The literal interpretation of the watch face etc. ie. the watch as metaphor for a device which obviously does so much more. I'm sorry but the Apple Watch just reminds me of Newton type technology. Good idea... wrong implementation. Apple has the bucks to get it right if it's wrong. Maybe in 5-7 years we'll get the iPad version of the Newton in Apple wearables.
1) It's a literal interpretation but also a metaphor? :???:
2) Of course it has a watch face, just as the iPhone didn't re-order the buttons on the phone dialer (which are typically ordered from top to bottom everywhere else). They also introduced iOS in 2007 with buttons that more closely represented buttons (aka: skeumorophism). Maybe one day the analog clock face will go away, but I highly doubt it since it has some appeal for "sophistication" and is still the go-to icon for a clock. If you don't care for the analog clock faces, then don't use one. It's highly configurable, as is required when dealing with something highly personal like something to be worn.
There's a huge difference between the smart phone and a watch.
Any chance you had at a decent rebuttal is lost with that statement. Of course they are different. No one has stated otherwise. In fact, just looking at them you can tell they are different.
The smart phone put a computer in your pocket.
And ?Watch is a computer on your wrist.
...it offers nothing revolutionary in the way the smart phone itself did.
1) Nothing?! There is nothing at all about HW, SW, services, ecosystem that Apple has designed that are new to wearable market? NOTHING?! :roll eyes:
2) Why does it need to be like the iPhone to be successful? If you don't think ?Watch was revolutionary at all then there is nothing about the iPad that revolutionary since it's very, very close in the codebase to the iPhone, but with a larger display. It's a completely new GUI to idealize itself for the display, but it's not any revolutionary tech. Yet the iPad is the fastest growing CE in history, even far surpassing the iPhone's growth rate.
PS: There is a not-so-thin line between, "Yeah, ?Watch has a lot of revolutionary aspects to it like…" and "I don't think this product will catch on because…". Revolutionary tech ? Successful in business, and by that same notion not being revolutionary in tech doesn't mean you won't succeed in business (e.g.: Windows).
Why did Apple have such a successful quarter? Because it finally released an iPhone with a BIGGER screen. Not because I can now check my notifications on the screen the size of a postage stamp on my wrist.
Now your argument is that Apple had a great Holiday quarter because of the iPhone 6 series… not because of ?Watch… which isn't on sale yet? WTF?! You say you're not lazy but that comment tells a different story.
As for MP3s, only an idiot can't see how the MP3 player was a major improvement over previous portable music players. It solved a huge problem (the hassle of juggling/carrying physical media) and added major value to one's life (all of your music in your pocket). No smartwatch to date has solved a major problem or added major value. And that's why, despite years of such products being available, they haven't sold well. I have no doubt that Apple will raise the bar significantly with the Apple Watch, but I still see very little evidence that consumers are interested in wearables as a category. Maybe Apple Watch will change that.
1) It was a niche market before the iPod made it popular, but you keep saying that ?Watch won't be popular because smart-watches aren't popular now.:rolleyes:
You jump to a lot of conclusions about people who don't agree with you, don't you?
1) Let me post a list of your statements from a single post you made.
“The watch […] offers nothing revolutionary.” ...followed by… “Of course there's always the POSSIBILITY that something truly revolutionary will emerge. I don't discount that.” ...followed by… “Maybe Apple Watch will change that.” ...followed by… “Apple Watch isn't going to change that.”
Unfortunately for you I'm not lazy when it comes to following a conversation, although extremely lazy when it comes to proofreading for typos and bad auto-corrects.
2) You got to get your thoughts straightened out. On the cusp ? it's at its apex. It means that the market is just about to be ripe for upward growth, so it's not even mainstream at this time. Wearable electronics are going to be mainstream after decades of headphones and watches. It will happen for the reasons you already stated in your attempt to meander to a statement that it won't/will happen (you switched your position too many times to really know), but I'm saying wearables will be a huge market within a few years, and just like the iPod took years before it was mainstream and many more years before it topped out, the wearable market will follow the same path, albeit with a different time frame. Don't be the guy in 2007 saying "The smartphone market is on the cusp of a revolution and a move to the mainstream because the iPhone only has EDGE and no physical keyboard." That guy wasn't able to see the writing on the wall.
I think older people are the least likely to buy an ?Watch.
