Circular smartwatch screens are practically useless for displaying information correctly. Too much wasted space.
Well you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But the current screen of Apple's 38mm watch would fit perfectly into a circle and not sacrifice a thing, nor take up any more room on a person's wrist than any other round watch out there. Plus it would allow for additional detail to be placed in that "wasted space" just as their software allows for different features on 3.5" and 4" iPhone. Indeed, some people just like the aesthetic of a round watch. And for those who want the 42mm model, "big" watches come in and out of style, so maybe Apple doesn't offer the larger size. Indeed I would be surprised if Apple never introduces a round model, if for no other reason that they can also put a larger battery in all that "wasted space" too, giving them incentive to creatively utilize the space on the screen.
The elephant in the room is whether Apple is going down the fashion road with the watch and commit to it whole-heartedly, or whether they are going to sit parked at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts, offering a single simple design that just gets thinner and more powerful over time. I would argue, based on how they have embraced the fashion aspect of this, that the former might be their commitment to this product, and if they do, then they will have to do more than update the same design every two years. Like it or not, watches are very personal, and people who wear them don't necessarily like wearing an identical watch to even another person in their social group, much less everybody on the planet. That's why watch makers offer a plethora of designs, and new ones every year. People here may not care for all of them, but these watch makers do very well selling them. And for Apple, which is forced into the constraints of an information display already, means different shapes, and styles to cater to the fashionable whims of "watch people". A new watch band every year isn't really going to cut it. But I can also see Apple offering one design, and making it extremely well. Other watch makers don't do this, but then again Apple offers only one iPhone, at the most 3 at any one time, unlike other phone makers. And for those who don't care for the look of the ?Watch, they will still have the Swiss watch makers catering to them, as they step up to offer "smart" offerings themselves. Or they can buy a Moto 360 and accept the limitations of how it works within the Apple ecosystem.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/185240/whos-afraid-of-the-apple-watch/120#post_2692781" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false">Quote:<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>singularity</strong> <a href="/t/185240/whos-afraid-of-the-apple-watch/120#post_2692781"><img alt="View Post" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" /></a><br /><br />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.<br />It's a shame as he could be so much better but he does achieve the click bait quota for AI.</div></div><p> </p><p>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.</p>
I do understand what an editorial is as for not flinching when others link to their own pieces, I do but I'm not going to point out others doing it on other sites.
It is just that the author really likes his own word to back up his assertions.... This is true because I said it was in another article. It is really galling when it's not needed. Obfuscation through repitition and length. There is a great writer just waiting to break out.
Boys, boys! Let's try to behave ourselves. You can't convince everyone of the truth, and it's absurd to try. I think it's clear that we humans will believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Those who hate Apple, will hate Apple forever. Face it, it's not logical, but it certainly is fascinating.
When I first had to choose between buying a Mac or a PC (late 80s), I chose beauty and elegance over price. I'm so grateful I did, and I've never looked back. On the few occasions over the years when I've tried to convince someone that Apple products were better than Microsoft, I was usually wasting my time. So I don't anymore.
I enjoy reading articles like this one, which present the facts with some wit, but I doubt they will ever open the close-minded. But for all of us who suffered through Apple's lean years under the foot of Microsoft, the 21st century sure has been a time of joyous vindication. Let's hope there's plenty more where that came from.
Well you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But the current screen of Apple's 38mm watch would fit perfectly into a circle and not sacrifice a thing, nor take up any more room on a person's wrist than any other round watch out there. Plus it would allow for additional detail to be placed in that "wasted space" just as their software allows for different features on 3.5" and 4" iPhone. Indeed, some people just like the aesthetic of a round watch. And for those who want the 42mm model, "big" watches come in and out of style, so maybe Apple doesn't offer the larger size. Indeed I would be surprised if Apple never introduces a round model, if for no other reason that they can also put a larger battery in all that "wasted space" too, giving them incentive to creatively utilize the space on the screen.
