'Historical implications' made Apple Watch more difficult to design than original iPhone, Jony Ive s

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 136
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    cross platform compatible

     

    The full Band experience requires hooking into MSFT's proprietary health solution.

     

    Speaking as someone who's professionally tested that solution... no thanks.

  • Reply 42 of 136
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    No sarcasm.

    I don't view the watch as a technological revolution on the scale of the iPod, iPhone or iPad. As such, I believe we are in for a long period of consolidation. A large iPad may bump things up a bit.

    It doesn't really matter. The Watch is a platform, a next generation iOS so to speak.

    There will be hardware parts that debute on the Watch first just because those parts are easier to make in small dimension. Similarly, there will be parts that are easier to make if they are bigger. Those will go into iPads and bigger phones. Meanwhile iPhone can tap on both advances.

    iOS8 seems like a huge change, which implies that it's laying the foundation for the upcoming hardware.
  • Reply 43 of 136
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    pscooter63 wrote: »
    The full Band experience requires hooking into MSFT's proprietary health solution.

    Speaking as someone who's professionally tested that solution... no thanks.

    Not just that. It's paper specs for now. The new sensors may not work properly. It's still very much early development, just like the early pedometers: shaking the pedometer also counts as steps. :-D
  • Reply 44 of 136
    Historical implications? I suspect Jony needs to take a modesty pill. This is not a vaccine for Ebola, a cure for cancer, or faster-than-light travel.

    It's just a watch.
  • Reply 45 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CMoebius View Post



    I am big an Apple fanboy as they come, but, for the first time for an Apple product, I do not feel the desire to purchase an Apple Watch. I have a Fitbit that I use to track my fitness (or lack thereof) and it gets bumped and tugged and crushed almost daily. I am planning on picking up the $250 Fitbit Surge when it is available early next year, $100 less than the lowest end Apple Watch. I just don't see the point in spending, at minimum, $350 for something that will be abused. I also am not a big fan of the UI, although I have obviously not played with one yet.



    Unfortunately, I think many people will buy this just because it's an Apple product and they want to show off the latest sparkle to their friends.

     

    dont be idiotic. people will buy it because it does things that are valuable to them. like being a wireless BT ipod.

     

    i love how you feel qualified to judge the UI even tho you, like everybody else, has no idea how it actually works. classic.

     

    you phony.

  • Reply 46 of 136
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    And of course it will have it's naysayers just like ever other Apple product has in the past. Now I'm hearing it's basically doa because it's not "cross platform". That seems to be the new buzzword these days. Do people not know how Apple makes its money? Until the watch can be a stand alone device it won't be "cross platform". The only way I could see that changing is if Apple sees data that more people would buy the watch if it worked with devices beyond iPhone. And even then the data would have to show that ?Watch sales are really being depressed because of iPhone exclusivity. I don't ever see that being the case.



    I got rid of my last cross-platform capable device years ago when IBM and Microsoft went through the rigmarole of pointing fingers at each other over how to stop my Windows PC from freezing several times a day after I installed the supposedly compatible Windows upgrade.  Apple doesn't play ping pong because they know it's bad for business.  Really, there are few things on earth that can piss a customer off more.  

  • Reply 47 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    i think MSFT's band is a bit more impressive. more sensors. more fitness features. double the battery life. 1/2 the cost. smaller profile. cross platform compatible.

     

    and does half as much. i wonder if thats why.

  • Reply 48 of 136
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,719member
    cmoebius wrote: »
    ... I have obviously not played with one yet.
    So true.

    How can you judge something that's not even released? We know next to nothing about it.
    inkling wrote: »
    Historical implications? I suspect Jony needs to take a modesty pill. This is not a vaccine for Ebola, a cure for cancer, or faster-than-light travel.

    It's just a watch.

    He's talking about the history of the watch and not how a watch affected history.
  • Reply 49 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    What a waste of time the Apple Watch is.



    I suppose it gives Ive something to do. Better than twiddling his thumbs, I suppose.



    It just goes to show that tech is done for the foreseeable future. It's time to get used to the plateau, folks.

     

    troll troll, troll. troll troll troll, troll troll. 

     

    troll.

  • Reply 50 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by josephwinters View Post





    I hope there's some sarcasm in what you're saying. :/ because I don't think that's the case at all. I fail to understand what aspect has given you such a negative connotation towards what's going on in tech right now. And particularly Apple. Just so odd of a comment.

     

    youre new here. BF is one of our few trolls who gets his rocks off trying to be contrarian. you can guarantee he'll say something incredibly stupid every thread, and that when you see other trolls saying incredibly stupid things (ex: pazau) that BF will be the single "like" on that item of stupidity. 

  • Reply 51 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    I don't view the watch as a technological revolution on the scale of the iPod, iPhone or iPad. As such, I believe we are in for a long period of consolidation. A large iPad may bump things up a bit.

     

    oh yes, because a bigger screened ipad is more "revolutionary" than a new category. not. 

  • Reply 52 of 136
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Inkling View Post



    Historical implications? I suspect Jony needs to take a modesty pill. This is not a vaccine for Ebola, a cure for cancer, or faster-than-light travel.