It is mostly younger people who seem to be more interested in fiddling with a thousand little buttons and settings on their device like the ones shown in this article.
Older people are more likely to identify with your signature (Tomato Greeting Card).
Clumsily, I was trying to make the point that if you have a relative or loved one who is older or impaired, you might buy and setup the Apple Watch for them -- for their safety, well-being and your peace of mind.
I am the oldest ... so that doesn't apply for me.
We live in an upper middle-class area ... My granddaughter drives, works and attends a community college. My two grandsons attend high school.
Periodically, each will get into potentially dangerous situations, e.g, the high school was locked-down yesterday ...
Basically, it's dangerous out there.
With the Apple Watch, an app will be able to detect [at the very least] an irregular pulse -- and through the paired iPhone alert the family ...
I can't put a price on that!
Until you get too many false positives and decide to de-activate it.
Of course, you seem to be forgetting this your interpretation of what I said is just an opinion. Not solid fact... or anything close to it.
When you define your concept as a metaphor you are forcing me to make interpretations. The only reasons I see people doing that is because they can try to wiggle out of their comments later (the intelligent troll) or those that don't really have a good foundation for their argument in the first place (clearly this is where I think your comment fall). There should be zero ambiguity with what I'm stating. When I say wearable electronic, I literally mean wearable electronics, which include headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I literally mean a device worn on the wrist.
I would definitely prefer if your language changed to remove the metaphor from the conversation entirely.
If I knew what the design was supposed to be I wouldn't be sitting here typing crap to strangers... but I can have an opinion as to whether or not I believe that a certain design or implementation is the right way to go about it or the wrong way to go about it. It is my opinion.
Knowing how something should be completed and being able to do all the streps to get it completely are very different things. ?Pay is how I thought it should be designed, but I would never be able to make that happen… so here I am posting crap to strangers. Or take a trainer v. trainee.
Sad to see no reference to syncing with the Reminders app. I use it a lot.
I’ll be glad when Apple one day get Reminders syncing between iPhone and iPad, let alone Apple Watch. Ditto email. There are so many basic software bugs that need fixing. This bloody Watch, I'm sure, is distracting Apple from all the boring but important stuff that actually affects their customers.
If only Steve Jobs were here to whip them all into shape.
Sure they are. Just because they predate the term doesn't mean they aren't a wearable CE accessory, just as email is still a cloud-based service device predating the term.
Sure they are. Just because they predate the term doesn't mean they aren't a wearable CE accessory, just as email is still a cloud-based service device predating the term.
No, headphones are not defined as wearables, any more than the iPhone is. Otherwise, wearables would be said to have taken off in the 80s with the Walkman, and we would now be in a mature market that's thirty years old. That's not what people mean by wearables.
No, headphones are not defined as wearables, any more than the iPhone is. Otherwise, wearables would be said to have taken off in the 80s with the Walkman, and we would now be in a mature market that's thirty years old. That's not what people mean by wearables.
Apple Watches will be a hit. Do not worry. They will become Apple's #4 product or #5 after Beats fones. Somewhere in there. I predict the luxury models will sell out immediately. This is because of status for rich Chinese and others. Apple makes them in gold for a reason, the Chinese love gold.
for the ultimate Apple techie addict, this is a must own add-on, for everyone else it will depend and needs will be unique and varied. BTW, by a "hit" I mean a product which by Apple standards is smallish, but still makes more profit than facebook or Amazon every year. Kind of like Beats.
I assume these watches also allow Apple Pay so that is a smart feature. What super cool dude wouldn't want to impress his date by flashing his watch and paying the tab instantly?
Apple products in China and everywhere else are also proof of prosperity symbols/ie sex symbols. if I were in charge of Rolex I would be worried. The expensive luxury watch business is about to be truly disrupted. I predict Apple will make 5 billion profit off these watches in the first year. TGhat is more than most medium cap companies make all year.
And yet critics poo poo the idea and treat it as if is were a trifle -- nothing Apple does these days is trivial.
Comments
1) It's a literal interpretation but also a metaphor? :???:
2) Of course it has a watch face, just as the iPhone didn't re-order the buttons on the phone dialer (which are typically ordered from top to bottom everywhere else). They also introduced iOS in 2007 with buttons that more closely represented buttons (aka: skeumorophism). Maybe one day the analog clock face will go away, but I highly doubt it since it has some appeal for "sophistication" and is still the go-to icon for a clock. If you don't care for the analog clock faces, then don't use one. It's highly configurable, as is required when dealing with something highly personal like something to be worn.
