic wristwatch, in a variety of styles to fit moods and occasion, I'd at least consider buying it, as long as it wasn't stupid expensive.

Otherwise, I'm OK with taking my phone out of my pocket to see the time or notifications, buying a dedicated heart monitoring device, using the existing motion tracking functionality and apps, and using a dedicated blood monitor. I don't need an addon device.
/bs
Reply
/bs
Reply
post #75 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeowulfSchmidt View Post

  • Reminder/appointment/text notifications (*only*; I have no desired to respond to anything on my wrist).

I'd agree that responding to a text message or the like is kinda impractical, but I'd argue that basic interactivity should be present: dismiss / snooze an alarm, update an app, like or retweet a status, mark an email as read, etc. All the little tasks that just require tapping a button or two on your phone could be done via a smartwatch.

post #76 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'd like to see a car that will unlock when the BT of the watch gets close enough to initiate a secure handshake, but that also means it should be smart enough to disable this service if you remove the wrist-worn wearable. I can see some of the image's features being included but I think they go overboard with the features and therefore the complexity.

I don't see any particular reason to duplicate the function of the manufacturer provided key fob.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #77 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post


I don't see any particular reason to duplicate the function of the manufacturer provided key fob.

One less thing to carry around?

post #78 of 138

I am curious as to why we haven't seen a serious analysis on this topic yet. I am a hobby technology observer and enthusiast but I think based on the lessons learnt from the iPhone, Apple and wristwatch history, one can make a pretty valid assumption as to what the iWatch will look like. My analysis:

 

The current smarwatch
 
- Based on a centuries old paradigm: a mostly circular body designed with one app in mind (measuring time), attached to the wrist with flexible bands
- Legacy design harms experience - modern apps viewed on a small display severely limited, lack context
- Chunky design
- Belief fashion and social acceptance of a device never change
- Designed as an accessory device - merely a second screen to your mobile
 
A few centuries ago, the wristwatch was a lady product only. Men refused to wear it as they saw it as a woman's bracelet with added clock. War changed it as the man's pocket watch could not be used while riding the horse and holding the gun. A new paradigm was created and lasted a century. The current smartwatch makers now start with this historical design insisting the watch has always been this way. But squeezing modern apps into a centuries old watch design (made with just one app in mind) results in a limited display area, bulk size and overall poor experiece. Convenient viewing of limited mobile apps on your wrist offers low value and as a result lacks mass-market appeal.
 
Competitors' defence: People want the classic watch design (Motorola)
What's really happening: Making a faster horse instead of inventing the car.
 
Lessons from the iPhone
 
- Enable great software with great hardware
- Great software needs a large enough display to see context, simple UI, and connectivity
- Be bold enough to change the paradigm - if hardware cannot enable software, change the whole concept
 
Small displays on first smartphones and complicated fixed-button controls could not support more serious and context-sensitive sofware beyond calling, texting and simple games. By changing the paradigm of fixed-button controls, Apple allowed for great software with a large screen and revolutionary multitouch UI.

Competiros' defence at the time: Business users want buttons (Steve Ballmer)
What was really happening: Competitors unable to identify the problem in the smartphone product, unable and/or not bold enough to make a paradigm shift and change the product's concept.

 
Lessons from Apple
 
- Enter a new product category only if you can make a significant contribution and fix a problem which harms the product's experience


Finally, applying all these lessons to the smartwatch
 
- Apps need to sing through a large enough display
- To make a large display on a wrist-worn device, break the centuries-old paradigm. Replace the attachable bands with one all-band flexible display.
- Don't worry about people wanting the classic watch design. People want what they are used to and don't know what they want unless they have seen it and experienced it. Once it was easier wishing for a faster horse than imagining the car.
- Making a second screen to your mobile is not a significant contribution. Make use of the unique wearable concept - add health sensors, only possible on a wearable device.

 
Based on all of this, the iWatch should be similar to this concept from 3M which is exactly the type of the bold reinvention and market disruption Apple is famous for. This is how the watch for 21-century connected society should look like:
 

 

Apart from making apps really usable, this concept also makes for a great unisex device with endless possibilites for customised skins. Those in need for the classic watch design can download one from iWatch store, or turn to Google. Remember, it's 2014, we are a modern internet-connected society. A device designed centuries ago with one app in mind cannot possibly support 21-century apps.


Still, the most interesting question remains - is the technology needed for such device ready for mass production? The first flexible-display based mobile phones suggest so...

 

PS Those arguing this device can not replace Rolex - it surely can't. Because Rolex is not a watch. It is a status symbol. You don't spend thousands of dollars for it to tell you the time.

post #79 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Great going, Android.

And being only a surrogate device for your phone doesn’t cut it. Half this stuff becomes useless without one.

Samsung will be selling a watch that includes a SIM. The problem I see is a smart-watch that can also serve as a phone will probably cost way more than a separate phone and separate smart-watch.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #80 of 138
I agree that the wearables thing is a product looking for an audience. Maybe they will catch on if they don't require tethering to a smartphone and are practical standalone items. If Apple comes out with standalone wearables, then they will dominate that market also. A reason why Google and their partners haven't come out with standalone wearables is perhaps trying to keep the price down, but Apple always focuses on making sure that it is a quality, practical device first so that won't be an inhibitor for them.

But as for this "It looks like the Android Wear partners have not learned from the television and Wallet disasters" ... what were they supposed to learn that Apple did not from their own product failures (Apple Newton anyone?). Some products sell, some don't. It is business. You are aware that successful tech products have been launched by companies other than Apple, right?

Incidentally, Google TV was a failure, but smart TV's are huge business, and yes a lot of the smart TVs that are succeeding run on - gasp! - Android. And Google TV is a failure, but Chromecast - with is design and functionality quite different from Apple TV ... it isn't even truly a set top box - isn't. As a matter of fact, Chromecast is so not a failure that Amazon's streaming device is - gasp! - a lot like Chromecast. Now remember, Amazon was SUPPOSED to come out with a set top box for Christmas. Instead, they delay it, delay it again (it was supposed to come out in March, now it MIGHT come out in April) and when it finally does arrive, it will not be a set top box at all but instead some combination of the Chromecast and Ouya. Not only that, but Roku went back and redesigned the streaming stick that they introduced before Chromecast (except that it wasn't selling) to make it more like - gasp! - Chromecast.

Now I read that Motley Fool article. It presumes that A) people will actually adopt Android wearables in large numbers, which is debatable. It further ignores that B) even if they do adopt Android wearables, that they won't drop them for Apple wearables if the Apple wearables are better. Bottom line, if Apple comes out with a better product, people who are interested in a better product and are willing/able to pay for it are going to buy it, and that is whether you are the first to come out with a product or the last.

And yes, there are more companies than Apple capable of coming out with quality products. It is, er, why Apple isn't the only tech company on the planet after all ...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › With Android Wear, Google fires first shot in hardware war against Apple