I'm glad you brought up 3M because it is a great example of a company not afraid of going off into different markets like Apple. 3M's first product was FLYPAPER. Imagine where they'd be today if they'd have not ventured further afield.
actually 3M began as a mining company, working w/ grinders and producing sandpaper. still, great point!
If Apple cared one jot about peoples health they would have paid their fair share of taxes which are so badly needed around the world to help pay for medical care. They suck in the money and keep it like a vampire. So many people give Apple a pass simply because they like their products. If Apple were to pay their fair share I'd give them credit, but they have masterminded many of the schemes that are used to avoid paying taxes. Their heart is in their wallet make no mistake. Do you know how many people have suffered because of their tax avoidance? Do you know how many people might be alive today if they had just paid their fair share? Do you even care?
Do you have any idea what you're saying? First, Apple and EVERY OTHER COMPANY on earth is in business to make a profit. It's Apple's outsize profits that allow them to make significant changes to the working conditions and pay scale in their supply chain, both of which have unseen but positive benefits to the health of millions. As this article points out, Google, whose Android is installed on 80% of the smartphones and tablets worldwide, is both silent about and doing NOTHING to affect change within the supply chains of the many manufacturers building and selling Android phones. So there's no positive benefits to the safety and living standards (both of which are health issues) of the millions working to build Android phones.
Second, you seem to believe that Apple, or any company, has large vaults full of cash in its headquarters where all that money is stashed, doing nothing for anyone. That's simply not true. Apple's cash is paid out in dividends to people like me, who spend it into the economy, it's used to buy back stock, the sellers of which spend that cash right back into the economy, and its used to purchase treasuries, for example, which are vital to the ongoing funding of our government. The cash is out there, maybe not precisely where you would have it go, but who are you to make this decision.
I could just as strongly make an argument that humans, just one of untold numbers of species on this earth, are a disease upon the earth, sucking up resources, polluting and imbalancing the environment. Apple should spend all it's excess dollars in an effort to reduce human populations and restore balance to the environment. Hmm, maybe Apple is doing just that. A more well paid and educated workforce, with more options in life than to simply have more babies in hopes their children will take care of them in their old age, have fewer children in aggregate. And a solar farm to power a data center has a lesser impact on the environment, in aggregate, than burning fossil fuels.
So just because the technology didn't exist to do it any other way 14 years ago, it's OK to create a device dependent device now?
A person can walk out of a store with an iPod Touch today and start using it without the need for any other device. Same with the iPad, and iPhone.
I don't believe we know whether the ?Watch can do anything without first being paired with an iPhone. While capable of some things independently of the iPhone, it may not even tell time unless first paired with an iPhone, much less track fitness progress, or play mp3s.
If Apple cared one jot about peoples health they would have paid their fair share of taxes which are so badly needed around the world to help pay for medical care. They suck in the money and keep it like a vampire. So many people give Apple a pass simply because they like their products. If Apple were to pay their fair share I'd give them credit, but they have masterminded many of the schemes that are used to avoid paying taxes. Their heart is in their wallet make no mistake. Do you know how many people have suffered because of their tax avoidance? Do you know how many people might be alive today if they had just paid their fair share? Do you even care?
what on earth are you talking about? apple is the one of the largest taxpayers in the US, unlike those other notorious US firms who had a $0 tax obligation or in some cases were owed taxes (remember the GE scandal? sure you do).
youre confusing the offshore money they own from products they built and sold...offshore. the US has no stake to that income. apple paid taxes as governed by the nations where its held. the US would like apple to repatriate it to the US but hasnt lowered the tax rate on doing so to something less than income-tax levels. without an incentive theres no reason for apple to willingly lose 1/3 of its foreign-earned savings.
But that's DED'S mo. Starts off good then goes off for a rant against google/android add in copious links to articles and editorials that he has written to back up his own view point before returning to the topic. All in an amount of words that would put war and peace to shame.
