While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension here — “entirely new features” describes those features relative to the earlier wearable iPod nano. It doesn’t describe those features relative to Wear OS devices. Corrections was being polite as he ignored this error on your part and directed you to his actual point about how the relationship between iOS and Watch OS isn’t one-way and that’s a sign of Apple’s good health. Yes, it’s “simply written” — but it doesn’t say what you said it does. Once could be a misreading of a long and complicated editorial, twice is either sloppiness or trolling.
The point of the editorial is to illuminate how things work at Apple. DED’s audience is largely Apple investors. AI has other writers who are focused on Apple products and customers. DED’s job is to assess the press coverage of Apple and to step back and provide a sense of where Apple stands relative the industry as a whole. I first became aware of his work long ago when he was an independent tech blogger and I was looking for perspective on Apple’s acquisition of NeXT and Rhapsody and the subsequent complete rebuilding of Mac OS from the ground up, which would become the foundation of iPod, iOS, Watch OS and everything going forward. DED got this pretty much exactly right from the beginning, in real time. Ignore him at your peril.
Thanks for questioning my reading comprehension. The editorial is about the workings of Apple? The title seems to be slightly wrong then. I see an article which half is about Google & Android (not WearOS). Some about the simple point that Apple was not first but better, and then a paragraph about how mean the press is. Concluding with how Android Wear is directed to nerds, while Apple watch is great, followed by AGAIN whining about the press talking about the headphone jack this time and saying that because the AirPods sync seamlessly between Apple product it is somehow an invalid complaint (who doesn't want AirPods, right?). Again, from the title I was under the impression it would be about WearOS, or is that because of my lack of reading comprehension?
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
No, he linked to his own articles to demonstrate that the OP was misreading him.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.
Why would mismatching the editor and commenter, implying one is not the other, make a difference if the two are actually one and the same? DED was already connected to the article which is where the political comments existed. On top of that I agree with you he is not shy. I don't think he's afraid of being connected to his opinions.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension here — “entirely new features” describes those features relative to the earlier wearable iPod nano. It doesn’t describe those features relative to Wear OS devices. Corrections was being polite as he ignored this error on your part and directed you to his actual point about how the relationship between iOS and Watch OS isn’t one-way and that’s a sign of Apple’s good health. Yes, it’s “simply written” — but it doesn’t say what you said it does. Once could be a misreading of a long and complicated editorial, twice is either sloppiness or trolling.
The point of the editorial is to illuminate how things work at Apple. DED’s audience is largely Apple investors. AI has other writers who are focused on Apple products and customers. DED’s job is to assess the press coverage of Apple and to step back and provide a sense of where Apple stands relative the industry as a whole. I first became aware of his work long ago when he was an independent tech blogger and I was looking for perspective on Apple’s acquisition of NeXT and Rhapsody and the subsequent complete rebuilding of Mac OS from the ground up, which would become the foundation of iPod, iOS, Watch OS and everything going forward. DED got this pretty much exactly right from the beginning, in real time. Ignore him at your peril.
Thanks for questioning my reading comprehension. The editorial is about the workings of Apple? The title seems to be slightly wrong then. I see an article which half is about Google & Android (not WearOS). Some about the simple point that Apple was not first but better, and then a paragraph about how mean the press is. Concluding with how Android Wear is directed to nerds, while Apple watch is great, followed by AGAIN whining about the press talking about the headphone jack this time and saying that because the AirPods sync seamlessly between Apple product it is somehow an invalid complaint (who doesn't want AirPods, right?). Again, from the title I was under the impression it would be about WearOS, or is that because of my lack of reading comprehension?
You’re the one who misread the “entirely new features” context, which prompted my sarcasm. And you doubled down in your second post, so you shouldn’t be surprised someone responded with derision.
Ultimately, yes — the goal is to show what Apple is doing right or doing wrong, as compared and contrasted to the rest of the industry and how this is all portrayed in the press. This site is AppleInsider, so that’s the starting point.
The words “Google’s Android Wear OS” are all in the title so I’m not sure how that confused you. Are you saying that Wear OS is not a clumsy, one-way port of Android by Google, and that its current failure does not contrast with the current success of the elegant, two-way port of iOS to watchOS and watchOS to iOS (not to mention macOS) by Apple?
