"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse'. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices."
San Francisco Examiner, John C. Dvorak, 19 Feb. 1984
I have to say I tend to agree with Dvorak on this one. Apple has never made a usable mouse in my opinion. I always toss them and buy a 'plain jane' three button scroll wheel optical wired mouse by Logitech. I'm not a huge fan of Apple keyboards either but I use them. The crumb catcher was the worst ever. Keys were ok but no way to clean it.
The problem with a "smart" watch from any company is that a watch is a piece of jewelry. It's fashion that goes far beyond what iPhone users show when holding their phones. Asking someone to wear something that will be the exact same thing 100 million other people have is going to be a tough sell, in my opinion.
It's really just a semantics problem. It comes about because all the web sites insist on referring to the thing as a "watch" when as you note, watches are jewelery and not many people wear them anymore. What Apple is working on is actually a wearable computing device in the form of a bracelet which is an entirely different animal.
Because most tech web sites are hopelessly biased towards the male, you will never see an article that refers to it as a bracelet (too gay or something), but instead insist on seeing it as some kind of a "watch."
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse'. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices."
San Francisco Examiner, John C. Dvorak, 19 Feb. 1984
I have to say I tend to agree with Dvorak on this one. Apple has never made a usable mouse in my opinion. I always toss them and buy a 'plain jane' three button scroll wheel optical wired mouse by Logitech. I'm not a huge fan of Apple keyboards either but I use them. The crumb catcher was the worst ever. Keys were ok but no way to clean it.
I use a magic mouse and like it better than any other I've tried...
Agree that the "crumb catcher" was the worst... but you could clean it with cotton swabs and the edge(s) of a 3x5 index card to get the scum between the kb housing and the clear plastic outer case...
At the risk of being called a sexist or misogynist...
Speaking of keyboards... IBM was known for years to have the best ergonomic kbs...
When I worked for IBM in Las Vegas, one of the typewriter salesman in the office told the story of a customer who said his secretary was having problems when the keyboard would sometimes type random characters while proofreading the letter...
The secretary was a "full-figured" woman, and when she would lean forward to check her work -- the typewriter would type some spurious characters...
Because most tech web sites are hopelessly biased towards the male, you will never see an article that refers to it as a bracelet (too gay or something), but instead insist on seeing it as some kind of a "watch."
I think 'watch' is more accurate. A wrist watch has functionality and is traditionally something that the wearer interacts with by 'looking" at it, hence the 'watch' name. A bracelet is purely decorative.
The problem with a "smart" watch from any company is that a watch is a piece of jewelry. It's fashion that goes far beyond what iPhone users show when holding their phones. Asking someone to wear something that will be the exact same thing 100 million other people have is going to be a tough sell, in my opinion.
It's really just a semantics problem. It comes about because all the web sites insist on referring to the thing as a "watch" when as you note, watches are jewelery and not many people wear them anymore. What Apple is working on is actually a wearable computing device in the form of a bracelet which is an entirely different animal.
Because most tech web sites are hopelessly biased towards the male, you will never see an article that refers to it as a bracelet (too gay or something), but instead insist on seeing it as some kind of a "watch."
What I know from my own experience, is that if a smartwatch has to be recharged all the time, it quickly becomes too annoying to take care of.
In the past, that has led to colorful touch watches that last about a day, or B&W button driven ones that last longer.
Perhaps adding kinetic or thermoelectric generators might help. Or some kind of quick inductive charger.
PS. I think Apple would not call it a "watch", but perhaps something more like "amulet", to give it a different and more exotic flavor.
Agreed. given Apple's penchant for hyper energy effectivity (functionality per recharge cycle). a kinetic/thermo is a given.
iTime?
There is a lot of other stuff out there that can be had as well. Nike Fuel and FitBits are quite the rage, and I'm working with companies for health monitoring 'wearables' for those people who get lost alot (early alzeimers, sporadic dementia) and need a 'ankle' bracelet for tracking. I see every parent giving their kids a watch that can't have 'find my friends' turned off without a password;-)
It's always amazed me that heart monitors all require a chest strap... if Apple can monitor health from just a wrist contact (if the AuthenTech patents ring true, you'd think they could 'invert' the monitor to both identify and monitor the person by their capillary heartrate at their wrist), do the wifi thing, do the bluetooth thing, AND not require charging, store a couple hundred songs and/or a couple apps (imessage with voice control, icloud notifications, radio, including local FM stations... critical for the gym/TVw/FMsound crowd, and Remote), yea, that's a
The problem with a "smart" watch from any company is that a watch is a piece of jewelry. It's fashion that goes far beyond what iPhone users show when holding their phones. Asking someone to wear something that will be the exact same thing 100 million other people have is going to be a tough sell, in my opinion.
