This crap again? It doesn't need to be tethered to an iPhone. It can clearly work independently from an iPhone and we've known this since the beginning.
The watch market is 1.3 billion. Here's your target, Cook: 13 million in the first year, which is 1% of the market.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Cook's "job" is to vomit out the exact lines that trolls like you want him to say? Really, is that his job? I'm sure he'd be enlightened by that revelation. Or should Cook have mindlessly vomited out that line, and that exact figure, because Steve happened to do it 8 years ago for a completely different product?
I'll stop now, because calling you out for what you are, and your posts for that they are, would get me banned yet again. How grotesquely hubristic and narcissistic of you to so confidently believe you have more insight into Steves theoretical behaviour than the guy who worked with him for decades and even offered him his liver.
Some people on Appleinsider forums should look up the definition of: 1) forum and 2) forum troll. The urban dictionary has some good definitions and examples. It was quite surprising.
The watch market is 1.3 billion. Here's your target, Cook: 13 million in the first year, which is 1% of the market.
That wasn't so hard, was it?
Cook's "job" is to vomit out the exact lines that trolls like you want him to say? Really, is that his job? I'm sure he'd be enlightened by that revelation. Or should Cook have colours out that line, and that exact figure, because Steve happened to do it 8 years ago for a completely different product?
I'll stop now, because calling you out for what you are, and your posts for that they are, would get me banned yet again. How grotesquely hubristic and narcissistic of you to so confidently believe you have more insight into Steves theoretical behaviour than the guy who worked with him for decades and even offered him his liver.
I don't know about offering livers, but you're certainly giving me some lip.
Cook's "job" is to vomit out the exact lines that trolls like you want him to say? Really, is that his job? I'm sure he'd be enlightened by that revelation. Or should Cook have colours out that line, and that exact figure, because Steve happened to do it 8 years ago for a completely different product?
I'll stop now, because calling you out for what you are, and your posts for that they are, would get me banned yet again. How grotesquely hubristic and narcissistic of you to so confidently believe you have more insight into Steves theoretical behaviour than the guy who worked with him for decades and even offered him his liver.
The ironic part of his comment is that there wasn't anywhere close to 10MM iPhones sold the first 4 quarters, 12 months, 52 weeks, calendar year or fiscal year on the market. It wasn't until the first full fiscal year that Apple was able to hit that 10MM mark, and yet he not only is weakly trying to spin ?Watch as a failure because Cook has what he thinks the numbers will be despite no such numbers given for the world's fastest selling CE, the iPad, but also thinking we're not going to notice that he's not even comparing the same time frames after launch.
More vociferous attacks on people for their comments? Sometimes you see comments that are mild critiques and views of Apple, and yet, people feel like they are haters and trolls. Pretty funny.
Where is the thoughtful analysis and detailed counter-arguments? It feels like a schoolyard pushing and yelling contest around here, LOL.
Some people oversimplify what people say and then respond with attacks. Very interesting.
"Mild critiques"? "Thoughtful analysis"? Stop flattering yourself. Every single one of your posts is the same predictable one-note troll- ie. Apple is an incompetent company that has no clue what it's doing, they're going downhill, along with an insane amount of concern-trolling and hand-wringing. There's nothing thoughtful, subtle, or analytical about anything you post. You simply twist the facts to fit your pre-conceived viewpoint and your agenda, which contains nothing but bitching, whining, and more bitching.
The dishwasher didn't replace the sink. The microwave didn't replace the oven.
The iWatch is built and designed to be a companion device. You may have noticed that there's no internet browser on the watch. From now on, I will forever want an internet browser in my pocket. As will many others.
Not sure he sounds ridiculous at all. Certainly not as ridiculous as trying to say that a phone and watch share the same usage pattern as a dishwasher and a sink.
Some of the early reviews of the Watch talked about how much less they reached for their phone.
To begin with, far fewer people use their phone to make phone calls.
Secondly, the patterns of internet usage are different when you're out and about. People don't tend to surf on the move; they'll be looking for specific bits of information such as the time of the next train, or the location of the job interview. They'll be carrying out discrete, focussed activities such as paying for goods.
Incidentally, since we got a dishwasher, we haven't used the kitchen sink.
sog35 is right on the money! This started with the Nano 6, Steve even said on stage that it would go well on a watch strap. I wore one for a couple of years as a dress watch and loved it, but yes the gestures were fiddly and the apps limited.
A-Watch is the next stage, chiefly introducing a new interface and a new app ecosystem while abandoning the Henry Ford "It only comes in black" approach.
