I don't believe now or ever that Apple intends to come out with a "smart" watch. I think they patented the name to protect it from somebody else using it, and to "F" with companies like Samsung. A simple inexpensive way to force the competition to go bonkers and try and beat Apple to the punch, when in reality they had no intention of ever doing it. Think about it, it makes sense.
"The device's failings may stem from a rushed development process, according to a new report from Cnet. That report paints a picture of a tech conglomerate able to take a device from concept to product in a matter of months, "
Wasn't a lot of AI users deny this when Samsung announced it? That Samsung won't be able to do it in mere months? If anyone is curious you can check these people at the Samsung smart watch thread.
I think we said Sammy couldn't make a useful smart watch in mere months. And from the reviews, they haven't.
Our culture privileges superficial innovation over truly being able to deliver. Time and again Apple have exploited this superficiality in culture by biding their time until they can really deliver a product. It takes a lot of strength and a big cash pile to be able to do this. One reason why I don't want Apple to exhaust its cash pile in a thermonuclear buyback, I want it to keep enough back to run for several years in the bad times so that it doesn't become a slave to the market but can continue to build the right thing that delights people.
Comments
I don't believe now or ever that Apple intends to come out with a "smart" watch. I think they patented the name to protect it from somebody else using it, and to "F" with companies like Samsung. A simple inexpensive way to force the competition to go bonkers and try and beat Apple to the punch, when in reality they had no intention of ever doing it. Think about it, it makes sense.
I think we said Sammy couldn't make a useful smart watch in mere months. And from the reviews, they haven't.