I don't know. Perhaps it will be marketed at teens. Teens don't seem to mind wearing the exact same thing as their friends. When school gets out for the day I see dozens of kids walking down the street wearing the exact same skinny jeans and red sneakers with lanyards for a key chain. I'm not sure what is in fashion this year as I don't have any teenagers at the moment, but I don't see the iWatch as being very successful with the adult population. I think 20 something is probably the top age group for this product, which is why I don't think Apple will actually release one.
Have not worn a watch for 15 years, and a few years ago my family got me the coolest watch, but still don't wear it very much, my iPhone has replaced this for me. So will be very surprised if there is that much of a market for this.
I never understand these ridiculous statements. You honestly think the main purpose of an iWatch would be to tell time? It will have fucking nothing in common with the "coolest watch" your family got you. It will be a complement to your iPhone, and I for one can imagine a million situations and applications where it would be incredibly useful, like not having to have my phone on my person at ALL times. one of these million scenarios is the gym, where I can keep the phone in the locker and still get important notifications with a watch, or even have it stream music from the phone, etc.
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse'. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices."
San Francisco Examiner, John C. Dvorak, 19 Feb. 1984
where I can keep the phone in the locker and still get important notifications with a watch, or even have it stream music from the phone, etc.
It'll only be Bluetooth, unless your lockers are very close and plastic, I don't think this will work.
I think it's funny that Microsoft and Samsung etc have tried on other occasions to make a smart watch and failed yet Apple will come in as a newcomer and dominate the market. Simply because Apple wait until the technology is there to make a decent product. Other companies are using Apple as a yard stick to release new products.
I have to say I tend to agree with Dvorak on this one. Apple has never made a usable mouse in my opinion. I always toss them and buy a 'plain jane' three button scroll wheel optical wired mouse by Logitech. I'm not a huge fan of Apple keyboards either but I use them. The crumb catcher was the worst ever. Keys were ok but no way to clean it.
In 1983 when Apple introduced the mouse for the Apple II and the Lisa, no one outside a lab has never see one before, the optical mouse tracking system Apple has created was the industry reference for every mechanical mouse ever since. Crappy multi-button PC mouse appear much later, the scroll wheel appeared 15 years later and overall OS and Apps support is still bad....
Beside I always found having a dedicated command key on the Apple keyboard to be much more useful than having a third unused button on my mouse. Even today, Windows uses of the CTRL, ALT and newer Window command key is a mess.
Speaking of keyboards... IBM was known for years to have the best ergonomic kbs...
When I worked for IBM in Las Vegas, one of the typewriter salesman in the office told the story of a customer who said his secretary was having problems when the keyboard would sometimes type random characters while proofreading the letter...
The secretary was a "full-figured" woman, and when she would lean forward to check her work -- the typewriter would type some spurious characters...
The salesman joked: "Now, that's touch typing!"
I still got nightmare about my high school computer science class 25 years ago equip with IBM PS/2 and their horrible noisy mechanical keyboard.
Will it have a kick-stand? If so I will be in line for one! /s
Kickstand? I'm in for that...as long as it also has a magnetically connected full sized keyboard that clicks onto it too. Girls get moist when I click my keyboard onto my Surface RT.
If they make it in Zune Brown, I will breakdance with glee!!!!!!
I don't have a definite opinion on whether smart-watches will catch on or not (although, they have a much greater chance of success than Glass-like products, which are DOA for general consumer acceptance), but, the fact that someone once made an incorrect prediction has no bearing on other predictions of success or failure. The fact that Dvorak was wrong is even less relevant.