The elephant in the room is whether Apple is going down the fashion road with the watch and commit to it whole-heartedly, or whether they are going to sit parked at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts, offering a single simple design that just gets thinner and more powerful over time. I would argue, based on how they have embraced the fashion aspect of this, that the former might be their commitment to this product, and if they do, then they will have to do more than update the same design every two years. Like it or not, watches are very personal, and people who wear them don't necessarily like wearing an identical watch to even another person in their social group, much less everybody on the planet. That's why watch makers offer a plethora of designs, and new ones every year. People here may not care for all of them, but these watch makers do very well selling them. And for Apple, which is forced into the constraints of an information display already, means different shapes, and styles to cater to the fashionable whims of "watch people". A new watch band every year isn't really going to cut it. But I can also see Apple offering one design, and making it extremely well. Other watch makers don't do this, but then again Apple offers only one iPhone, at the most 3 at any one time, unlike other phone makers. And for those who don't care for the look of the ?Watch, they will still have the Swiss watch makers catering to them, as they step up to offer "smart" offerings themselves. Or they can buy a Moto 360 and accept the limitations of how it works within the Apple ecosystem.
Dude, this isn't about "watch people." This is about having an appliance on your wrist that will unlock the door to your home, car, office, about controlling your TV, Stereo, heat and air-conditioning, lights, remote cameras, getting and dispatching notifications, updating Salesforce or your project tracking software when you meet a milestone you set for yourself or your boss set for you, presenting payment or a travel pass (airline, train, etc). All of these use cases are more convenient and suited for a wearable device.
The future of a wrist-worn device will be to handle two significant classes of tasks; receiving information more conveniently, and taking simple actions that are currently performed by stand-alone appliances (light switches, TV remotes, air conditioner and other home environment controllers, sets of keys, credit cards, yes, these are all, in some respect appliances as they currently perform some task in our lives).
That thing on your wrist that for a couple hundred years indicated the time and a couple dozen other time-related bits of information is now being pulled into an always-connected information society. The expectations of what it will do will shift, and as that shift occurs, people will want basic and luxury editions of that device. Apple, and a few others, but to the largest extent Apple, is in the position to provide devices that will conform to the utility requirements that are now being established. Apple may not be the company who can deliver those requirements at the highest end of the luxury spectrum, but those companies now playing at that end of the spectrum are only "watch people"; they are not and will not soon be masters of the always-connected information paradigm that wrist-worn devices will demand. They MUST either partner with Apple or another tech company, or somehow miraculously develop all those capabilities the Apple Watch will soon define as the standard of functionality, or they will need to find a new line of work. My prediction... the more intelligent among them will seek to partner with Apple, ala CarPlay or Intel-Inside.
Well you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But the current screen of Apple's 38mm watch would fit perfectly into a circle and not sacrifice a thing, nor take up any more room on a person's wrist than any other round watch out there.
Absolutely wrong. The watch case would be much bigger. Its simple geometry. The case would be bigger on all four sides.
Rectangles are the most efficent shape for displays. Circles are one of the worst up there with Triangle.
You'd be surprised.
Read Marvin's post. For the purposes of the Apple Watch, a round shape would actually be more efficient than a square, as well as more aesthetically pleasing.
[I]"While Google successfully Jim-Jonesed members of a young generation into signing up for an wonderful open world where everything would be free, the membership of its "peoples platform" is now finding that in reality, Google is just screwing everyone, for free, in a camp offering little more than increasingly squalid conditions. It's only missing the Flavor Aid.[/I]"
The irony of DED calling Google "Jonestown" is akin to the Pot calling the Kettle "space grey".
Whatever the ?Watch can do the day a customer takes it out of the store is all they can ever expect it to do. Apple NEVER comments on future plans, and it would be disingenuous to sell a customer an Apple product that they think has the capability to be upgraded to do things they assume it's possible for it to do.
Apple has a history of leaving hardware behind that has been shown can otherwise handle software updates with which Apple skipped over it. Just because a thing is possible, doesn't mean that Apple will do it, much less when.
Then don't buy the watch if it doesn't fit your needs. Apple knows what it's doing. It has been very successful in doing what it's been doing.
The watch will probably do "okay", but not be a huge new category of product that a lot of people will want. Unless Apple has a big card or many cards up its sleeve, the iPhone has probably reached its apex in sales. Tablet sales are already lame. Apple stock will probably flatline or decline in the coming years. Come a decent stock market correction, it may go down a good 30% and not recover. I'd almost literally eat my hat if Apple stock goes up 10% more in the coming 2 years. It the watch craps out, then people will question the post-Steve era and stocks could continue to decline. As Steve said, you have to keep your eye out for the next best thing. I'd consider Apple stock to be pretty risky or just not a good place to roll the dice. Seems the dividend is pretty good, so if you bought cheap long ago...good returns there.
a. Your stock analysis sucks. revenue/yr (and more importantly, earnings) forecasted higher...then again you probably know more than the other off-street analysts. Yes, I don't just count on street analysts. And even if flat earnings... isn't all bad. You're forgetting p&s's of growth. instead you should ask yourself the question: where will competition "steal" from?... or are you saying that the world will just stop buying computers/appliances?
b. Watch will not "crap out" but may not be stellar. so what? this is first gen aWatch.
c. Holding for dividends because you bought it cheap is stupid (taxable income not withstanding). It's the current/projected value in which you should base your decision to sell or hold. i.e. should ask yourself, "if I sold now, what else could I invest in to get a better dividend/gain?"
