I'd expect any iWatch to be an iPhone accessory rather than a standalone product. Same with a smartwatch from Google if it happens, and perhaps even working with either iOS or Android. Receiving it's data from a smartphone link only makes sense on many levels.
The technology for something like Dick Tracey's watch-phone is probably here now, but I don't think a battery that small would have enough capacity to last long enough to make it practical. Bluetooth, OTOH seems to be low power enough that it would work, in conjunction with a phone, which could be nearby (pocket or purse).
The technology for something like Dick Tracey's watch-phone is probably here now, but I don't think a battery that small would have enough capacity to last long enough to make it practical. Bluetooth, OTOH seems to be low power enough that it would work, in conjunction with a phone, which could be nearby (pocket or purse).
Aha. So there is already the Pebble, and there may soon be Google and LG smartwatches. I seem to recall that there was a mini-flood of pad computer announcements just before the first iPad was announced. None of which still exist. (Or, if they do still exist, nobody uses them anyway.)
If and when Apple releases an iOS device in a watch form factor, the same thing will happen. It will crush the competitors who bang their products out, hoping to take advantage of the pre-Apple-smartwatch window of opportunity.
One smartwatch builder has apparently already bitten the dust. Remember Starfish? The company that showed a barely-functional iPhone / iPad "mirroring device"? Whose rep told Lex Friedman of Macworld "Did you hear me? I'm done talking to you!" and got in his face? Read all about it:
Samsung is the Apple copycat, Google do their own thing and despite people's beliefs, Google's archival is not Apple but Microsoft.
The idea of a smart watch has been on Google's radar for a couple of years now. They even filled patents for it. It makes perfect sense for them to build such a device considering Google Now. I think that a Google smart watch that itengrates with Now would be killer.
How is Samsung a copy cat when its been demonstrating wrist worn smart devices since 1998.
You claim Google's smart watch concept has been on Google's "radar" for a "couple of years now" (read: less than 10 years)
Samsung has had that idea for more than a "couple of years now".
Even AI recently wrote about Samsung's third attempt at their wrist worn device.
And as per my earlier post, none of those devices sell in numbers to qualify them as anything but curiosities.
The question isn't whether any sort of smart watch exists-- of course they do. The question is how do you make a smart watch that anyone would want to own, in numbers that qualify for mainstream status. I have no idea if Apple plans a smart watch, and if they release such a thing if it will be popular.
But I am sure that if they do and it is, people like you will hammer away at the idea such a product is "nothing new" because of the lame ass, barely registering on the radar stuff already on the market. And I'm equally sure that if an Apple watch is a big hit, those same devices will mysteriously undergo a rapid transformation to make them much more like whatever Apple chooses to do, and you'll claim that such modifications were "inevitable" and that Apple was just (coincidentally, again) just slightly ahead of the curve.
So I'll put to you the questions I posed in my earlier post: if Samsung's and LG's offerings are evidence of "been there done that", why don't they sell better? Why does no one outside tech enthusiast circles even know they exist? And if there are obvious, inevitable ways to make them better, what are they? Should be easy to say, now, because, well, obvious and all. Right? Just like "everybody knew" that all touch screen phones were right around the corner when Apple got around to it, so it should have been easy to make that claim before the iPhone was released. So what are the big UI innovations that would make a Samsung, LG or Google watch worth having, for non-geeks?
Apple doesn't just makeup product categories out of whole cloth. They find areas that are being grossly underserved because of shitty software, shitty hardware, or both, and rethink them from the ground up with a mind to making them actually useful. Once they've done that, their solutions are immediately deemed too obvious to deserve recognition, and the industry rallies around these "obvious" ideas. So tell me now: what can Apple do that isn't just more of the same?
And as per my earlier post, none of those devices sell in numbers to qualify them as anything but curiosities.
The question isn't whether any sort of smart watch exists-- of course they do. The question is how do you make a smart watch that anyone would want to own, in numbers that qualify for mainstream status. I have no idea if Apple plans a smart watch, and if they release such a thing if it will be popular.
But I am sure that if they do and it is, people like you will hammer away at the idea such a product is "nothing new" because of the lame ass, barely registering on the radar stuff already on the market. And I'm equally sure that if an Apple watch is a big hit, those same devices will mysteriously undergo a rapid transformation to make them much more like whatever Apple chooses to do, and you'll claim that such modifications were "inevitable" and that Apple was just (coincidentally, again) just slightly ahead of the curve.
So I'll put to you the questions I posed in my earlier post: if Samsung's and LG's offerings are evidence of "been there done that", why don't they sell better? Why does no one outside tech enthusiast circles even know they exist? And if there are obvious, inevitable ways to make them better, what are they? Should be easy to say, now, because, well, obvious and all. Right? Just like "everybody knew" that all touch screen phones were right around the corner when Apple got around to it, so it should have been easy to make that claim before the iPhone was released. So what are the big UI innovations that would make a Samsung, LG or Google watch worth having, for non-geeks?