    It's just a watch.



    It may just be his focus. Like Jobs, nothing else matters. Only the product on-hand. When they started the Watch project, they probably went back to the watch history and considered historical usage and styles.



    During the reveal, someone mentioned that the watch faces and the crown are respectful of the watch history.

  • Reply 53 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    christophb wrote: »
    I believe Apple makes their money from software as much as hardware since it's sold as a package. AppleWatch is a blank canvas for companies to develop new app suites and new integration with existing apps - all of which Apple will get a slice. Just like iPhone this is will be a medium for companies that don't develop quality hardware to get new products to market faster and cheaper.

    Yes people buy Apple hardware because of the software/ecosystem. The point is you can only get that with Apple hardware. The software and services are mostly baked into the price of the hardware. And outside of iTunes and iCloud for Windows none of Apple's software is cross platform. Pretty much the opposite with Microsoft.
  • Reply 54 of 136
    The good news is version 2 will be better and version 3 will be even better. They have to start somewhere.
  • Reply 55 of 136
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,624member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post





    No sarcasm.



    I don't view the watch as a technological revolution on the scale of the iPod, iPhone or iPad. As such, I believe we are in for a long period of consolidation. A large iPad may bump things up a bit.



    There was some physics big shot too who said that pretty much everything in physics has been discovered so it's all just refining and cleaning up that's left to be done.  Then a couple of years later, 1905 came around and Einstein published his four articles.

     

    It might **look** like we're in for a long period of consolidation but the thing about technological developments and scientific discoveries is that you can't predict them. If it seems like people can predict them, that's only because lots of predictions are made all the time but we only remember the ones that got lucky and turned out right.

  • Reply 56 of 136
    mj webmj web Posts: 918member
    I'm emphatically underwhelmed by the prospect of owning this product. The straps are the best part of the design IMO and having to remove it daily to charge is dorky. I think it's no coincidence that Apple is launching the watch to coincide with the release of the iPhone 6 Plus which is cumbersome. I believe the watch was conceived as an interface for the larger phones. I wish Apple luck with it but I just don't see a runaway hit.
  • Reply 57 of 136
    tundraboytundraboy Posts: 1,624member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tundraboy View Post

     



    There was some physics big shot too who said that pretty much everything in physics has been discovered so it's all just refining and cleaning up that's left to be done.  Then a couple of years later, 1905 came around and Einstein published his four articles.

     

    It might **look** like we're in for a long period of consolidation but the thing about technological developments and scientific discoveries is that you can't predict them. If it seems like people can predict them, that's only because lots of predictions are made all the time but we only hear about and remember the few that got lucky and turned out right.


  • Reply 58 of 136
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    i think MSFT's band is a bit more impressive. more sensors. more fitness features. double the battery life. 1/2 the cost. smaller profile. cross platform compatible.



    I plan to get an ? Watch. Wear it virtually every waking hour. Strapped on the opposite wrist carrying my classic Movado or Rolex's (depending on the day and occasion).

     

    Not that I haven't, my foray with health/fitness bands didn't last long. Boring. Got more information/benefit with my iPhone and a couple of fitness/gps apps.

     

    Sure, it will cost me more. However the additional functionality and the integration with my iPhone/iPad will more than make up the difference. As well, my family and business colleagues will be happier with ALL the subtle notifications that the ? Watch provides.

     

    And although the ? Watch is double the price, I can't wait for all apps with greater functionality that we haven't heard of yet to come. 

     

    So with all that, is it still worth it? Or would I rather have a band around my wrist just to tell me that I missed a beat?

     

    But I know that after a year, I will get the next iteration knowing that my first my ? Watch will have still have more value than the one-hit band on your wrist…whether I hand it down, sell it or place it next to my other keepsake time pieces.

  • Reply 59 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    tundraboy wrote: »

    I got rid of my last cross-platform capable device years ago when IBM and Microsoft went through the rigmarole of pointing fingers at each other over how to stop my Windows PC from freezing several times a day after I installed the supposedly compatible Windows upgrade.  Apple doesn't play ping pong because they know it's bad for business.  Really, there are few things on earth that can piss a customer off more.  
    Cross platform is the new buzz word just like everything is cloud this, cloud that. Anybody that knows Apple should know their MO is not big data. Now maybe it should be but my guess is Apple is happy to let those that are best at it play in that space. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing Apple partner with Microsoft one day like they are with IBM. Microsoft is better at cloud than Apple is but Apple is better at consumer hardware and user experience. Mesh the two together and you'd have Google and Samsung quaking in their boots.
  • Reply 60 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mj web wrote: »
    I'm emphatically underwhelmed by the prospect of owning this product. The straps are the best part of the design IMO and having to remove it daily to charge is dorky. I think it's no coincidence that Apple is launching the watch to coincide with the release of the iPhone 6 Plus which is cumbersome. I believe the watch was conceived as an interface for the larger phones. I wish Apple luck with it but I just don't see a runaway hit.

    I don't get what's so difficult or cumbersome about taking the watch off and placing it on a charging stand before you go to bed. First world problems here. :rolleyes:
Sign In or Register to comment.