You're so quick to give your stock opinion, opine me this: what better company to invest in? what's the PE/management/balance sheet/R&D and it's favorable control over the market (as one example...controls the computing ecosystem AND hardware)?...crickets?
I guess you fail to see why you should buy a 2-carat diamond ring ($20,000) when a 2-carat cubic zirconia ($15) would do for your wife. After all, diamonds mean nothing to you. And they shouldn't be worth anything to your wife.
I guess you fail to see why people buy a BMW, Mercedes Benz, Lexus or Chevy Corvette when your Chevy Chevette does the same thing when commuting to work.
I guess you fail to see why people would buy an Apple Watch when your $35 Timex serves "just" as well.
Apple will NOT donate all the profits for the Apple Watch. It does employee-matching for donations to charity. Apple churns its profits back to making profit - as any smart business does - and giving back profits to its owners (shareholders) - as any smart business does.
Experts in the watch industry are breath-taken by the Apple Watch. They also know it will be very very popular.
I am sure the 400 MILLION WEALTHY CHINESE are going to want ONLY the GOLD Apple Watch Edition models. Gold is their favorite color.
The opinion of a geek/techno nerd does not mean anything. The general public is what matters
According to your thinking, the watch software is set in stone and will never change.
Yes. And I just don't get why so many are so obstinate about this having to be a pass/fail product launch.
...can't we just agree that the VAST MAJORITY will have to warm up to the concept of a 'puterized-watch-thingy...and like all other product launches, the product itself will evolve?!?!
Actually I think that's exactly what this particular article is about, and whether people who wear traditional watches will embrace Apple so completely so as to put the existing watchmakers out of business.
Then don't buy the watch if it doesn't fit your needs. Apple knows what it's doing. It has been very successful in doing what it's been doing.
That's exactly what I intend to do. I certainly didn't need you to point that out to me. But thanks again for pointing out the obvious.
As for how successful Apple has been ... well they aren't without their failures. I'm not saying that's the case with ?Watch, but then again, that was never my point.
Actually I think that's exactly what this particular article is about, and whether people who wear traditional watches will embrace Apple so completely so as to put the existing watchmakers out business.
Most of the posts read: I don't like the watch because: rant rant rant - therefore it will fail . False opinion masquerading as logic. Forgive them they know not what they do! I will wager anyone $100 it will sell more in the first weekend than the entire smartwatch industry sold last year!
Comments
I love my moto360....
You really could have stopped right there.
Says all we need to know, i.e., that the rest of the post was pure twaddle.
Who's in charge of editing the editor?
The readers.
Not a Russell's Paradox-equivalent at all.
According to your thinking, the watch software is set in stone and will never change.
Just because a thing is possible, doesn't mean that Apple will do it, much less when.
Name one Apple product where this has been true: i.e., where the software has not changed for a given hardware.
Circular smartwatch screens are practically useless for displaying information correctly. Too much wasted space.
Well you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But the current screen of Apple's 38mm watch would fit perfectly into a circle and not sacrifice a thing, nor take up any more room on a person's wrist than any other round watch out there. Plus it would allow for additional detail to be placed in that "wasted space" just as their software allows for different features on 3.5" and 4" iPhone. Indeed, some people just like the aesthetic of a round watch. And for those who want the 42mm model, "big" watches come in and out of style, so maybe Apple doesn't offer the larger size. Indeed I would be surprised if Apple never introduces a round model, if for no other reason that they can also put a larger battery in all that "wasted space" too, giving them incentive to creatively utilize the space on the screen.