Amd he’s not whining about the headphone jack — he’s laughing at Google making a point of it as Samsung and Apple — you know, actual manufacturers of products that people buy — go in a completely different direction.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension here — “entirely new features” describes those features relative to the earlier wearable iPod nano. It doesn’t describe those features relative to Wear OS devices. Corrections was being polite as he ignored this error on your part and directed you to his actual point about how the relationship between iOS and Watch OS isn’t one-way and that’s a sign of Apple’s good health. Yes, it’s “simply written” — but it doesn’t say what you said it does. Once could be a misreading of a long and complicated editorial, twice is either sloppiness or trolling.
The point of the editorial is to illuminate how things work at Apple. DED’s audience is largely Apple investors. AI has other writers who are focused on Apple products and customers. DED’s job is to assess the press coverage of Apple and to step back and provide a sense of where Apple stands relative the industry as a whole. I first became aware of his work long ago when he was an independent tech blogger and I was looking for perspective on Apple’s acquisition of NeXT and Rhapsody and the subsequent complete rebuilding of Mac OS from the ground up, which would become the foundation of iPod, iOS, Watch OS and everything going forward. DED got this pretty much exactly right from the beginning, in real time. Ignore him at your peril.
Thanks for questioning my reading comprehension. The editorial is about the workings of Apple? The title seems to be slightly wrong then. I see an article which half is about Google & Android (not WearOS). Some about the simple point that Apple was not first but better, and then a paragraph about how mean the press is. Concluding with how Android Wear is directed to nerds, while Apple watch is great, followed by AGAIN whining about the press talking about the headphone jack this time and saying that because the AirPods sync seamlessly between Apple product it is somehow an invalid complaint (who doesn't want AirPods, right?). Again, from the title I was under the impression it would be about WearOS, or is that because of my lack of reading comprehension?
You’re the one who misread the “entirely new features” context, which prompted my sarcasm. And you doubled down in your second post, so you shouldn’t be surprised someone responded with derision.
Ultimately, yes — the goal is to show what Apple is doing right or doing wrong, as compared and contrasted to the rest of the industry and how this is all portrayed in the press. This site is AppleInsider, so that’s the starting point.
The words “Google’s Android Wear OS” are all in the title so I’m not sure how that confused you. Are you saying that Wear OS is not a clumsy, one-way port of Android by Google, and that its current failure does not contrast with the current success of the elegant, two-way port of iOS to watchOS and watchOS to iOS (not to mention macOS) by Apple?
Amd he’s not whining about the headphone jack — he’s laughing at Google making a point of it as Samsung and Apple — you know, actual manufacturers of products that people buy — go in a completely different direction.
I know this not really the main point and petty, but could you give an example where DED described things Apple did wrong?
My point was that the title suggest an editorial about WearOS, not Android and not Apple. A comparison between the Apple watch would of course be appropriate, but all the other stuff in this article adds nothing to the point as to why WearOS failed. How is the fact that WearOS is an one-way port the reason it failed? What would Google have to bring back to Android before it not to be considered one-way? Weatherproofing, AMOLED, Google Pay, wireless charging and heartbeat monitoring were all already on Android phones. 3D touch? How does that help WearOS succeeding?
He is whining about the press having a problem with the removal of the headphone jack, like I said in my previous comment, maybe I should have made that more clear. How is Samsung moving in a different direction, given that the S10 family still has the headphone jack? Google Pixel phones do not have a headphone jack anymore, so how is it moving in a different direction compared to Apple or Samsung in this context? I do not get the point of your last paragraph. In what direction should Google be moving? But again, I come back to the fact that I do not know what this adds to the comparison between WearOS and the Apple Watch. It is seemingly just venting about Apple being right in a number of totally unrelated issues, while the title suggest an editorial about WearOS.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension here — “entirely new features” describes those features relative to the earlier wearable iPod nano. It doesn’t describe those features relative to Wear OS devices. Corrections was being polite as he ignored this error on your part and directed you to his actual point about how the relationship between iOS and Watch OS isn’t one-way and that’s a sign of Apple’s good health. Yes, it’s “simply written” — but it doesn’t say what you said it does. Once could be a misreading of a long and complicated editorial, twice is either sloppiness or trolling.
The point of the editorial is to illuminate how things work at Apple. DED’s audience is largely Apple investors. AI has other writers who are focused on Apple products and customers. DED’s job is to assess the press coverage of Apple and to step back and provide a sense of where Apple stands relative the industry as a whole. I first became aware of his work long ago when he was an independent tech blogger and I was looking for perspective on Apple’s acquisition of NeXT and Rhapsody and the subsequent complete rebuilding of Mac OS from the ground up, which would become the foundation of iPod, iOS, Watch OS and everything going forward. DED got this pretty much exactly right from the beginning, in real time. Ignore him at your peril.