The point is not to dismiss something outright. I don't think Google Glass will be a huge success for a variety of reasons but is the cell phone a success? Now consider the first one that hit the market in the 1980s. Both have a lot of the same issues. Large with a small battery and excessive price. I don't see how wearable computing accessories and devices will not take hold and maybe this first step with Google Glass will mark that shift (it may not).
Something struck me as odd with yesterday's release of the GG specs. There is 802.11b/g in a device shipping in 2013. I don't have ether of those enabled at home. It's all 802.11n with all my devices running 802.11ac over the next year or two, starting soon. It seems like an outdated spec but I wonder why WiFi is there at all. I think glasses and watches should be accessory devices to another device. That makes BT or some other short-range wireless tech specifically for short, high-speeds burst a much better option. Maybe that's why Google Glass only has 802.11g; BT is too slow and 802.11g is the fastest low-power option they could tether with your smartphone for video. But that gets to another point about releasing a product that simply isn't ready for the market. It's important that technologies needed to make the product work are there. Apple has a great track record of only releasing when a product really is ready.
I have to say I tend to agree with Dvorak on this one. Apple has never made a usable mouse in my opinion. I always toss them and buy a 'plain jane' three button scroll wheel optical wired mouse by Logitech. I'm not a huge fan of Apple keyboards either but I use them. The crumb catcher was the worst ever. Keys were ok but no way to clean it.
And oddly no one else had made a usable trackpad besides Apple. But Dvorak's point isn't about Apple's iteration but the concept itself.
Speaking of keyboards... IBM was known for years to have the best ergonomic kbs...
When I worked for IBM in Las Vegas, one of the typewriter salesman in the office told the story of a customer who said his secretary was having problems when the keyboard would sometimes type random characters while proofreading the letter...
The secretary was a "full-figured" woman, and when she would lean forward to check her work -- the typewriter would type some spurious characters...
The salesman joked: "Now, that's touch typing!"
Too funny! I love your stories, please, keep posting them. And over here at this side of the pond some call 'full-figured' women "...women with a rich nature"
The point is not to dismiss something outright. I don't think Google Glass will be a huge success for a variety of reasons but is the cell phone a success? Now consider the first one that hit the market in the 1980s. Both have a lot of the same issues. Large with a small battery and excessive price. I don't see how wearable computing accessories and devices will not take hold and maybe this first step with Google Glass will mark that shift (it may not).
Excellent point. Tech indeed does not guarantee a stellar intro, as useful it may seem at the time of introduction. It has to be adopted, an might take years.
Something struck me as odd with yesterday's release of the GG specs. There is 802.11b/g in a device shipping in 2013. I don't have ether of those enabled at home. It's all 802.11n with all my devices running 802.11ac over the next year or two, starting soon. It seems like an outdated spec but I wonder why WiFi is there at all. I think glasses and watches should be accessory devices to another device. That makes BT or some other short-range wireless tech specifically for short, high-speeds burst a much better option. Maybe that's why Google Glass only has 802.11g; BT is too slow and 802.11g is the fastest low-power option they could tether with your smartphone for video. But that gets to another point about releasing a product that simply isn't ready for the market. It's important that technologies needed to make the product work are there. Apple has a great track record of only releasing when a product really is ready.
I was actually wondering why they didn't put .11h in it, as these glasses are to be used outdoors mostly, I presume. That should eliminate any satellite interference, or so it is said. Wiki on .11h
But a non-WiFi link to your smartphone makes even more sense, if it uses less power.
Comments
What I know from my own experience, is that if a smartwatch has to be recharged all the time, it quickly becomes too annoying to take care of.
In the past, that has led to colorful touch watches that last about a day, or B&W button driven ones that last longer.
Perhaps adding kinetic or thermoelectric generators might help. Or some kind of quick inductive charger.
PS. I think Apple would not call it a "watch", but perhaps something more like "amulet", to give it a different and more exotic flavor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freediverx
"The Macintosh uses an experimental pointing device called a 'mouse'. There is no evidence that people want to use these things. I dont want one of these new fangled devices."
San Francisco Examiner, John C. Dvorak, 19 Feb. 1984
I have to say I tend to agree with Dvorak on this one. Apple has never made a usable mouse in my opinion. I always toss them and buy a 'plain jane' three button scroll wheel optical wired mouse by Logitech. I'm not a huge fan of Apple keyboards either but I use them. The crumb catcher was the worst ever. Keys were ok but no way to clean it.