It's a shame as he could be so much better but he does achieve the click bait quota for AI.
you seem to misunderstand what an editorial is or sets out to do. columnists and entire newspapers link to their other pieces every single day, and you never flinch then. why now? oh yeah, apple.
The phone has already become an unwelcome intrusion into many aspects of our lives. But it does have one saving grace -- you can put it away.
The watch, you really can't. Its always there. Perhaps there will be a simple way to put the watch into "airplane" mode which will even turn off the display unless a physical button is pressed. This is one of the reasons why glancing at your watch while otherwise engaged, became a socially unacceptable ... Because it was a ubiquitous, yet an accepted and necessary device. But imagine you are in a darkened theater, and ?Watches all around you are lighting up? It happens with smartphones now in a theater, but still many put their phones in their pockets. Not so with the wrist.
And as long as it's always there, people are probably going to interact with it. You've heard people take calls during a movie? Now they just have to raise their wrist to their mouth and start talking. One saving grace, at least if the phone starts ringing they should be able to silence it faster. But the geeky part will come into play when the guy sitting in the restaurant is having a conversation on his watch, while he surfs the web on his phone. Phone on the table while using the watch. Or the guy who can't stop playing with his, having to charge it multiple times a day because of it. The guy who shows up at a party and asks if anybody has an ?Watch charger because he needs to charge his watch, will win geek of the year award. Imagine the guy sitting in a corner at a club or party scrolling through his watch near his face because the screen is so small ... Or trying to show people pictures of his family (the modern equivalent of wallet photos). But the worst will be when Apple finally introduces a camera ... and you know it's coming -- 'is that guy checking the time, or taking a picture of me?'
These are all worst case scenarios for sure, and it's way too early to know how this device will be accepted by others. I suspect initially it will have a major cool factor, no matter how people may feel about it -- its just plain cool in what it can do. But once all of your friends and colleagues, and strangers on a plane have seen all the amazing things your watch can do, it may become a bore to them, unless you keep it very much to yourself -- and that's when things turn geeky. We shall see.
Watch notifications come from your iPhone. If you put your iPhone in Airplane mode, what happens to those notifications? Yes, that's correct, young Jedi, they are suppressed, and so will not flow to the watch. Problem solved.
Question: Were you posting these same missives about the smart watches that came before the Apple Watch, or did you save up all your trolling for us here on AppleInsider?
That's what Apple obviously thought about the iPad, since the original didn't have one. Who needs a camera on an iPad -- makes absolutely no sense. /s
And of course there's NO need for a camera on a watch, now that the watch is positioned so you can leave your phone in your bag, pocket, or 50+ feet away. So now when that precious moment occurs with a pet, or newborn, or something interesting out in the world, people will just scramble to find their phones, and potentially miss the photo opportunity. Yup you nailed it. No need for a camera on a watch at all -- ever -- even for those future face time conversations a person might have when there phone is 50 feet away. Besides, it's much easier to hold up a phone at arms length than just say ... your arm. It doesn't make any sense that just because the watch allows one to take phone calls with their phone in their pocket, that anyone would also want to take a face time call. Good call. /s
Can't justify the whole smartwatch concept. It boils down to the convenience of doing usual stuff "without pulling out your smartphone". Is it that much more convenient to bear the dramatically trumped UX the watch gives? It truly is Apple's step in to fashion. But not a great gadget in itself.
Go back and read my post earlier in this thread that details the four use cases that are better suited to a wearable. Post #94. Will look forward to your views regarding justification after you have read that.
Watch notifications come from your iPhone. If you put your iPhone in Airplane mode, what happens to those notifications? Yes, that's correct, young Jedi, they are suppressed, and so will not flow to the watch. Problem solved.
Right, because that's what people do in a theater. They all put their phones on "airplane mode". /s They don't even do that on airplanes anymore. And as long as we're making genius level observations ... isn't the whole point of the watch so that you can leave your phone in your pocket? And isn't it supposed to provide silent notification, thus enabling not to turn off audible notifications on their iPhone? Hmmm. Having a way to disable to watch, possibly even switching the iPhone into "airplane mode", seems much more in keeping with the purpose of the device in general.