Any chance you had at a decent rebuttal is lost with that statement. Of course they are different. No one has stated otherwise. In fact, just looking at them you can tell they are different.
And ?Watch is a computer on your wrist.
1) Nothing?! There is nothing at all about HW, SW, services, ecosystem that Apple has designed that are new to wearable market? NOTHING?! :roll eyes:
2) Why does it need to be like the iPhone to be successful? If you don't think ?Watch was revolutionary at all then there is nothing about the iPad that revolutionary since it's very, very close in the codebase to the iPhone, but with a larger display. It's a completely new GUI to idealize itself for the display, but it's not any revolutionary tech. Yet the iPad is the fastest growing CE in history, even far surpassing the iPhone's growth rate.
PS: There is a not-so-thin line between, "Yeah, ?Watch has a lot of revolutionary aspects to it like…" and "I don't think this product will catch on because…". Revolutionary tech ? Successful in business, and by that same notion not being revolutionary in tech doesn't mean you won't succeed in business (e.g.: Windows).
Now your argument is that Apple had a great Holiday quarter because of the iPhone 6 series… not because of ?Watch… which isn't on sale yet? WTF?! You say you're not lazy but that comment tells a different story.
1) It was a niche market before the iPod made it popular, but you keep saying that ?Watch won't be popular because smart-watches aren't popular now.:rolleyes:
1) Let me post a list of your statements from a single post you made.
Unfortunately for you I'm not lazy when it comes to following a conversation, although extremely lazy when it comes to proofreading for typos and bad auto-corrects.
2) You got to get your thoughts straightened out. On the cusp ? it's at its apex. It means that the market is just about to be ripe for upward growth, so it's not even mainstream at this time. Wearable electronics are going to be mainstream after decades of headphones and watches. It will happen for the reasons you already stated in your attempt to meander to a statement that it won't/will happen (you switched your position too many times to really know), but I'm saying wearables will be a huge market within a few years, and just like the iPod took years before it was mainstream and many more years before it topped out, the wearable market will follow the same path, albeit with a different time frame. Don't be the guy in 2007 saying "The smartphone market is on the cusp of a revolution and a move to the mainstream because the iPhone only has EDGE and no physical keyboard." That guy wasn't able to see the writing on the wall.
That was [@]island hermit[/@]'s specific wording he used in a previous comment toward us.
1) It's a literal interpretation but a metaphor?
Yup... and I know it's one hundred percent correct.
Until you get too many false positives and decide to de-activate it.
No.
Headphones are not defined as wearables.
I’ll be glad when Apple one day get Reminders syncing between iPhone and iPad, let alone Apple Watch. Ditto email. There are so many basic software bugs that need fixing. This bloody Watch, I'm sure, is distracting Apple from all the boring but important stuff that actually affects their customers.
If only Steve Jobs were here to whip them all into shape.
You know a literal interpretation of a methapor is 100% correct? :no:
Sure they are. Just because they predate the term doesn't mean they aren't a wearable CE accessory, just as email is still a cloud-based service device predating the term.
No, headphones are not defined as wearables, any more than the iPhone is. Otherwise, wearables would be said to have taken off in the 80s with the Walkman, and we would now be in a mature market that's thirty years old. That's not what people mean by wearables.
for the ultimate Apple techie addict, this is a must own add-on, for everyone else it will depend and needs will be unique and varied. BTW, by a "hit" I mean a product which by Apple standards is smallish, but still makes more profit than facebook or Amazon every year. Kind of like Beats.
I assume these watches also allow Apple Pay so that is a smart feature. What super cool dude wouldn't want to impress his date by flashing his watch and paying the tab instantly?
Apple products in China and everywhere else are also proof of prosperity symbols/ie sex symbols. if I were in charge of Rolex I would be worried. The expensive luxury watch business is about to be truly disrupted. I predict Apple will make 5 billion profit off these watches in the first year. TGhat is more than most medium cap companies make all year.
And yet critics poo poo the idea and treat it as if is were a trifle -- nothing Apple does these days is trivial.