Applying for a patent doesn't automaticlly mean Apple will make the thing. Apple makes prototypes of many devices and the iBlogoSphereIdiotHacks latches on to every morsel of rumor and assumes there an actiual devie coming. No news here.
I'd wonder if I strap this thing on my wiener it will allow me to get more girls? and oh boy the auto vibrate function tied to being emailed or tweeted. YEAH Hey every time I get an erection it sends a mesage to my wife!
Sure: Absolutely nothing involving OLED has been announced or released by Apple, therefore enjoy your worthless FUD and Apple-bashing while we decide how to proceed.
Apple first filed its application for a "Bi-stable spring with flexible display" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in August of 2011, describing a wearable accessory device that can be easily worn on a user's wrist or other body part. When active, the unit connects to a portable device via various communications protocols like Bluetooth or Wi-Fi to show relevant information in real time on a flexible display that can wrap fully around a user's wrist. While the device itself can conform to nearly any appendage...
I chuckled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I'm personally glad that it's looking like this rather than like the old Nano or Pebble.
This slap on concept has a lot more screen space and an overall cooler look.
I want one of those but a base station seems like more work than it's worth. Charging through the base for 45 day battery life is good but having to use the base to change the time is not as clean as say having an app on your phone that can change it through bluetooth (although, admittedly, I don't know how bluetooth would alter the asthetic) or having the screen be a touch screen (don't know if e-ink allows for touch or to keep the thinness). I'd also like the font to be rotatable for those that want to adjust their arm traditionally to view the time. It's a great concept and a great looking watch. September can't come soon enough.
I want one of those but a base station seems like more work than it's worth. Charging through the base for 45 day battery life is good but having to use the base to change the time is not as clean as say having an app on your phone that can change it through bluetooth (although, admittedly, I don't know how bluetooth would alter the asthetic) or having the screen be a touch screen (don't know if e-ink allows for touch or to keep the thinness). I'd also like the font to be rotatable for those that want to adjust their arm traditionally to view the time. It's a great concept and a great looking watch. September can't come soon enough.
I agree the CST has it's drawbacks.
But I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's Watch-concept looks similar to the CST.
I'm just glad that it'll look more like a band than like the old Nano or the Pebble.
I really want Apple to disrupt the mobile phone industry again and split out more of the phone functionality into this and leave the actual large screen form factor as just the mobile and social window to the interwebs. I think the phone form should shrink again.
I agree with this. When the iPhone was released it was the best combination of phone, music/video player, and Internet appliance in a single device.
Today, the iPads are better devices for music/video player, Internet appliance -- and all the apps, books, games, etc .that were not never existed for the original iPhone.
To be mobile, in today's world, the iPhone (or any smart phone), alone, isn't up to the job. I want my iPad with me wherever I go. I need a phone, too -- but just to make and receive phone calls.
Put the cell phone capability in an inexpensive wristband phone and connect it to the iPad via BT 4.0.
The iPad is the mobile device -- the wristband phone is the accessory. (Similar to a modem accessory to a computer).
Ideally, the wristband phone would cost $100-$200 unlocked with no carrier contract.
To misquote: It's not the watch, it's the wrist, stupid. Sensors on the wrist can deliver significant medical and exercise information. If an Apple iWrist can provide me with biometrical info, I might have to wear it. And it’s not hard to see ahead, in the next five to ten years, that this info link gaining critical health and even insurance services. Add in the currently available emergency alerts on it for disabled and old folks. Sure, include a localized Siri and the iPod Nano feature set. Apple doesn’t do watches. It does platforms. And Apple loves the challenge of small and simple gear. And it loves disruption. Nobody does them better. At $200 it will sell a billiard.
A good way to look at it, seems to me. Previous platforms:
1. Desk
2. Lap
3. Pocket
4.Clothing (clip-on shuffle/nano)
5. Hand
Future:
6. Arm
7. Head
Ears have been wired in since the beginning. The farther off future with the skin, retinae and nervous system are science fiction, not my thing.
Actually, you forgot [at least] one... My grandmother in the 1950s and 1960s needed a hearing aid. This was before the days of transistor radios. She had a very expensive device with big batteries and an induction speaker cord that went to one ear. AIR, the device was a little larger than the H/W size of the iPhone 1, twice as thick and a lot heavier.
Actually, you forgot [at least] one... My grandmother in the 1950s and 1960s needed a hearing aid. This was before the days of transistor radios. She had a very expensive device with big batteries and an induction speaker cord that went to one ear. AIR, the device was a little larger than the H/W size of the iPhone 1, twice as thick and a lot heavier.
Actually it totally is NOT "tangible evidence" that Apple is working on a(n) ... iWatch."
There is absolutely nothing about the patents at all that indicate it has anything to do with "watches" or time pieces at all. AppleInsider, by following the herd of tech journalists in conceptualising this as an "iWatch" actually does a great dis-service to the concept, and to Apple itself.