The elephant in the room is whether Apple is going down the fashion road with the watch and commit to it whole-heartedly, or whether they are going to sit parked at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts, offering a single simple design that just gets thinner and more powerful over time. I would argue, based on how they have embraced the fashion aspect of this, that the former might be their commitment to this product, and if they do, then they will have to do more than update the same design every two years. Like it or not, watches are very personal, and people who wear them don't necessarily like wearing an identical watch to even another person in their social group, much less everybody on the planet. That's why watch makers offer a plethora of designs, and new ones every year. People here may not care for all of them, but these watch makers do very well selling them. And for Apple, which is forced into the constraints of an information display already, means different shapes, and styles to cater to the fashionable whims of "watch people". A new watch band every year isn't really going to cut it. But I can also see Apple offering one design, and making it extremely well. Other watch makers don't do this, but then again Apple offers only one iPhone, at the most 3 at any one time, unlike other phone makers. And for those who don't care for the look of the ?Watch, they will still have the Swiss watch makers catering to them, as they step up to offer "smart" offerings themselves. Or they can buy a Moto 360 and accept the limitations of how it works within the Apple ecosystem.
The readers.
Not a Russell's Paradox-equivalent at all.
Exactly... The Internet allows the reader to engage the author for control of the writing space.
Name one Apple product where this has been true: i.e., where the software has not changed for a given hardware.
That isn't his argument. Or mine.
So why don't lead verifiable example rather than throwing it out unchallenged, tuff guy?
So why don't lead verifiable example rather than throwing it out unchallenged, tuff guy?
It is just that the author really likes his own word to back up his assertions.... This is true because I said it was in another article. It is really galling when it's not needed. Obfuscation through repitition and length. There is a great writer just waiting to break out.
Boys, boys! Let's try to behave ourselves. You can't convince everyone of the truth, and it's absurd to try. I think it's clear that we humans will believe what we want to believe, regardless of the facts. Those who hate Apple, will hate Apple forever. Face it, it's not logical, but it certainly is fascinating.
When I first had to choose between buying a Mac or a PC (late 80s), I chose beauty and elegance over price. I'm so grateful I did, and I've never looked back. On the few occasions over the years when I've tried to convince someone that Apple products were better than Microsoft, I was usually wasting my time. So I don't anymore.
I enjoy reading articles like this one, which present the facts with some wit, but I doubt they will ever open the close-minded. But for all of us who suffered through Apple's lean years under the foot of Microsoft, the 21st century sure has been a time of joyous vindication. Let's hope there's plenty more where that came from.
Well you are obviously entitled to your opinion. But the current screen of Apple's 38mm watch would fit perfectly into a circle and not sacrifice a thing, nor take up any more room on a person's wrist than any other round watch out there. Plus it would allow for additional detail to be placed in that "wasted space" just as their software allows for different features on 3.5" and 4" iPhone. Indeed, some people just like the aesthetic of a round watch. And for those who want the 42mm model, "big" watches come in and out of style, so maybe Apple doesn't offer the larger size. Indeed I would be surprised if Apple never introduces a round model, if for no other reason that they can also put a larger battery in all that "wasted space" too, giving them incentive to creatively utilize the space on the screen.
The elephant in the room is whether Apple is going down the fashion road with the watch and commit to it whole-heartedly, or whether they are going to sit parked at the intersection of Technology and Liberal Arts, offering a single simple design that just gets thinner and more powerful over time. I would argue, based on how they have embraced the fashion aspect of this, that the former might be their commitment to this product, and if they do, then they will have to do more than update the same design every two years. Like it or not, watches are very personal, and people who wear them don't necessarily like wearing an identical watch to even another person in their social group, much less everybody on the planet. That's why watch makers offer a plethora of designs, and new ones every year. People here may not care for all of them, but these watch makers do very well selling them. And for Apple, which is forced into the constraints of an information display already, means different shapes, and styles to cater to the fashionable whims of "watch people". A new watch band every year isn't really going to cut it. But I can also see Apple offering one design, and making it extremely well. Other watch makers don't do this, but then again Apple offers only one iPhone, at the most 3 at any one time, unlike other phone makers. And for those who don't care for the look of the ?Watch, they will still have the Swiss watch makers catering to them, as they step up to offer "smart" offerings themselves. Or they can buy a Moto 360 and accept the limitations of how it works within the Apple ecosystem.
Dude, this isn't about "watch people." This is about having an appliance on your wrist that will unlock the door to your home, car, office, about controlling your TV, Stereo, heat and air-conditioning, lights, remote cameras, getting and dispatching notifications, updating Salesforce or your project tracking software when you meet a milestone you set for yourself or your boss set for you, presenting payment or a travel pass (airline, train, etc). All of these use cases are more convenient and suited for a wearable device.