And as long as it's always there, people are probably going to interact with it. You've heard people take calls during a movie? Now they just have to raise their wrist to their mouth and start talking. One saving grace, at least if the phone starts ringing they should be able to silence it faster. But the geeky part will come into play when the guy sitting in the restaurant is having a conversation on his watch, while he surfs the web on his phone. Phone on the table while using the watch. Or the guy who can't stop playing with his, having to charge it multiple times a day because of it. The guy who shows up at a party and asks if anybody has an ?Watch charger because he needs to charge his watch, will win geek of the year award. Imagine the guy sitting in a corner at a club or party scrolling through his watch near his face because the screen is so small ... Or trying to show people pictures of his family (the modern equivalent of wallet photos). But the worst will be when Apple finally introduces a camera ... and you know it's coming -- 'is that guy checking the time, or taking a picture of me?'
These are all worst case scenarios for sure, and it's way too early to know how this device will be accepted by others. I suspect initially it will have a major cool factor, no matter how people may feel about it -- its just plain cool in what it can do. But once all of your friends and colleagues, and strangers on a plane have seen all the amazing things your watch can do, it may become a bore to them, unless you keep it very much to yourself -- and that's when things turn geeky. We shall see.
what nonsense. most of those scenarios wont happen (surfing your watch 2" from your face) because the iphone is a better device to perform them on.
second, who on earth is operating under the premise that the apple watch is designed to impress friends and that boring them is to be avoided? no part of the use cases we expect to use the watch for have anything to do w/ impressing our friends. that sounds like something only a teenager would say...
Wow. Then I guess there's no such thing as an "unbiased opinion". /s
context is everything. in the case of editorial opinions, they are the very definition of personal bias. thats why theyre spelled E-D-I-T-O-R-I-A-L, and not N-E-W-S.
So just because the technology didn't exist to do it any other way 14 years ago, it's OK to create a device dependent device now?
A person can walk out of a store with an iPod Touch today and start using it without the need for any other device. Same with the iPad, and iPhone.
I don't believe we know whether the ?Watch can do anything without first being paired with an iPhone. While capable of some things independently of the iPhone, it may not even tell time unless first paired with an iPhone, much less track fitness progress, or play mp3s.
When are you not within several meters of your smartphone? For all but the runner who doesn't want to carry his smartphone along on a run, or diver, cyclist, etc, the necessity of being in proximity to your iPhone is a non-issue. Future editions, as technology advances, will incorporate more of the capabilities of a smartphone, such as GPS, LTE connectivity, etc, and gradually there will arise a population of leading edge users who will opt to have only the Watch and not own a smartphone. Then, eventually, more and more of the populace will do the same. This is the future, and it may require holographic displays or the Watch being capable of wireless beaming content to another display, but its a future that may come and begins here, with the first set of use cases that, yes, require it to be wirelessly tethered to an iPhone. See message #94 in this thread for my predictions of the four key use cases that today are more suitable for a wearable.
While you are seeking self-affirmation by using sarcasm to portrait me as a dummy and yet making no point of your own,
incorrect: nobody called you a dummy, and my point is obviously clear.
you: apple watch is "not a great gadget in itself".
me: you haven't even used one, therefore your opinion is quite meritless and bunk. after youve used one youll be in a better position to claim its a not a great gadget, but not before.
still bunk. one doesnt have to have used the as of yet unreleased apple watch to know that, definitively, surfing the web is superior on a much larger smartphone.
one *does* have to have used the as of yet unreleased apple watch to state, definitely, that it's not a good device.
...if you cant tell the difference between those then youre being obtuse.
Comments
I'm glad you brought up 3M because it is a great example of a company not afraid of going off into different markets like Apple. 3M's first product was FLYPAPER. Imagine where they'd be today if they'd have not ventured further afield.
actually 3M began as a mining company, working w/ grinders and producing sandpaper. still, great point!
