Probably not for most given that I work in technology and analyze the details of anything I buy.
Most people probably didn't even see/understand these things when they were buying poorly designed phones, and only came to realize how beneficial they were once they experienced them on the iPhone. But once they did, they couldn't go back again.
But regardless, saying the original iPhone was just a phone is reactionary nonsense. We've come a long way since then, but it was still a great phone/media player/camera/email/contact, calendar management device back then.
Probably not for most given that I work in technology and analyze the details of anything I buy.
Most people probably didn't even see/understand these things when they were buying poorly designed phones, and only came to realize how beneficial they were once they experienced them on the iPhone. But once they did, they couldn't go back again.
But regardless, saying the original iPhone was just a phone is reactionary nonsense. We've come a long way since then, but it was still a great phone/media player/camera/email/contact, calendar management device back then.
My point is that a great many people bought iPhone because they could make calls. Nobody is buying the Apple Watch because it can tell time.
My point is that a great many people bought iPhone because they could make calls. Nobody is buying the Apple Watch because it can tell time.
But they could already make calls on their existing cell phones. So why would they spend $600 (at the time) on a new one if it only did the same thing? Because it did the basics of a phone much better, and had the potential to do so much more for them.
It's the same thing with the Apple Watch. Sure, there are plenty of watches that tell the time well, but the Apple Watch has the potential to do a lot more for people. The same way that the 1st gen iPhone is relatively basic when compared to the latest phones (hence your revisionist history that it only made calls well), the Apple Watch is fairly basic now as compared to what it will be in a few years when developers come up with all sorts of interesting uses for it.
But they could already make calls on their existing cell phones. So why would they spend $600 (at the time) on a new one if it only did the same thing? Because it did the basics of a phone much better, and had the potential to do so much more for them.
It's the same thing with the Apple Watch. Sure, there are plenty of watches that tell the time well, but the Apple Watch has the potential to do a lot more for people. The same way that the 1st gen iPhone is relatively basic when compared to the latest phones (hence your revisionist history that it only made calls well), the Apple Watch is fairly basic now as compared to what it will be in a few years when developers come up with all sorts of interesting uses for it.
Ummm because they were tired of carrying multiple devices. Many people buying a Apple Watch don't own a watch.
Ummm because they were tired of carrying multiple devices. Many people buying a Apple Watch don't own a watch.
But I thought the original iPhone could only make calls?
Maybe people are also tired of fumbling around for their cell phone just to do simple things? Especially as phones are becoming larger and more unwieldy to accommodate those who watch everything on their phone, or need to interact with complex websites regularly.
But I thought the original iPhone could only make calls?
Maybe people are also tired of fumbling around for their cell phone just to do simple things? Especially as phones are becoming larger and more unwieldy to accommodate those who watch everything on their phone, or need to interact with complex websites regularly.
Where did I say it could only make phone calls? I said one of the primary reasons people bought it was because it could make phone calls. People that bought a iPhone already had a cell phone, and bought a phone that could do more. Most Apple Watch buyers don't currently wear a watch, and aren't buying one because it can tell time.
If having the time, and notifications on a wearable device was so important people would've purchased a Pebble in droves. Nobody waited until Apple made a cell phone to buy one, but they waited until Apple made a watch to buy one.
If having the time, and notifications on a wearable device was so important people would've purchased a Pebble in droves. Nobody waited until Apple made a cell phone to buy one, but they waited until Apple made a watch to buy one.
Maybe because the phone they were carrying wasn't as big before? Maybe because, with device convergence, it might be possible to choose to carry only a phone or iPad or a laptop with you, and as long as you're wearing the watch, you can still do everything no matter what device you're carrying with it (obviously not now, but in the not-so-distant future). Just because most people can't see the forest from the trees doesn't mean it isn't there.
Maybe because the phone they were carrying wasn't as big before? Maybe because, with device convergence, it might be possible to choose to carry only a phone or iPad or a laptop with you, and as long as you're wearing the watch, you can still do everything no matter what device you're carrying with it (obviously not now, but in the not-so-distant future). Just because most people can't see the forest from the trees doesn't mean it isn't there.
My use of convergence is used in the sense that any device can do the things any other device can (e.g. a laptop has all the capabilities of a cell phone). Handoff is the start of this.