Thanks for questioning my reading comprehension. The editorial is about the workings of Apple? The title seems to be slightly wrong then. I see an article which half is about Google & Android (not WearOS). Some about the simple point that Apple was not first but better, and then a paragraph about how mean the press is. Concluding with how Android Wear is directed to nerds, while Apple watch is great, followed by AGAIN whining about the press talking about the headphone jack this time and saying that because the AirPods sync seamlessly between Apple product it is somehow an invalid complaint (who doesn't want AirPods, right?). Again, from the title I was under the impression it would be about WearOS, or is that because of my lack of reading comprehension?
You’re the one who misread the “entirely new features” context, which prompted my sarcasm. And you doubled down in your second post, so you shouldn’t be surprised someone responded with derision.
Ultimately, yes — the goal is to show what Apple is doing right or doing wrong, as compared and contrasted to the rest of the industry and how this is all portrayed in the press. This site is AppleInsider, so that’s the starting point.
The words “Google’s Android Wear OS” are all in the title so I’m not sure how that confused you. Are you saying that Wear OS is not a clumsy, one-way port of Android by Google, and that its current failure does not contrast with the current success of the elegant, two-way port of iOS to watchOS and watchOS to iOS (not to mention macOS) by Apple?
Amd he’s not whining about the headphone jack — he’s laughing at Google making a point of it as Samsung and Apple — you know, actual manufacturers of products that people buy — go in a completely different direction.
I know this not really the main point and petty, but could you give an example where DED described things Apple did wrong?
My point was that the title suggest an editorial about WearOS, not Android and not Apple. A comparison between the Apple watch would of course be appropriate, but all the other stuff in this article adds nothing to the point as to why WearOS failed. How is the fact that WearOS is an one-way port the reason it failed? What would Google have to bring back to Android before it not to be considered one-way? Weatherproofing, AMOLED, Google Pay, wireless charging and heartbeat monitoring were all already on Android phones. 3D touch? How does that help WearOS succeeding?
He is whining about the press having a problem with the removal of the headphone jack, like I said in my previous comment, maybe I should have made that more clear. How is Samsung moving in a different direction, given that the S10 family still has the headphone jack? Google Pixel phones do not have a headphone jack anymore, so how is it moving in a different direction compared to Apple or Samsung in this context? I do not get the point of your last paragraph. In what direction should Google be moving? But again, I come back to the fact that I do not know what this adds to the comparison between WearOS and the Apple Watch. It is seemingly just venting about Apple being right in a number of totally unrelated issues, while the title suggest an editorial about WearOS.
Re: your question about whether DED has ever identified things Apple has done wrong, I’d have to think about it and it would take some work to document. He certainly points out failed products and services and the lessons learned from them, but that’s different from questioning the strategic direction of the company and its leadership, which is what you (and I) mean — the sort of mistake that longer-term investors might act upon.
He spends most of his time debunking myths and questionable narratives about Apple, and that’s his job. But I don’t think he would shy away from the sort of larger errors in judgment that we’re talking about here — he is not an industry shill like many of those he rails against. I mean, you have to admit, there hasn’t been much to question in the years since the NeXT acquisition that I mentioned in my first comment here. Apple’s long-term growth and profitability has been astounding — the proof is in the pudding, as it were.
If Dilger ever does sound a real, serious alarm, then I’d advise sitting up and paying attention. Few people outside of the industry have as astute of a grasp of the company’s history and direction as he does, despite his overly rhetorical flourishes. You’d do well to listen.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
The 'rest of us'. hahaha! Why don't you explain what you do for a living? 24/7 on Apple Insider and no Apple products you have stated... How do you earn your bread dude? You define disingenuous and deception.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
No, he linked to his own articles to demonstrate that the OP was misreading him.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
We can agree on one thing, at least. It’s disingenuous for a publication to allow an author to post under anything other than his acknowledged name or initials. It’s required, in good journalism, for anyone associated with a publication to be known in discourse.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Please don't come ruin a DED article by specifying facts.
On the contrary, DED columns use facts and reason to make solid points. Which do you contest, specifically?