Apple doesn't just makeup product categories out of whole cloth. They find areas that are being grossly underserved because of shitty software, shitty hardware, or both, and rethink them from the ground up with a mind to making them actually useful. Once they've done that, their solutions are immediately deemed too obvious to deserve recognition, and the industry rallies around these "obvious" ideas. So tell me now: what can Apple do that isn't just more of the same?
Oh great, now the goal post has moved from "Apple was the first" to "Apple wasnt the first, but it could be the first mass market".
This is a moving target that will never be fully fulfilled, ever.
Going to have to work on that reading comprehension. Or possibly just literacy, since you don't appear to have read my post.
If Apple is "first to mass market" with a smart watch, why would that be? Why isn't a Samsung or LG or Sony watch already there? Samsung, for one, certainly doesn't lack for mind share or advertising dollars or drive, so you can't claim that Apple would somehow push a watch on an indifferent populace through those means.
Again, (and this is the important part, so you might take a second to actually think about what I'm saying) if Apple makes a watch and it proves to be popular, it will because they made fundamental changes, compared to what is currently available, to the design and intention of such a product. Fundamental changes sufficient to make an Apple smart watch a fundamentally different product, despite the putative availability of hardware bearing the same designation-- which, you'll notice, nobody seems to want.
You know, like the iPod, iPhone and iPad. All reinventing preexisting categories by rethinking what they were for and how people might use them. Dismissing these as merely "first to mass market" is to be willfully ignorant, apparently out of irrational animosity towards Apple. It requires you to pretend that Apple just happened to luck in to some timing, over and over again, and that every other company making these products would have shortly come around to Apple's style of doing things (or inexplicably succeeded with products that had gone nowhere for years) over and over again.
What's sort of depressing is that if this all comes to pass-- if Apple makes a watch, it's a hit, everybody else immediately shifts gears to make watches that follow Apple's lead-- people like you will continue to grimly maintain that Apple has done nothing of significance, that there was no innovation, that whatever they might do was going to happen anyway, was "inevitable."
So it would appear the moving target is all yours. You throw that out as if it were a common strategy of Apple apologists, but the facts of Apple's track record speak for themselves. The iPhone changed the mobile industry forever, full stop. The iPod changed the music industry. The iPad created an entirely new computing platform, one that is being adopted as quickly as possible by every competitor, after "tablets" had languished on shelves for 10 years without making a dent in the market. Are those moving goal posts? Sounds more like churlish muttering on your part because you can't think of an actual argument.
But I put it to you again-- if Apple is poised to take the moribund smart watch category mass market, what's going to change? You'll claim it's obvious after the fact, so tell us now. Apple doesn't innovate, so it shouldn't take too much imagination. Cheaper? Bigger? Faster? Prettier? Go ahead and set down some goal posts of your own, and we'll see were the movement is.
Comments
The technology for something like Dick Tracey's watch-phone is probably here now, but I don't think a battery that small would have enough capacity to last long enough to make it practical. Bluetooth, OTOH seems to be low power enough that it would work, in conjunction with a phone, which could be nearby (pocket or purse).
Agreed
Rumor is Apple is working on this:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/f326/?i=front
They better do something asap with some new product or else apple will be sinking eventually with all the other competitors out there.
Originally Posted by marvfox
They better do something asap with some new product or else apple will be sinking eventually with all the other competitors out there.
Abject nonsense.
If and when Apple releases an iOS device in a watch form factor, the same thing will happen. It will crush the competitors who bang their products out, hoping to take advantage of the pre-Apple-smartwatch window of opportunity.
One smartwatch builder has apparently already bitten the dust. Remember Starfish? The company that showed a barely-functional iPhone / iPad "mirroring device"? Whose rep told Lex Friedman of Macworld "Did you hear me? I'm done talking to you!" and got in his face? Read all about it:
http://www.macworld.com/article/2027044/starfish-smartwatch-saga-illustrates-entrepreneurial-stumbling-blocks.html
Extinct would-be iPad competitors announced circa CES 2010:
- HP Windows Slate
- Lenovo Ideapad U1 Hybrid Notebook/Tablet
- Sony Dash Mobile Internet Device
- Notion Ink Adam Smartpad
- Archos 9 PCTablet
- Innovative Converged Devices Vega and Ultra Tablets
- Freescale Semiconductors Tablet
- Pegatron Tablet
- Dell 'Streak' Android Tablet Concept
- Hearst 'Skiff' reader
And then there were the 80 or 90 announced at CES 2011:
http://mobilitydigest.com/how-many-tablets-were-announced-at-ces/
Sources:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/186281/dawn_of_the_tablet_pc_ces_2010_roundup.html
http://mashable.com/2010/01/04/skiff-announced/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evoken
Samsung is the Apple copycat, Google do their own thing and despite people's beliefs, Google's archival is not Apple but Microsoft.
The idea of a smart watch has been on Google's radar for a couple of years now. They even filled patents for it. It makes perfect sense for them to build such a device considering Google Now. I think that a Google smart watch that itengrates with Now would be killer.
How is Samsung a copy cat when its been demonstrating wrist worn smart devices since 1998.
You claim Google's smart watch concept has been on Google's "radar" for a "couple of years now" (read: less than 10 years)
Samsung has had that idea for more than a "couple of years now".