If Apple cared one jot about peoples health they would have paid their fair share of taxes which are so badly needed around the world to help pay for medical care. They suck in the money and keep it like a vampire. So many people give Apple a pass simply because they like their products. If Apple were to pay their fair share I'd give them credit, but they have masterminded many of the schemes that are used to avoid paying taxes. Their heart is in their wallet make no mistake. Do you know how many people have suffered because of their tax avoidance? Do you know how many people might be alive today if they had just paid their fair share? Do you even care?
Do you have any idea what you're saying? First, Apple and EVERY OTHER COMPANY on earth is in business to make a profit. It's Apple's outsize profits that allow them to make significant changes to the working conditions and pay scale in their supply chain, both of which have unseen but positive benefits to the health of millions. As this article points out, Google, whose Android is installed on 80% of the smartphones and tablets worldwide, is both silent about and doing NOTHING to affect change within the supply chains of the many manufacturers building and selling Android phones. So there's no positive benefits to the safety and living standards (both of which are health issues) of the millions working to build Android phones.
Second, you seem to believe that Apple, or any company, has large vaults full of cash in its headquarters where all that money is stashed, doing nothing for anyone. That's simply not true. Apple's cash is paid out in dividends to people like me, who spend it into the economy, it's used to buy back stock, the sellers of which spend that cash right back into the economy, and its used to purchase treasuries, for example, which are vital to the ongoing funding of our government. The cash is out there, maybe not precisely where you would have it go, but who are you to make this decision.
I could just as strongly make an argument that humans, just one of untold numbers of species on this earth, are a disease upon the earth, sucking up resources, polluting and imbalancing the environment. Apple should spend all it's excess dollars in an effort to reduce human populations and restore balance to the environment. Hmm, maybe Apple is doing just that. A more well paid and educated workforce, with more options in life than to simply have more babies in hopes their children will take care of them in their old age, have fewer children in aggregate. And a solar farm to power a data center has a lesser impact on the environment, in aggregate, than burning fossil fuels.
You need to re-examine your views.
A person can walk out of a store with an iPod Touch today and start using it without the need for any other device. Same with the iPad, and iPhone.
I don't believe we know whether the ?Watch can do anything without first being paired with an iPhone. While capable of some things independently of the iPhone, it may not even tell time unless first paired with an iPhone, much less track fitness progress, or play mp3s.
If you want real beauty buy a Tag Heur which has real craftmanship. This watch meaning the Apple is a complete waste of money.
Tags look like over-designed, super-mechanized Transformers man-toy garbage to me. i like the sleek, relaxing design of the AW.
so your watch is a complete waste of money....to me. see how that works?
If Apple cared one jot about peoples health they would have paid their fair share of taxes which are so badly needed around the world to help pay for medical care. They suck in the money and keep it like a vampire. So many people give Apple a pass simply because they like their products. If Apple were to pay their fair share I'd give them credit, but they have masterminded many of the schemes that are used to avoid paying taxes. Their heart is in their wallet make no mistake. Do you know how many people have suffered because of their tax avoidance? Do you know how many people might be alive today if they had just paid their fair share? Do you even care?
what on earth are you talking about? apple is the one of the largest taxpayers in the US, unlike those other notorious US firms who had a $0 tax obligation or in some cases were owed taxes (remember the GE scandal? sure you do).
youre confusing the offshore money they own from products they built and sold...offshore. the US has no stake to that income. apple paid taxes as governed by the nations where its held. the US would like apple to repatriate it to the US but hasnt lowered the tax rate on doing so to something less than income-tax levels. without an incentive theres no reason for apple to willingly lose 1/3 of its foreign-earned savings.
But that's DED'S mo. Starts off good then goes off for a rant against google/android add in copious links to articles and editorials that he has written to back up his own view point before returning to the topic. All in an amount of words that would put war and peace to shame.