Will it be latched down with iron bars or motion sensor at Staples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
The problem with a "smart" watch from any company is that a watch is a piece of jewelry. It's fashion that goes far beyond what iPhone users show when holding their phones. Asking someone to wear something that will be the exact same thing 100 million other people have is going to be a tough sell, in my opinion.
It's really just a semantics problem. It comes about because all the web sites insist on referring to the thing as a "watch" when as you note, watches are jewelery and not many people wear them anymore. What Apple is working on is actually a wearable computing device in the form of a bracelet which is an entirely different animal.
Because most tech web sites are hopelessly biased towards the male, you will never see an article that refers to it as a bracelet (too gay or something), but instead insist on seeing it as some kind of a "watch."
I use a magic mouse and like it better than any other I've tried...
Agree that the "crumb catcher" was the worst... but you could clean it with cotton swabs and the edge(s) of a 3x5 index card to get the scum between the kb housing and the clear plastic outer case...
At the risk of being called a sexist or misogynist...
Speaking of keyboards... IBM was known for years to have the best ergonomic kbs...
When I worked for IBM in Las Vegas, one of the typewriter salesman in the office told the story of a customer who said his secretary was having problems when the keyboard would sometimes type random characters while proofreading the letter...
The secretary was a "full-figured" woman, and when she would lean forward to check her work -- the typewriter would type some spurious characters...
The salesman joked: "Now, that's touch typing!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Because most tech web sites are hopelessly biased towards the male, you will never see an article that refers to it as a bracelet (too gay or something), but instead insist on seeing it as some kind of a "watch."
I think 'watch' is more accurate. A wrist watch has functionality and is traditionally something that the wearer interacts with by 'looking" at it, hence the 'watch' name. A bracelet is purely decorative.
+++ Excellent points!
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
What I know from my own experience, is that if a smartwatch has to be recharged all the time, it quickly becomes too annoying to take care of.
In the past, that has led to colorful touch watches that last about a day, or B&W button driven ones that last longer.
Perhaps adding kinetic or thermoelectric generators might help. Or some kind of quick inductive charger.
PS. I think Apple would not call it a "watch", but perhaps something more like "amulet", to give it a different and more exotic flavor.
Agreed. given Apple's penchant for hyper energy effectivity (functionality per recharge cycle). a kinetic/thermo is a given.
iTime?
There is a lot of other stuff out there that can be had as well. Nike Fuel and FitBits are quite the rage, and I'm working with companies for health monitoring 'wearables' for those people who get lost alot (early alzeimers, sporadic dementia) and need a 'ankle' bracelet for tracking. I see every parent giving their kids a watch that can't have 'find my friends' turned off without a password;-)
It's always amazed me that heart monitors all require a chest strap... if Apple can monitor health from just a wrist contact (if the AuthenTech patents ring true, you'd think they could 'invert' the monitor to both identify and monitor the person by their capillary heartrate at their wrist), do the wifi thing, do the bluetooth thing, AND not require charging, store a couple hundred songs and/or a couple apps (imessage with voice control, icloud notifications, radio, including local FM stations... critical for the gym/TVw/FMsound crowd, and Remote), yea, that's a
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmgregory1
The problem with a "smart" watch from any company is that a watch is a piece of jewelry. It's fashion that goes far beyond what iPhone users show when holding their phones. Asking someone to wear something that will be the exact same thing 100 million other people have is going to be a tough sell, in my opinion.
I don't know. Perhaps it will be marketed at teens. Teens don't seem to mind wearing the exact same thing as their friends. When school gets out for the day I see dozens of kids walking down the street wearing the exact same skinny jeans and red sneakers with lanyards for a key chain. I'm not sure what is in fashion this year as I don't have any teenagers at the moment, but I don't see the iWatch as being very successful with the adult population. I think 20 something is probably the top age group for this product, which is why I don't think Apple will actually release one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Bonner
Have not worn a watch for 15 years, and a few years ago my family got me the coolest watch, but still don't wear it very much, my iPhone has replaced this for me. So will be very surprised if there is that much of a market for this.