And I have no doubt that, in time, the watch will be able to do simple tasks like make a call or send a small message on it's own (which is where your definition of convergence fits). However, for most people, it's just too small to be the only device they carry in most situations. Hence why we've seen the trend of cell phones becoming larger over time.
You must be right, even though we share ~90% ape DNA. You can't get them to wear watches, much less work to buy them.
More than 97% actually. We share a big fraction of our total DNA with a lot more than just mammals, like around 75% with fish. (Seems like a pretty efficient design methodology, frankly.)
ok. But the fossil record does not prove the GRADUAL evolution from ape-like creature to man-like creature. There is literally a BIG BANG like explosion from Ape to Man. The Man like creatures show up all of a sudden, like a massive explosion we see thousands of Man-like fossils.
Harvard paleoanthropologists Daniel E. Lieberman, David R. Pilbeam, and Richard W. Wrangham: "Of the various transitions that occurred during human evolution, the transition from<em style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px;padding:0px;">Australopithecus</em> to <em style="border:0px;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin:0px;padding:0px;">Homo</em> was undoubtedly one of the most critical in its magnitude and consequences. As with many key evolutionary events, there is both good and bad news. First, the bad news is that many details of this transition are obscure because of the paucity of the fossil and archaeological records."
In other words the fossil record does not show a gradual evolution of an ape-like creature slowly turning into a man-like creature. There is literally ZERO evidence in the fossil record that proves this transition from ape-like to man-like.
Evolutionary anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz summarizes the problem: "W]e are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus -- full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin's depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations. "
so what does that mean? Are these evolutionary EXPLOSIONS when speices quickly transitioned from ape-like to man-like or from water-based to land-based? Or was there a force that TRANSPORTED or CREATED these different life forms?
My point is this; We don't know SHIT.
That's why evolutionist should not call those who believe in a first cause idiots and ignorant. And that's why those who believe in a first cause should not call evolutionist idiots and faithless.
I mentioned before, I am perfectly open to alternative thoughts of whole of the world came to exist. Or how it works. But the lack of intermediate fossils is not an argument against evolution. It is just that compared with the number of life forms that existed, there just aren't many fossils around.
Life has existed on this earth for billions years, during which billions of living organisms (millions of animals) have lived on it. That is a big number. But only very few fossils have been found (literally, a few thousand species). And those that have, usually appear in a geographically contained area that just happens to be accessible. The fossils found in these areas, therefore generally belong to the same geological era. That's why evolution appears sudden. There are millions of years and thousands of kilometres between fossils found. The rest is decayed or hundreds of metres or even kilometres underground, not to mention under the seabed and Antarctica. that's where the intermediate species are. Although, of course they are not intermediate. If we found them we would consider them to be a species.
But there have been various mathematical studies, that extrapolated from either experienced evolution (yes it can be seen) or from reconstructed from fossil finds and it has been shown that today's diversity is mathematically very feasible based on the rate of evolution that can be observed.
If, in order to believe in evolution, someone looks for the graveyard of one family to have buried their 107,000 ancestors in airtight containers on the same spot for the last 3 million years so we can see the rate of change in all its minuscule glory detail, they will indeed never believe in it (also because that is not how natural selection works, but you get my point). But if someone believes that if A is greater than B and C is greater than A, therefore C is greater than B, then the theory of Evolution is a very compelling one.
But yes, it could very well be that another species planted organic matter on this earth and what we see today is the result of that. I believe so, because I am certain that humankind will someday plant organic matter on other planets.
Still waiting for your proof. What is your strongest proof that evolution is a fact.
I being serious here. I graduated with highest honors with a BBA and CPA. I'm not uneducated. But I have still not been give solid proof of evolution.
....
Bottom line is evolution is not a perfect theory. It is not perfect fact. It is scientificily plausable but calling it a fact is plain ridiculous. If you flatout state that people who believe in a first cause (God) are idiots is ignorant. There is no way you can prove scientificily that a first cause does not or has not existed.
It is not clear about how many things you are mistaken, but Apple phones, Apple Watches, and evolutions certainly make the list.