It's a shame as he could be so much better but he does achieve the click bait quota for AI.
you seem to misunderstand what an editorial is or sets out to do. columnists and entire newspapers link to their other pieces every single day, and you never flinch then. why now? oh yeah, apple.
The phone has already become an unwelcome intrusion into many aspects of our lives. But it does have one saving grace -- you can put it away.
The watch, you really can't. Its always there. Perhaps there will be a simple way to put the watch into "airplane" mode which will even turn off the display unless a physical button is pressed. This is one of the reasons why glancing at your watch while otherwise engaged, became a socially unacceptable ... Because it was a ubiquitous, yet an accepted and necessary device. But imagine you are in a darkened theater, and ?Watches all around you are lighting up? It happens with smartphones now in a theater, but still many put their phones in their pockets. Not so with the wrist.
And as long as it's always there, people are probably going to interact with it. You've heard people take calls during a movie? Now they just have to raise their wrist to their mouth and start talking. One saving grace, at least if the phone starts ringing they should be able to silence it faster. But the geeky part will come into play when the guy sitting in the restaurant is having a conversation on his watch, while he surfs the web on his phone. Phone on the table while using the watch. Or the guy who can't stop playing with his, having to charge it multiple times a day because of it. The guy who shows up at a party and asks if anybody has an ?Watch charger because he needs to charge his watch, will win geek of the year award. Imagine the guy sitting in a corner at a club or party scrolling through his watch near his face because the screen is so small ... Or trying to show people pictures of his family (the modern equivalent of wallet photos). But the worst will be when Apple finally introduces a camera ... and you know it's coming -- 'is that guy checking the time, or taking a picture of me?'
These are all worst case scenarios for sure, and it's way too early to know how this device will be accepted by others. I suspect initially it will have a major cool factor, no matter how people may feel about it -- its just plain cool in what it can do. But once all of your friends and colleagues, and strangers on a plane have seen all the amazing things your watch can do, it may become a bore to them, unless you keep it very much to yourself -- and that's when things turn geeky. We shall see.
Watch notifications come from your iPhone. If you put your iPhone in Airplane mode, what happens to those notifications? Yes, that's correct, young Jedi, they are suppressed, and so will not flow to the watch. Problem solved.
Question: Were you posting these same missives about the smart watches that came before the Apple Watch, or did you save up all your trolling for us here on AppleInsider?
It makes no sense to have a camera on a watch.
That's what Apple obviously thought about the iPad, since the original didn't have one. Who needs a camera on an iPad -- makes absolutely no sense. /s
And of course there's NO need for a camera on a watch, now that the watch is positioned so you can leave your phone in your bag, pocket, or 50+ feet away. So now when that precious moment occurs with a pet, or newborn, or something interesting out in the world, people will just scramble to find their phones, and potentially miss the photo opportunity. Yup you nailed it. No need for a camera on a watch at all -- ever -- even for those future face time conversations a person might have when there phone is 50 feet away. Besides, it's much easier to hold up a phone at arms length than just say ... your arm. It doesn't make any sense that just because the watch allows one to take phone calls with their phone in their pocket, that anyone would also want to take a face time call. Good call. /s
Can't justify the whole smartwatch concept. It boils down to the convenience of doing usual stuff "without pulling out your smartphone". Is it that much more convenient to bear the dramatically trumped UX the watch gives? It truly is Apple's step in to fashion. But not a great gadget in itself.
Go back and read my post earlier in this thread that details the four use cases that are better suited to a wearable. Post #94. Will look forward to your views regarding justification after you have read that.
Watch notifications come from your iPhone. If you put your iPhone in Airplane mode, what happens to those notifications? Yes, that's correct, young Jedi, they are suppressed, and so will not flow to the watch. Problem solved.
Right, because that's what people do in a theater. They all put their phones on "airplane mode". /s They don't even do that on airplanes anymore. And as long as we're making genius level observations ... isn't the whole point of the watch so that you can leave your phone in your pocket? And isn't it supposed to provide silent notification, thus enabling not to turn off audible notifications on their iPhone? Hmmm. Having a way to disable to watch, possibly even switching the iPhone into "airplane mode", seems much more in keeping with the purpose of the device in general.
the definition of an editorial is opinion. opinion is bias, duh.