Sometimes, he gets all of his facts right in an article. But more often, he gets some right, and some wrong. The percentage varies per article. But it’s his consecending attitude towards major competitors that bothers me as well. If he stopped denigrating them, and fact checked more carefully (assuming that that’s the actual problem), then I wouldn’t mind what he writes. After all, an editorial is an opinion piece. The problem is that an actual opinion piece is always stated as being the opinion of the author, and that as such, does not necessarily reflect the opinion, or stance, of the editorial board, or publication. That’s clear, so it’s easy to forgive what’s written.
but an editorial goes one step (at least) further. That’s because it’s the opinion of the editorial board itself, and therefore reflects the official position of the publication. Because of that, an editorial carries more weight than a mere opinion piece.
im not certain if this publication truly understands the severity of that difference, even if they state they do.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
No, he linked to his own articles to demonstrate that the OP was misreading him.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.
Why would mismatching the editor and commenter, implying one is not the other, make a difference if the two are actually one and the same? DED was already connected to the article which is where the political comments existed. On top of that I agree with you he is not shy. I don't think he's afraid of being connected to his opinions.
So I doubt that's the reason for "Corrections".
I think Corrections allows him two critical freedoms: [1] it is a harder target for drive-by trolls to identify as they try to waste his time and [2] the anonymity allows him to disappear after he comments — if he were responding in his own name he’d be more likely to be drawn into back and forth exchanges. He rarely stays active for more than a day after his editorials, if that.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
No, he linked to his own articles to demonstrate that the OP was misreading him.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.
Why would mismatching the editor and commenter, implying one is not the other, make a difference if the two are actually one and the same? DED was already connected to the article which is where the political comments existed. On top of that I agree with you he is not shy. I don't think he's afraid of being connected to his opinions.
So I doubt that's the reason for "Corrections".
No, I think Corrections allows him two critical freedoms: [1] it is a harder target for drive-by political trolls to identify as they try to waste his time and [2] the anonymity allows him to disappear after he comments — if he were responding in his own name he’d be more likely to be drawn into back and forth exchanges. He rarely stays active for more than a day after his editorials, if that.
It’s simply wrong. If you have a stance, then you should be ready to publically, defend it, under your own name. If you’re going to write an opinion piece, not an editorial, which byline is always; The Editors, or the Editorial Board, not the individual author, and which needs no defense, then you need to defend it, if you really feel you must (and most opinion articles in publications are laid out there and not oubl8cally defended), under your own name, not some fictitious cover.
your reasons are no excuse. After all, as I said, there is no need for him to defend it. If an editorial needs defending, a rare thing, then it’s the job of the editorial board, as a whole, under the label of that board, to do so.
if an editorial is written, and doesn’t simply have the byline of the editors, or the board, it has the editor in chief’s byline, and the byline if the board. That’s one reason the “editorials” are so screwy.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
No, he linked to his own articles to demonstrate that the OP was misreading him.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.
Why would mismatching the editor and commenter, implying one is not the other, make a difference if the two are actually one and the same? DED was already connected to the article which is where the political comments existed. On top of that I agree with you he is not shy. I don't think he's afraid of being connected to his opinions.
So I doubt that's the reason for "Corrections".
No, I think Corrections allows him two critical freedoms: [1] it is a harder target for drive-by political trolls to identify as they try to waste his time and [2] the anonymity allows him to disappear after he comments — if he were responding in his own name he’d be more likely to be drawn into back and forth exchanges. He rarely stays active for more than a day after his editorials, if that.
It’s simply wrong. If you have a stance, then you should be ready to publically, defend it, under your own name. If you’re going to write an opinion piece, not an editorial, which byline is always; The Editors, or the Editorial Board, not the individual author, and which needs no defense, then you need to defend it, if you really feel you must (and most opinion articles in publications are laid out there and not oubl8cally defended), under your own name, not some fictitious cover.
your reasons are no excuse. After all, as I said, there is no need for him to defend it. If an editorial needs defending, a rare thing, then it’s the job of the editorial board, as a whole, under the label of that board, to do so.
if an editorial is written, and doesn’t simply have the byline of the editors, or the board, it has the editor in chief’s byline, and the byline if the board. That’s one reason the “editorials” are so screwy.
To be clear, I wrote that before I saw your comments, so it wasn’t a response to your points.
I’m not trying to justify it, I’m trying to observe/understand why he would choose to do it.
I agree that the term “Editorial” is a poor choice of words because I don’t think AI really has an editorial opinion board that can endorse points of view like a newspaper would. Maybe they should, but as it stands “Opinion” or something else would be a better choice.