I never understand these ridiculous statements. You honestly think the main purpose of an iWatch would be to tell time? It will have fucking nothing in common with the "coolest watch" your family got you. It will be a complement to your iPhone, and I for one can imagine a million situations and applications where it would be incredibly useful, like not having to have my phone on my person at ALL times. one of these million scenarios is the gym, where I can keep the phone in the locker and still get important notifications with a watch, or even have it stream music from the phone, etc.
Pundits are the opposite of visionaries.
It'll only be Bluetooth, unless your lockers are very close and plastic, I don't think this will work.
I think it's funny that Microsoft and Samsung etc have tried on other occasions to make a smart watch and failed yet Apple will come in as a newcomer and dominate the market. Simply because Apple wait until the technology is there to make a decent product. Other companies are using Apple as a yard stick to release new products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
I have to say I tend to agree with Dvorak on this one. Apple has never made a usable mouse in my opinion. I always toss them and buy a 'plain jane' three button scroll wheel optical wired mouse by Logitech. I'm not a huge fan of Apple keyboards either but I use them. The crumb catcher was the worst ever. Keys were ok but no way to clean it.
In 1983 when Apple introduced the mouse for the Apple II and the Lisa, no one outside a lab has never see one before, the optical mouse tracking system Apple has created was the industry reference for every mechanical mouse ever since. Crappy multi-button PC mouse appear much later, the scroll wheel appeared 15 years later and overall OS and Apps support is still bad....
Beside I always found having a dedicated command key on the Apple keyboard to be much more useful than having a third unused button on my mouse. Even today, Windows uses of the CTRL, ALT and newer Window command key is a mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Speaking of keyboards... IBM was known for years to have the best ergonomic kbs...
When I worked for IBM in Las Vegas, one of the typewriter salesman in the office told the story of a customer who said his secretary was having problems when the keyboard would sometimes type random characters while proofreading the letter...
The secretary was a "full-figured" woman, and when she would lean forward to check her work -- the typewriter would type some spurious characters...
The salesman joked: "Now, that's touch typing!"
I still got nightmare about my high school computer science class 25 years ago equip with IBM PS/2 and their horrible noisy mechanical keyboard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotoformat
Will it have a kick-stand? If so I will be in line for one! /s
Kickstand? I'm in for that...as long as it also has a magnetically connected full sized keyboard that clicks onto it too. Girls get moist when I click my keyboard onto my Surface RT.
If they make it in Zune Brown, I will breakdance with glee!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Pundits are the opposite of visionaries.
And senile pundits are even further removed from mainstream thinking...
If the watch runs Windows 8 and has Flash and BluRay capability, I'm in for a left-handed one.
The point is not to dismiss something outright. I don't think Google Glass will be a huge success for a variety of reasons but is the cell phone a success? Now consider the first one that hit the market in the 1980s. Both have a lot of the same issues. Large with a small battery and excessive price. I don't see how wearable computing accessories and devices will not take hold and maybe this first step with Google Glass will mark that shift (it may not).
Something struck me as odd with yesterday's release of the GG specs. There is 802.11b/g in a device shipping in 2013. I don't have ether of those enabled at home. It's all 802.11n with all my devices running 802.11ac over the next year or two, starting soon. It seems like an outdated spec but I wonder why WiFi is there at all. I think glasses and watches should be accessory devices to another device. That makes BT or some other short-range wireless tech specifically for short, high-speeds burst a much better option. Maybe that's why Google Glass only has 802.11g; BT is too slow and 802.11g is the fastest low-power option they could tether with your smartphone for video. But that gets to another point about releasing a product that simply isn't ready for the market. It's important that technologies needed to make the product work are there. Apple has a great track record of only releasing when a product really is ready.
And oddly no one else had made a usable trackpad besides Apple. But Dvorak's point isn't about Apple's iteration but the concept itself.
Too funny! I love your stories, please, keep posting them. And over here at this side of the pond some call 'full-figured' women "...women with a rich nature"
Excellent point. Tech indeed does not guarantee a stellar intro, as useful it may seem at the time of introduction. It has to be adopted, an might take years.
I was actually wondering why they didn't put .11h in it, as these glasses are to be used outdoors mostly, I presume. That should eliminate any satellite interference, or so it is said. Wiki on .11h
But a non-WiFi link to your smartphone makes even more sense, if it uses less power.