The future of a wrist-worn device will be to handle two significant classes of tasks; receiving information more conveniently, and taking simple actions that are currently performed by stand-alone appliances (light switches, TV remotes, air conditioner and other home environment controllers, sets of keys, credit cards, yes, these are all, in some respect appliances as they currently perform some task in our lives).
That thing on your wrist that for a couple hundred years indicated the time and a couple dozen other time-related bits of information is now being pulled into an always-connected information society. The expectations of what it will do will shift, and as that shift occurs, people will want basic and luxury editions of that device. Apple, and a few others, but to the largest extent Apple, is in the position to provide devices that will conform to the utility requirements that are now being established. Apple may not be the company who can deliver those requirements at the highest end of the luxury spectrum, but those companies now playing at that end of the spectrum are only "watch people"; they are not and will not soon be masters of the always-connected information paradigm that wrist-worn devices will demand. They MUST either partner with Apple or another tech company, or somehow miraculously develop all those capabilities the Apple Watch will soon define as the standard of functionality, or they will need to find a new line of work. My prediction... the more intelligent among them will seek to partner with Apple, ala CarPlay or Intel-Inside.
You'd be surprised.
Read Marvin's post. For the purposes of the Apple Watch, a round shape would actually be more efficient than a square, as well as more aesthetically pleasing.
The irony of DED calling Google "Jonestown" is akin to the Pot calling the Kettle "space grey".
Nobody makes stronger koolaid than Apple.
Then don't buy the watch if it doesn't fit your needs. Apple knows what it's doing. It has been very successful in doing what it's been doing.
The watch will probably do "okay", but not be a huge new category of product that a lot of people will want. Unless Apple has a big card or many cards up its sleeve, the iPhone has probably reached its apex in sales. Tablet sales are already lame. Apple stock will probably flatline or decline in the coming years. Come a decent stock market correction, it may go down a good 30% and not recover. I'd almost literally eat my hat if Apple stock goes up 10% more in the coming 2 years. It the watch craps out, then people will question the post-Steve era and stocks could continue to decline. As Steve said, you have to keep your eye out for the next best thing. I'd consider Apple stock to be pretty risky or just not a good place to roll the dice. Seems the dividend is pretty good, so if you bought cheap long ago...good returns there.
a. Your stock analysis sucks. revenue/yr (and more importantly, earnings) forecasted higher...then again you probably know more than the other off-street analysts. Yes, I don't just count on street analysts. And even if flat earnings... isn't all bad. You're forgetting p&s's of growth. instead you should ask yourself the question: where will competition "steal" from?... or are you saying that the world will just stop buying computers/appliances?
b. Watch will not "crap out" but may not be stellar. so what? this is first gen aWatch.
c. Holding for dividends because you bought it cheap is stupid (taxable income not withstanding). It's the current/projected value in which you should base your decision to sell or hold. i.e. should ask yourself, "if I sold now, what else could I invest in to get a better dividend/gain?"
You're so quick to give your stock opinion, opine me this: what better company to invest in? what's the PE/management/balance sheet/R&D and it's favorable control over the market (as one example...controls the computing ecosystem AND hardware)?...crickets?
The opinion of a geek/techno nerd does not mean anything. The general public is what matters
According to your thinking, the watch software is set in stone and will never change.
Yes. And I just don't get why so many are so obstinate about this having to be a pass/fail product launch.
...can't we just agree that the VAST MAJORITY will have to warm up to the concept of a 'puterized-watch-thingy...and like all other product launches, the product itself will evolve?!?!
Dude, this isn't about "watch people."
Actually I think that's exactly what this particular article is about, and whether people who wear traditional watches will embrace Apple so completely so as to put the existing watchmakers out of business.
Then don't buy the watch if it doesn't fit your needs. Apple knows what it's doing. It has been very successful in doing what it's been doing.
That's exactly what I intend to do. I certainly didn't need you to point that out to me. But thanks again for pointing out the obvious.
As for how successful Apple has been ... well they aren't without their failures. I'm not saying that's the case with ?Watch, but then again, that was never my point.
Most of the posts read: I don't like the watch because: rant rant rant - therefore it will fail . False opinion masquerading as logic. Forgive them they know not what they do! I will wager anyone $100 it will sell more in the first weekend than the entire smartwatch industry sold last year!