On the other hand, the old-school Editorial Board had control over everything — they controlled which letters to the Editor would be published in response, and it ended there. Plus, those letters were not anonymous. The first step in publishing a letter to the Editor was and is to confirm the identity of its author. The kind of anonymity and back-and-forth that exists on open forums like this is something new. Your analogy to the traditional press only goes so far.
Less condescension on Daniel’s part would be more effective, for sure, but you try reading the stuff he’s responding to on a daily basis and see how well you do as you take it on...
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
No, he linked to his own articles to demonstrate that the OP was misreading him.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.
Why would mismatching the editor and commenter, implying one is not the other, make a difference if the two are actually one and the same? DED was already connected to the article which is where the political comments existed. On top of that I agree with you he is not shy. I don't think he's afraid of being connected to his opinions.
So I doubt that's the reason for "Corrections".
No, I think Corrections allows him two critical freedoms: [1] it is a harder target for drive-by political trolls to identify as they try to waste his time and [2] the anonymity allows him to disappear after he comments — if he were responding in his own name he’d be more likely to be drawn into back and forth exchanges. He rarely stays active for more than a day after his editorials, if that.
It’s simply wrong. If you have a stance, then you should be ready to publically, defend it, under your own name. If you’re going to write an opinion piece, not an editorial, which byline is always; The Editors, or the Editorial Board, not the individual author, and which needs no defense, then you need to defend it, if you really feel you must (and most opinion articles in publications are laid out there and not oubl8cally defended), under your own name, not some fictitious cover.
your reasons are no excuse. After all, as I said, there is no need for him to defend it. If an editorial needs defending, a rare thing, then it’s the job of the editorial board, as a whole, under the label of that board, to do so.
if an editorial is written, and doesn’t simply have the byline of the editors, or the board, it has the editor in chief’s byline, and the byline if the board. That’s one reason the “editorials” are so screwy.
To be clear, I wrote that before I saw your comments, so it wasn’t a response to your points.
I’m not trying to justify it, I’m trying to observe/understand why he would choose to do it.
I agree that the term “Editorial” is a poor choice of words because I don’t think AI really has an editorial opinion board that can endorse points of view like a newspaper would. Maybe they should, but as it stands “Opinion” or something else would be a better choice.
On the other hand, the old-school Editorial Board had control over everything — they controlled which letters to the Editor would be published in response, and it ended there. Plus, those letters were not anonymous. The first step in publishing a letter to the Editor was and is to confirm the identity of its author. The kind of anonymity and back-and-forth that exists on open forums like this is something new. Your analogy to the traditional press only goes so far.
Less condescension on Daniel’s part would be more effective, for sure, but you try reading the stuff he’s responding to on a daily basis and see how well you do as you take it on...
I’ll address the last part first. If you decide to become a public figure, no matter how inconsequential, as with most computer writers, you need to have a thick skin. If you don’t, then you’re in the wrong profession. When many people who basically agree with you criticize your statements, you need to evaluate whether you should continue on in that vein.
he seems to be writing solely for the more extreme readers. AI likes him, I assume, because he brings readers to the forum. Maybe he even brings in readers who hate him as well as love him. And it’s all ok, right?
aI controls our posts as well. If a post isn’t liked, it’s either edited, or removed. I was a global mod here for some time. I know how it works. Yes, they don’t know our name, but the papers didn’t check everyone who wrote in to make sure they were who they were. They just picked the letters they thought were the most interesting.
at any rate. The differences don’t matter. There should never be anonymous posting by a writer of an article, particularly when that writer is there as an editor.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
Comments
The editorial is about the workings of Apple? The title seems to be slightly wrong then. I see an article which half is about Google & Android (not WearOS). Some about the simple point that Apple was not first but better, and then a paragraph about how mean the press is. Concluding with how Android Wear is directed to nerds, while Apple watch is great, followed by AGAIN whining about the press talking about the headphone jack this time and saying that because the AirPods sync seamlessly between Apple product it is somehow an invalid complaint (who doesn't want AirPods, right?). Again, from the title I was under the impression it would be about WearOS, or is that because of my lack of reading comprehension?
So I doubt that's the reason for "Corrections".
Ultimately, yes — the goal is to show what Apple is doing right or doing wrong, as compared and contrasted to the rest of the industry and how this is all portrayed in the press. This site is AppleInsider, so that’s the starting point.
The words “Google’s Android Wear OS” are all in the title so I’m not sure how that confused you. Are you saying that Wear OS is not a clumsy, one-way port of Android by Google, and that its current failure does not contrast with the current success of the elegant, two-way port of iOS to watchOS and watchOS to iOS (not to mention macOS) by Apple?