You are absolutely and totally wrong about evolution. At the heart of your misunderstanding of evolution that you seem to believe that evolution is the explanation of the development of human beings and that the fossil record its only proof.
Well, evolution--also known as Natural Selection--explains the development of all life on Earth from the simplest microorganism to human beings. We don't have to rely on the fossil record for proof of its validity. In virtually every microbiology laboratory on the Planet, evolution is an observed fact each and every day. There are real world consequences to evolution. Many microorganisms cause diseases in higher lifeforms. These diseases are treated by vaccines and antibiotics. However, the vaccine that kills the microorganism in 2014 may be ineffective against the 2015 microorganism that evolved from the 2014 microorganism.
Say you don't believe in evolution? OK. When you get your flu shot this Autumn, be sure to ask for the flu shot for the 1965 virus. If the virus has not evolved, then the 1965 vaccine will be effective against the 2015 virus.
It is not clear about how many things you are mistaken, but Apple phones, Apple Watches, and evolutions certainly make the list.
You are absolutely and totally wrong about evolution. At the heart of your misunderstanding of evolution that you seem to believe that evolution is the explanation of the development of human beings and that the fossil record its only proof.
Well, evolution--also known as Natural Selection--explains the development of all life on Earth from the simplest microorganism to human beings. We don't have to rely on the fossil record for proof of its validity. In virtually every microbiology laboratory on the Planet, evolution is an observed fact each and every day. There are real world consequences to evolution. Many microorganisms cause diseases in higher lifeforms. These diseases are treated by vaccines and antibiotics. However, the vaccine that kills the microorganism in 2014 may be ineffective against the 2015 microorganism that evolved from the 2014 microorganism.
Say you don't believe in evolution? OK. When you get your flu shot this Autumn, be sure to ask for the flu shot for the 1965 virus. If the virus has not evolved, then the 1965 vaccine will be effective against the 2015 virus.
It's quite evident that living organisms evolve. We/they adapt for survival, but it's a joke to use that as proof that all living creatures evolved from simple cell organisms in a primordial soup.
Comments
And what's it selling like now compared to the iPhone? The iPod Touch has never sold in iPhone like numbers.
And your reasons were everyone else's?
Probably not for most given that I work in technology and analyze the details of anything I buy.
Most people probably didn't even see/understand these things when they were buying poorly designed phones, and only came to realize how beneficial they were once they experienced them on the iPhone. But once they did, they couldn't go back again.
But regardless, saying the original iPhone was just a phone is reactionary nonsense. We've come a long way since then, but it was still a great phone/media player/camera/email/contact, calendar management device back then.
My point is that a great many people bought iPhone because they could make calls. Nobody is buying the Apple Watch because it can tell time.
My point is that a great many people bought iPhone because they could make calls. Nobody is buying the Apple Watch because it can tell time.
But they could already make calls on their existing cell phones. So why would they spend $600 (at the time) on a new one if it only did the same thing? Because it did the basics of a phone much better, and had the potential to do so much more for them.
It's the same thing with the Apple Watch. Sure, there are plenty of watches that tell the time well, but the Apple Watch has the potential to do a lot more for people. The same way that the 1st gen iPhone is relatively basic when compared to the latest phones (hence your revisionist history that it only made calls well), the Apple Watch is fairly basic now as compared to what it will be in a few years when developers come up with all sorts of interesting uses for it.
Ummm because they were tired of carrying multiple devices. Many people buying a Apple Watch don't own a watch.
Maybe you shouldn't have bought a phone that's too cumbersome to pull out of your pocket.
Ummm because they were tired of carrying multiple devices. Many people buying a Apple Watch don't own a watch.
But I thought the original iPhone could only make calls?
Maybe people are also tired of fumbling around for their cell phone just to do simple things? Especially as phones are becoming larger and more unwieldy to accommodate those who watch everything on their phone, or need to interact with complex websites regularly.
Where did I say it could only make phone calls? I said one of the primary reasons people bought it was because it could make phone calls. People that bought a iPhone already had a cell phone, and bought a phone that could do more. Most Apple Watch buyers don't currently wear a watch, and aren't buying one because it can tell time.
If having the time, and notifications on a wearable device was so important people would've purchased a Pebble in droves. Nobody waited until Apple made a cell phone to buy one, but they waited until Apple made a watch to buy one.