Apple is not making a "watch." Apple is making a breakthrough wearable computer accessory (or trying to at least).
For all the nimrods and feeble brained, narrow minded hacks to constantly refer to it as an ''iWatch" is both insulting to Apple as a company, and undermines the whole project by raising false expectations and by limiting discussion (and thought) on what this device could actually be used for.
Take a tip from Jony Ive. Words actually mean something, especially when thinking about design.
You can bet that when the team first assembled at Apple headquarters to investigate this project, almost the first words spoken were "Okay, so first we have to stop thinking about it as a watch ..."
For your own sake, I hope you are being facetious. If words mean so much to you, please pay more attention to how and what you write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Doesn't matter what they're actually making but what people think when they see the word. Watch is something synonymous with a device worn on one's wrist. For years wristwatches have done more than just tell time but they're still called that. iWatch sounds much better than iBracelet, and remember the iPhone is much more than a phone.
Indeed. After all, is MacBook just a book? Is iPad just a notepad?
For your own sake, I hope you are being facetious. If words mean so much to you, please pay more attention to how and what you write.
Indeed. After all, is MacBook just a book? Is iPad just a notepad?
Oh yeah because MacBook was really original seeing as laptops were commonly known as notebook computers because they opened and closed like a book and many allowed to be written on with a stylus. They had more leeway naming the iPad because most people didn't know what tablets were nor that they existed before the iPad.
That's interesting but according to the patent the screen on Apple's actual device is going to be continuous unlike the Philips concept.
Right, obviously I was comparing the shiny 9to5Mac concept with the Philips concept, because they both had the same basic hard shiny look.
The 9to5Mac version didn't follow this patent at all. For one thing, it had no slap-band overlap. It looks more like the Philips perfect bracelet shape.
Apple's patent description also keeps bringing up using a fabric covering on the inside for more comfort.
Comments
Applying for a patent doesn't automaticlly mean Apple will make the thing. Apple makes prototypes of many devices and the iBlogoSphereIdiotHacks latches on to every morsel of rumor and assumes there an actiual devie coming. No news here.
I'd wonder if I strap this thing on my wiener it will allow me to get more girls? and oh boy the auto vibrate function tied to being emailed or tweeted. YEAH Hey every time I get an erection it sends a mesage to my wife!
I thought Apple will never go into OLED?
Apple fans, care to explain?
Originally Posted by Galbi
Apple fans, care to explain?
Sure: Absolutely nothing involving OLED has been announced or released by Apple, therefore enjoy your worthless FUD and Apple-bashing while we decide how to proceed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple first filed its application for a "Bi-stable spring with flexible display" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in August of 2011, describing a wearable accessory device that can be easily worn on a user's wrist or other body part. When active, the unit connects to a portable device via various communications protocols like Bluetooth or Wi-Fi to show relevant information in real time on a flexible display that can wrap fully around a user's wrist. While the device itself can conform to nearly any appendage...
I chuckled.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I'm personally glad that it's looking like this rather than like the old Nano or Pebble.
This slap on concept has a lot more screen space and an overall cooler look.
If it looks like this I'll be in line to buy one:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1655017763/cst-01-the-worlds-thinnest-watch
I want one of those but a base station seems like more work than it's worth. Charging through the base for 45 day battery life is good but having to use the base to change the time is not as clean as say having an app on your phone that can change it through bluetooth (although, admittedly, I don't know how bluetooth would alter the asthetic) or having the screen be a touch screen (don't know if e-ink allows for touch or to keep the thinness). I'd also like the font to be rotatable for those that want to adjust their arm traditionally to view the time. It's a great concept and a great looking watch. September can't come soon enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Douglas Bailey
Well I have a huge wrist so I guess I'll get more pixels that most.
I will buy 7 -- 2 for each arm, 1 for each leg and...
Quote:
Originally Posted by alcstarheel
I chuckled.
I want one of those but a base station seems like more work than it's worth. Charging through the base for 45 day battery life is good but having to use the base to change the time is not as clean as say having an app on your phone that can change it through bluetooth (although, admittedly, I don't know how bluetooth would alter the asthetic) or having the screen be a touch screen (don't know if e-ink allows for touch or to keep the thinness). I'd also like the font to be rotatable for those that want to adjust their arm traditionally to view the time. It's a great concept and a great looking watch. September can't come soon enough.
I agree the CST has it's drawbacks.
But I wouldn't be surprised if Apple's Watch-concept looks similar to the CST.
I'm just glad that it'll look more like a band than like the old Nano or the Pebble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Devil's Refugee
I just wish it would become more than a watch.
http://successfulworkplace.com/2013/02/11/its-an-iphone-tim-but-not-as-we-know-it/
I really want Apple to disrupt the mobile phone industry again and split out more of the phone functionality into this and leave the actual large screen form factor as just the mobile and social window to the interwebs. I think the phone form should shrink again.