Next the technology will be progressively improved through the iterative design-manufacture-sell-review-redesign cycle and during this process additional features will be added one-by-one until we have a full smartphone in a watch!
The only question is how quickly; I'm guessing by 2025.
Interviewer: Many people seem to have a hard time imagining the usefulness of the watch.
Cook: Yes, but people didn’t realize they had to have an iPod, and they really didn’t realize they had to have the iPhone. And the iPad was totally panned. Critics asked, "Why do you need this?" Honestly, I don’t think anything revolutionary that we have done was predicted to be a hit when released. It was only in retrospect that people could see its value. Maybe this will be received the same way.
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this.
It's a ridiculous statement from Cook. He's trying to rewrite history. How can he possibly say that the reception to the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad were all the same? Everyone immediately saw that the iPhone was huge, a revolution in phones and the response from the whole world was thermonuclear.
The response to the Apple Watch could not be more different. The response has been one, big yawn.
This comment of Cook's is the sort of mindless drivel I would expect Slurpy to make here, not the CEO of Apple. Cook does himself no favours with such insincerity.
It's a ridiculous statement from Cook. He's trying to rewrite history. How can he possibly say that the reception to the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad were all the same? Everyone immediately saw that the iPhone was huge, a revolution in phones and the response from the whole world was thermonuclear.
There were indeed moments in time (before and during the iPhone launch) when many were critical/suspect of the iPhone's immediate ability to be a success. Just because the future proved it a positive revolution does not belie that fact. Your statement is ridiculous, not Tim Cooks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
This comment of Cook's is the sort of mindless drivel I would expect Slurpy to make here, not the CEO of Apple. Cook does himself no favours with such insincerity.
So give us a few examples of Slurpy's mindless drivel.
OTOH you given us more examples of drivel and misinformation than any of us deserve.
Which reminds me to block you...right about...now.
And, thankfully (albeit rather tardily) the NY Times has attempted to balance the original article, with the following disclaimer:
Addendum: March 21, 2015
Editors’ Note
The Disruptions column in the Styles section on Thursday, discussing possible health concerns related to wearable technology, gave an inadequate account of the status of research about cellphone radiation and cancer risk.
Neither epidemiological nor laboratory studies have found reliable evidence of such risks, and there is no widely accepted theory as to how they might arise. According to the World Health Organization, “To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all said there is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship. While researchers are continuing to study possible risks, the column should have included more of this background for balance.
In addition, one source quoted in the article, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has been widely criticized by experts for his claims about disease risks and treatments. More of that background should have been included, or he should not have been cited as a source.
An early version of the headline for the article online — “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?” — also went too far in suggesting any such comparison.
Comments
Not when it needs to be tethered to a phone.
This crap again? It doesn't need to be tethered to an iPhone. It can clearly work independently from an iPhone and we've known this since the beginning.
Cook's "job" is to vomit out the exact lines that trolls like you want him to say? Really, is that his job? I'm sure he'd be enlightened by that revelation. Or should Cook have mindlessly vomited out that line, and that exact figure, because Steve happened to do it 8 years ago for a completely different product?
I'll stop now, because calling you out for what you are, and your posts for that they are, would get me banned yet again. How grotesquely hubristic and narcissistic of you to so confidently believe you have more insight into Steves theoretical behaviour than the guy who worked with him for decades and even offered him his liver.
Some people on Appleinsider forums should look up the definition of: 1) forum and 2) forum troll. The urban dictionary has some good definitions and examples. It was quite surprising.
I don't know about offering livers, but you're certainly giving me some lip.
The ironic part of his comment is that there wasn't anywhere close to 10MM iPhones sold the first 4 quarters, 12 months, 52 weeks, calendar year or fiscal year on the market. It wasn't until the first full fiscal year that Apple was able to hit that 10MM mark, and yet he not only is weakly trying to spin ?Watch as a failure because Cook has what he thinks the numbers will be despite no such numbers given for the world's fastest selling CE, the iPad, but also thinking we're not going to notice that he's not even comparing the same time frames after launch.
More vociferous attacks on people for their comments? Sometimes you see comments that are mild critiques and views of Apple, and yet, people feel like they are haters and trolls. Pretty funny.
Where is the thoughtful analysis and detailed counter-arguments? It feels like a schoolyard pushing and yelling contest around here, LOL.
Some people oversimplify what people say and then respond with attacks. Very interesting.