Amd he’s not whining about the headphone jack — he’s laughing at Google making a point of it as Samsung and Apple — you know, actual manufacturers of products that people buy — go in a completely different direction.
My point was that the title suggest an editorial about WearOS, not Android and not Apple. A comparison between the Apple watch would of course be appropriate, but all the other stuff in this article adds nothing to the point as to why WearOS failed. How is the fact that WearOS is an one-way port the reason it failed? What would Google have to bring back to Android before it not to be considered one-way? Weatherproofing, AMOLED, Google Pay, wireless charging and heartbeat monitoring were all already on Android phones. 3D touch? How does that help WearOS succeeding?
He is whining about the press having a problem with the removal of the headphone jack, like I said in my previous comment, maybe I should have made that more clear. How is Samsung moving in a different direction, given that the S10 family still has the headphone jack? Google Pixel phones do not have a headphone jack anymore, so how is it moving in a different direction compared to Apple or Samsung in this context? I do not get the point of your last paragraph. In what direction should Google be moving?
But again, I come back to the fact that I do not know what this adds to the comparison between WearOS and the Apple Watch. It is seemingly just venting about Apple being right in a number of totally unrelated issues, while the title suggest an editorial about WearOS.
He spends most of his time debunking myths and questionable narratives about Apple, and that’s his job. But I don’t think he would shy away from the sort of larger errors in judgment that we’re talking about here — he is not an industry shill like many of those he rails against. I mean, you have to admit, there hasn’t been much to question in the years since the NeXT acquisition that I mentioned in my first comment here. Apple’s long-term growth and profitability has been astounding — the proof is in the pudding, as it were.
If Dilger ever does sound a real, serious alarm, then I’d advise sitting up and paying attention. Few people outside of the industry have as astute of a grasp of the company’s history and direction as he does, despite his overly rhetorical flourishes. You’d do well to listen.
Sometimes, he gets all of his facts right in an article. But more often, he gets some right, and some wrong. The percentage varies per article. But it’s his consecending attitude towards major competitors that bothers me as well. If he stopped denigrating them, and fact checked more carefully (assuming that that’s the actual problem), then I wouldn’t mind what he writes. After all, an editorial is an opinion piece. The problem is that an actual opinion piece is always stated as being the opinion of the author, and that as such, does not necessarily reflect the opinion, or stance, of the editorial board, or publication. That’s clear, so it’s easy to forgive what’s written.
but an editorial goes one step (at least) further. That’s because it’s the opinion of the editorial board itself, and therefore reflects the official position of the publication. Because of that, an editorial carries more weight than a mere opinion piece.
im not certain if this publication truly understands the severity of that difference, even if they state they do.
your reasons are no excuse. After all, as I said, there is no need for him to defend it. If an editorial needs defending, a rare thing, then it’s the job of the editorial board, as a whole, under the label of that board, to do so.
if an editorial is written, and doesn’t simply have the byline of the editors, or the board, it has the editor in chief’s byline, and the byline if the board. That’s one reason the “editorials” are so screwy.
I’m not trying to justify it, I’m trying to observe/understand why he would choose to do it.
I agree that the term “Editorial” is a poor choice of words because I don’t think AI really has an editorial opinion board that can endorse points of view like a newspaper would. Maybe they should, but as it stands “Opinion” or something else would be a better choice.
On the other hand, the old-school Editorial Board had control over everything — they controlled which letters to the Editor would be published in response, and it ended there. Plus, those letters were not anonymous. The first step in publishing a letter to the Editor was and is to confirm the identity of its author. The kind of anonymity and back-and-forth that exists on open forums like this is something new. Your analogy to the traditional press only goes so far.
Less condescension on Daniel’s part would be more effective, for sure, but you try reading the stuff he’s responding to on a daily basis and see how well you do as you take it on...
he seems to be writing solely for the more extreme readers. AI likes him, I assume, because he brings readers to the forum. Maybe he even brings in readers who hate him as well as love him. And it’s all ok, right?
aI controls our posts as well. If a post isn’t liked, it’s either edited, or removed. I was a global mod here for some time. I know how it works. Yes, they don’t know our name, but the papers didn’t check everyone who wrote in to make sure they were who they were. They just picked the letters they thought were the most interesting.
at any rate. The differences don’t matter. There should never be anonymous posting by a writer of an article, particularly when that writer is there as an editor.