I agree with this. When the iPhone was released it was the best combination of phone, music/video player, and Internet appliance in a single device.
Today, the iPads are better devices for music/video player, Internet appliance -- and all the apps, books, games, etc .that were not never existed for the original iPhone.
To be mobile, in today's world, the iPhone (or any smart phone), alone, isn't up to the job. I want my iPad with me wherever I go. I need a phone, too -- but just to make and receive phone calls.
Put the cell phone capability in an inexpensive wristband phone and connect it to the iPad via BT 4.0.
The iPad is the mobile device -- the wristband phone is the accessory. (Similar to a modem accessory to a computer).
Ideally, the wristband phone would cost $100-$200 unlocked with no carrier contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef
To misquote: It's not the watch, it's the wrist, stupid. Sensors on the wrist can deliver significant medical and exercise information. If an Apple iWrist can provide me with biometrical info, I might have to wear it. And it’s not hard to see ahead, in the next five to ten years, that this info link gaining critical health and even insurance services. Add in the currently available emergency alerts on it for disabled and old folks. Sure, include a localized Siri and the iPod Nano feature set. Apple doesn’t do watches. It does platforms. And Apple loves the challenge of small and simple gear. And it loves disruption. Nobody does them better. At $200 it will sell a billiard.
A good way to look at it, seems to me. Previous platforms:
1. Desk
2. Lap
3. Pocket
4.Clothing (clip-on shuffle/nano)
5. Hand
Future:
6. Arm
7. Head
Ears have been wired in since the beginning. The farther off future with the skin, retinae and nervous system are science fiction, not my thing.
Actually, you forgot [at least] one... My grandmother in the 1950s and 1960s needed a hearing aid. This was before the days of transistor radios. She had a very expensive device with big batteries and an induction speaker cord that went to one ear. AIR, the device was a little larger than the H/W size of the iPhone 1, twice as thick and a lot heavier.
Grandma stuffed the device into her bodice/bra.
Something like this:
9to5Mac has a pretty good mockup of the Apple Patent device:
http://************/2013/02/21/is-apples-iwatch-a-slap-wrist-band-with-a-flexible-display/
That's one nice looking granny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
9to5Mac has a pretty good mockup of the Apple Patent device:
Their mockup looks like the Philips Fluid concept from 2010:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
I will buy 7 -- 2 for each arm, 1 for each leg and...
And .... I am waiting to what the other 3 appendages are
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Actually it totally is NOT "tangible evidence" that Apple is working on a(n) ... iWatch."
There is absolutely nothing about the patents at all that indicate it has anything to do with "watches" or time pieces at all. AppleInsider, by following the herd of tech journalists in conceptualising this as an "iWatch" actually does a great dis-service to the concept, and to Apple itself.
Apple is not making a "watch." Apple is making a breakthrough wearable computer accessory (or trying to at least).
For all the nimrods and feeble brained, narrow minded hacks to constantly refer to it as an ''iWatch" is both insulting to Apple as a company, and undermines the whole project by raising false expectations and by limiting discussion (and thought) on what this device could actually be used for.
Take a tip from Jony Ive. Words actually mean something, especially when thinking about design.
You can bet that when the team first assembled at Apple headquarters to investigate this project, almost the first words spoken were "Okay, so first we have to stop thinking about it as a watch ..."
For your own sake, I hope you are being facetious. If words mean so much to you, please pay more attention to how and what you write.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Doesn't matter what they're actually making but what people think when they see the word. Watch is something synonymous with a device worn on one's wrist. For years wristwatches have done more than just tell time but they're still called that. iWatch sounds much better than iBracelet, and remember the iPhone is much more than a phone.
Indeed. After all, is MacBook just a book? Is iPad just a notepad?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
That's one nice looking granny.
Granny? Could be a girl from the current era wearing retro undergarments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Their mockup looks like the Philips Fluid concept from 2010:
That doesn't surprise me. Apple is a master at turning product concepts into real products. The devil is in the details, and in execution.
That's interesting but according to the patent the screen on Apple's actual device is going to be continuous unlike the Philips concept.
Honestly the device Apple is envisioning wont look like anything else we've seen.
Oh yeah because MacBook was really original seeing as laptops were commonly known as notebook computers because they opened and closed like a book and many allowed to be written on with a stylus. They had more leeway naming the iPad because most people didn't know what tablets were nor that they existed before the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
That's interesting but according to the patent the screen on Apple's actual device is going to be continuous unlike the Philips concept.
Right, obviously I was comparing the shiny 9to5Mac concept with the Philips concept, because they both had the same basic hard shiny look.
The 9to5Mac version didn't follow this patent at all. For one thing, it had no slap-band overlap. It looks more like the Philips perfect bracelet shape.
Apple's patent description also keeps bringing up using a fabric covering on the inside for more comfort.