"Mild critiques"? "Thoughtful analysis"? Stop flattering yourself. Every single one of your posts is the same predictable one-note troll- ie. Apple is an incompetent company that has no clue what it's doing, they're going downhill, along with an insane amount of concern-trolling and hand-wringing. There's nothing thoughtful, subtle, or analytical about anything you post. You simply twist the facts to fit your pre-conceived viewpoint and your agenda, which contains nothing but bitching, whining, and more bitching.
Best not, eh?
Your inability to think strategically would drive the computer company into the ground within two years.
Not sure he sounds ridiculous at all. Certainly not as ridiculous as trying to say that a phone and watch share the same usage pattern as a dishwasher and a sink.
Some of the early reviews of the Watch talked about how much less they reached for their phone.
To begin with, far fewer people use their phone to make phone calls.
Secondly, the patterns of internet usage are different when you're out and about. People don't tend to surf on the move; they'll be looking for specific bits of information such as the time of the next train, or the location of the job interview. They'll be carrying out discrete, focussed activities such as paying for goods.
Incidentally, since we got a dishwasher, we haven't used the kitchen sink.
A-Watch is the next stage, chiefly introducing a new interface and a new app ecosystem while abandoning the Henry Ford "It only comes in black" approach.
Next the technology will be progressively improved through the iterative design-manufacture-sell-review-redesign cycle and during this process additional features will be added one-by-one until we have a full smartphone in a watch!
The only question is how quickly; I'm guessing by 2025.
It would be nice to know what comment you refer.
Interviewer: Many people seem to have a hard time imagining the usefulness of the watch.
Cook: Yes, but people didn’t realize they had to have an iPod, and they really didn’t realize they had to have the iPhone. And the iPad was totally panned. Critics asked, "Why do you need this?" Honestly, I don’t think anything revolutionary that we have done was predicted to be a hit when released. It was only in retrospect that people could see its value. Maybe this will be received the same way.
I'm sorry, but I have to take issue with this.
It's a ridiculous statement from Cook. He's trying to rewrite history. How can he possibly say that the reception to the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad were all the same? Everyone immediately saw that the iPhone was huge, a revolution in phones and the response from the whole world was thermonuclear.
The response to the Apple Watch could not be more different. The response has been one, big yawn.
This comment of Cook's is the sort of mindless drivel I would expect Slurpy to make here, not the CEO of Apple. Cook does himself no favours with such insincerity.
It's a ridiculous statement from Cook. He's trying to rewrite history. How can he possibly say that the reception to the iPod, the iPhone and the iPad were all the same? Everyone immediately saw that the iPhone was huge, a revolution in phones and the response from the whole world was thermonuclear.
There were indeed moments in time (before and during the iPhone launch) when many were critical/suspect of the iPhone's immediate ability to be a success. Just because the future proved it a positive revolution does not belie that fact. Your statement is ridiculous, not Tim Cooks.
This comment of Cook's is the sort of mindless drivel I would expect Slurpy to make here, not the CEO of Apple. Cook does himself no favours with such insincerity.
So give us a few examples of Slurpy's mindless drivel.
OTOH you given us more examples of drivel and misinformation than any of us deserve.
Which reminds me to block you...right about...now.
Well this [Tim Cook] interview is just in time for the NY Times' latest hit-piece.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/19/style/could-wearable-computers-be-as-harmful-as-cigarettes.html
....
This article would be great fodder for the Macalope.
Yep, I called it right. Thank you, Macalope.
http://www.macworld.com/article/2899046/weird-science-the-apple-watch-may-already-be-killing-you.html
And, thankfully (albeit rather tardily) the NY Times has attempted to balance the original article, with the following disclaimer:
Editors’ Note
The Disruptions column in the Styles section on Thursday, discussing possible health concerns related to wearable technology, gave an inadequate account of the status of research about cellphone radiation and cancer risk.
Neither epidemiological nor laboratory studies have found reliable evidence of such risks, and there is no widely accepted theory as to how they might arise. According to the World Health Organization, “To date, no adverse health effects have been established as being caused by mobile phone use.” The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have all said there is no convincing evidence for a causal relationship. While researchers are continuing to study possible risks, the column should have included more of this background for balance.
In addition, one source quoted in the article, Dr. Joseph Mercola, has been widely criticized by experts for his claims about disease risks and treatments. More of that background should have been included, or he should not have been cited as a source.
An early version of the headline for the article online — “Could Wearable Computers Be as Harmful as Cigarettes?” — also went too far in suggesting any such comparison.