5M+ Apple Watch units to be built for launch, 18k gold 'Edition' could be Apple's most expensive pro

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 126
    philboogie wrote: »
    Sorry, wrong article to link to. But I remember the confusion and understood afterwards he meant calendar 2008. Here's a 'better' link:

    http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/09/live-from-macworld-2007-steve-jobs-keynote/

    [image]

    Nice find, but that ultimately means nothing when we're talking about the first year since the start of the iPhone going on sale. Jobs clearly qualified his statement to mean the calandra year 2008, excluding the first 3 quarters in which it was on sale, but no one else in this thrad has done any such thing, nor have they made any salient argument as to why a partial calendar years should be excluded from any count of a new product. It's simply BS that the troll is saying Apple sold over 10MM in its first year sinxe going on sale and then saying, "oh, I didn't mean to include any numbers from 2007 in that count." It's back peddling and it's pathetic.
  • Reply 122 of 126
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

     

    If that's what you'd claimed, you'd be right.  Didn't though, did you?  And my point was never about you being right or wrong, but that you lack any intellectual rigour.  Source your claims, and don't just pull numbers out of your ass.

     

    If you'd sourced it correctly, then you might have got the claim right.




    He was right; just admit it and get back to your little corner.

     

    What matters most is: the AWatch looks less and less appealing by the day - not to mention the 18K gold souvenir whose battery will be dead in less than two years, of course.

  • Reply 123 of 126
    solipsismy wrote: »

    Nice find, but that ultimately means nothing when we're talking about the first year since the start of the iPhone going on sale. Jobs clearly qualified his statement to mean the calandra year 2008, excluding the first 3 quarters in which it was on sale, but no one else in this thrad has done any such thing, nor have they made any salient argument as to why a partial calendar years should be excluded from any count of a new product. It's simply BS that the troll is saying Apple sold over 10MM in its first year sinxe going on sale and then saying, "oh, I didn't mean to include any numbers from 2007 in that count." It's back peddling and it's pathetic.

    Fully agree. The problem with the likes of Benjamin is that 1) this site won't ban them and even if they did others would simply take their place. To them I say: "A person who gets all wrapped up in himself makes a mighty small package"

    Hey, that works as a signature.
  • Reply 124 of 126
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,614member

    I like AI because I learn things from it. I like to read informed opinions by what appear to be Apple product users, shareholders, and savvy people. (And it doesn't hurt that I can sign up to post with an AI specific ID rather than some other system like facebook. Hate that stuff...)

     

    But man is there a lot of vitriol here. In and of itself, I guess it would be understandable, but interestingly I see it a lot in the Apple Watch articles. Many people seem to keep returning to post "This thing sucks." "I'm not going to buy one" "I don't know why people think this is so great." Well, OK, opinions are like assholes: everybody has one and it stinks. But I keep asking myself, "why do these people keep coming back to AI to post another 'this thing sucks' comment on an Apple-centric blog?" Ego? Appearance of prognostication? Or is it...maybe...looking for entertainment over others apparent folly? And if so, why get belligerent about it?

     

    There are lots of AI articles here that are uninteresting to me. I simply skip them. (I'm not an Aperature user, so it is hard for me to be outraged, yay, outraged, by Apple's decision to drop the product. Not interested, move on, nothing to see here.) It is interesting to me that the Apple Watch articles seem to have many people "not interested" ... but keep coming back to them like they ARE interested. I have no idea what this means.

  • Reply 125 of 126
    brlawyer wrote: »
    He was right; just admit it and get back to your little corner.

    He was? He said Apple sold 10MM iPhones in their first full calendar year of 2008 excluding the previous 3 quarters of 2007 in which the iPhone was first sold? Bull-fucking-shit!
Sign In or Register to comment.