Wow. Then I guess there's no such thing as an "unbiased opinion". /s
And as long as it's always there, people are probably going to interact with it. You've heard people take calls during a movie? Now they just have to raise their wrist to their mouth and start talking. One saving grace, at least if the phone starts ringing they should be able to silence it faster. But the geeky part will come into play when the guy sitting in the restaurant is having a conversation on his watch, while he surfs the web on his phone. Phone on the table while using the watch. Or the guy who can't stop playing with his, having to charge it multiple times a day because of it. The guy who shows up at a party and asks if anybody has an ?Watch charger because he needs to charge his watch, will win geek of the year award. Imagine the guy sitting in a corner at a club or party scrolling through his watch near his face because the screen is so small ... Or trying to show people pictures of his family (the modern equivalent of wallet photos). But the worst will be when Apple finally introduces a camera ... and you know it's coming -- 'is that guy checking the time, or taking a picture of me?'
These are all worst case scenarios for sure, and it's way too early to know how this device will be accepted by others. I suspect initially it will have a major cool factor, no matter how people may feel about it -- its just plain cool in what it can do. But once all of your friends and colleagues, and strangers on a plane have seen all the amazing things your watch can do, it may become a bore to them, unless you keep it very much to yourself -- and that's when things turn geeky. We shall see.
what nonsense. most of those scenarios wont happen (surfing your watch 2" from your face) because the iphone is a better device to perform them on.
second, who on earth is operating under the premise that the apple watch is designed to impress friends and that boring them is to be avoided? no part of the use cases we expect to use the watch for have anything to do w/ impressing our friends. that sounds like something only a teenager would say...
About 100 years ago.
Wow. Then I guess there's no such thing as an "unbiased opinion". /s
context is everything. in the case of editorial opinions, they are the very definition of personal bias. thats why theyre spelled E-D-I-T-O-R-I-A-L, and not N-E-W-S.
So just because the technology didn't exist to do it any other way 14 years ago, it's OK to create a device dependent device now?
A person can walk out of a store with an iPod Touch today and start using it without the need for any other device. Same with the iPad, and iPhone.
I don't believe we know whether the ?Watch can do anything without first being paired with an iPhone. While capable of some things independently of the iPhone, it may not even tell time unless first paired with an iPhone, much less track fitness progress, or play mp3s.
When are you not within several meters of your smartphone? For all but the runner who doesn't want to carry his smartphone along on a run, or diver, cyclist, etc, the necessity of being in proximity to your iPhone is a non-issue. Future editions, as technology advances, will incorporate more of the capabilities of a smartphone, such as GPS, LTE connectivity, etc, and gradually there will arise a population of leading edge users who will opt to have only the Watch and not own a smartphone. Then, eventually, more and more of the populace will do the same. This is the future, and it may require holographic displays or the Watch being capable of wireless beaming content to another display, but its a future that may come and begins here, with the first set of use cases that, yes, require it to be wirelessly tethered to an iPhone. See message #94 in this thread for my predictions of the four key use cases that today are more suitable for a wearable.
While you are seeking self-affirmation by using sarcasm to portrait me as a dummy and yet making no point of your own,
incorrect: nobody called you a dummy, and my point is obviously clear.
you: apple watch is "not a great gadget in itself".
me: you haven't even used one, therefore your opinion is quite meritless and bunk. after youve used one youll be in a better position to claim its a not a great gadget, but not before.
There. Have it with yourself
still bunk. one doesnt have to have used the as of yet unreleased apple watch to know that, definitively, surfing the web is superior on a much larger smartphone.
one *does* have to have used the as of yet unreleased apple watch to state, definitely, that it's not a good device.
...if you cant tell the difference between those then youre being obtuse.