Ahhhh so you admit to using your iPhone primarily as a phone.
What part of 'most' didn't you understand?
So the time is 5 minutes later than when you previously pulled out your phone to text/video/web/apps.
Then you're obviously not that important.
If having the time, and notifications on a wearable device was so important people would've purchased a Pebble in droves. Nobody waited until Apple made a cell phone to buy one, but they waited until Apple made a watch to buy one.
Maybe because the phone they were carrying wasn't as big before? Maybe because, with device convergence, it might be possible to choose to carry only a phone or iPad or a laptop with you, and as long as you're wearing the watch, you can still do everything no matter what device you're carrying with it (obviously not now, but in the not-so-distant future). Just because most people can't see the forest from the trees doesn't mean it isn't there.
Convergence means you have less devices not more.
And your point is Howard Hughes?
Convergence means you have less devices not more.
My use of convergence is used in the sense that any device can do the things any other device can (e.g. a laptop has all the capabilities of a cell phone). Handoff is the start of this.
And I have no doubt that, in time, the watch will be able to do simple tasks like make a call or send a small message on it's own (which is where your definition of convergence fits). However, for most people, it's just too small to be the only device they carry in most situations. Hence why we've seen the trend of cell phones becoming larger over time.
You must be right, even though we share ~90% ape DNA. You can't get them to wear watches, much less work to buy them.
More than 97% actually. We share a big fraction of our total DNA with a lot more than just mammals, like around 75% with fish. (Seems like a pretty efficient design methodology, frankly.)
I mentioned before, I am perfectly open to alternative thoughts of whole of the world came to exist. Or how it works. But the lack of intermediate fossils is not an argument against evolution. It is just that compared with the number of life forms that existed, there just aren't many fossils around.
Life has existed on this earth for billions years, during which billions of living organisms (millions of animals) have lived on it. That is a big number. But only very few fossils have been found (literally, a few thousand species). And those that have, usually appear in a geographically contained area that just happens to be accessible. The fossils found in these areas, therefore generally belong to the same geological era. That's why evolution appears sudden. There are millions of years and thousands of kilometres between fossils found. The rest is decayed or hundreds of metres or even kilometres underground, not to mention under the seabed and Antarctica. that's where the intermediate species are. Although, of course they are not intermediate. If we found them we would consider them to be a species.
But there have been various mathematical studies, that extrapolated from either experienced evolution (yes it can be seen) or from reconstructed from fossil finds and it has been shown that today's diversity is mathematically very feasible based on the rate of evolution that can be observed.
If, in order to believe in evolution, someone looks for the graveyard of one family to have buried their 107,000 ancestors in airtight containers on the same spot for the last 3 million years so we can see the rate of change in all its minuscule glory detail, they will indeed never believe in it (also because that is not how natural selection works, but you get my point). But if someone believes that if A is greater than B and C is greater than A, therefore C is greater than B, then the theory of Evolution is a very compelling one.
But yes, it could very well be that another species planted organic matter on this earth and what we see today is the result of that. I believe so, because I am certain that humankind will someday plant organic matter on other planets.
You are absolutely and totally wrong about evolution. At the heart of your misunderstanding of evolution that you seem to believe that evolution is the explanation of the development of human beings and that the fossil record its only proof.
Well, evolution--also known as Natural Selection--explains the development of all life on Earth from the simplest microorganism to human beings. We don't have to rely on the fossil record for proof of its validity. In virtually every microbiology laboratory on the Planet, evolution is an observed fact each and every day. There are real world consequences to evolution. Many microorganisms cause diseases in higher lifeforms. These diseases are treated by vaccines and antibiotics. However, the vaccine that kills the microorganism in 2014 may be ineffective against the 2015 microorganism that evolved from the 2014 microorganism.
Say you don't believe in evolution? OK. When you get your flu shot this Autumn, be sure to ask for the flu shot for the 1965 virus. If the virus has not evolved, then the 1965 vaccine will be effective against the 2015 virus.
It's quite evident that living organisms evolve. We/they adapt for survival, but it's a joke to use that as proof that all living creatures evolved from simple cell organisms in a primordial soup.