Even AI recently wrote about Samsung's third attempt at their wrist worn device.
Here: http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/03/21/new-samsung-smart-watch-will-be-companys-third-stab-at-wrist-accessory
You are purposelly failing to acknowledge your mistake. Lets start looking at facts before making nonsense accusations.
Right now, just looking at the facts, it seems like its Apple who is doing the "copying".
Speaking of LG
They also have wrist worn product on the market.
LG GD910
And as per my earlier post, none of those devices sell in numbers to qualify them as anything but curiosities.
The question isn't whether any sort of smart watch exists-- of course they do. The question is how do you make a smart watch that anyone would want to own, in numbers that qualify for mainstream status. I have no idea if Apple plans a smart watch, and if they release such a thing if it will be popular.
But I am sure that if they do and it is, people like you will hammer away at the idea such a product is "nothing new" because of the lame ass, barely registering on the radar stuff already on the market. And I'm equally sure that if an Apple watch is a big hit, those same devices will mysteriously undergo a rapid transformation to make them much more like whatever Apple chooses to do, and you'll claim that such modifications were "inevitable" and that Apple was just (coincidentally, again) just slightly ahead of the curve.
So I'll put to you the questions I posed in my earlier post: if Samsung's and LG's offerings are evidence of "been there done that", why don't they sell better? Why does no one outside tech enthusiast circles even know they exist? And if there are obvious, inevitable ways to make them better, what are they? Should be easy to say, now, because, well, obvious and all. Right? Just like "everybody knew" that all touch screen phones were right around the corner when Apple got around to it, so it should have been easy to make that claim before the iPhone was released. So what are the big UI innovations that would make a Samsung, LG or Google watch worth having, for non-geeks?
Apple doesn't just makeup product categories out of whole cloth. They find areas that are being grossly underserved because of shitty software, shitty hardware, or both, and rethink them from the ground up with a mind to making them actually useful. Once they've done that, their solutions are immediately deemed too obvious to deserve recognition, and the industry rallies around these "obvious" ideas. So tell me now: what can Apple do that isn't just more of the same?
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
And as per my earlier post, none of those devices sell in numbers to qualify them as anything but curiosities.
The question isn't whether any sort of smart watch exists-- of course they do. The question is how do you make a smart watch that anyone would want to own, in numbers that qualify for mainstream status. I have no idea if Apple plans a smart watch, and if they release such a thing if it will be popular.
But I am sure that if they do and it is, people like you will hammer away at the idea such a product is "nothing new" because of the lame ass, barely registering on the radar stuff already on the market. And I'm equally sure that if an Apple watch is a big hit, those same devices will mysteriously undergo a rapid transformation to make them much more like whatever Apple chooses to do, and you'll claim that such modifications were "inevitable" and that Apple was just (coincidentally, again) just slightly ahead of the curve.
So I'll put to you the questions I posed in my earlier post: if Samsung's and LG's offerings are evidence of "been there done that", why don't they sell better? Why does no one outside tech enthusiast circles even know they exist? And if there are obvious, inevitable ways to make them better, what are they? Should be easy to say, now, because, well, obvious and all. Right? Just like "everybody knew" that all touch screen phones were right around the corner when Apple got around to it, so it should have been easy to make that claim before the iPhone was released. So what are the big UI innovations that would make a Samsung, LG or Google watch worth having, for non-geeks?
Apple doesn't just makeup product categories out of whole cloth. They find areas that are being grossly underserved because of shitty software, shitty hardware, or both, and rethink them from the ground up with a mind to making them actually useful. Once they've done that, their solutions are immediately deemed too obvious to deserve recognition, and the industry rallies around these "obvious" ideas. So tell me now: what can Apple do that isn't just more of the same?
Oh great, now the goal post has moved from "Apple was the first" to "Apple wasnt the first, but it could be the first mass market".
This is a moving target that will never be fully fulfilled, ever.
Going to have to work on that reading comprehension. Or possibly just literacy, since you don't appear to have read my post.
If Apple is "first to mass market" with a smart watch, why would that be? Why isn't a Samsung or LG or Sony watch already there? Samsung, for one, certainly doesn't lack for mind share or advertising dollars or drive, so you can't claim that Apple would somehow push a watch on an indifferent populace through those means.
Again, (and this is the important part, so you might take a second to actually think about what I'm saying) if Apple makes a watch and it proves to be popular, it will because they made fundamental changes, compared to what is currently available, to the design and intention of such a product. Fundamental changes sufficient to make an Apple smart watch a fundamentally different product, despite the putative availability of hardware bearing the same designation-- which, you'll notice, nobody seems to want.
You know, like the iPod, iPhone and iPad. All reinventing preexisting categories by rethinking what they were for and how people might use them. Dismissing these as merely "first to mass market" is to be willfully ignorant, apparently out of irrational animosity towards Apple. It requires you to pretend that Apple just happened to luck in to some timing, over and over again, and that every other company making these products would have shortly come around to Apple's style of doing things (or inexplicably succeeded with products that had gone nowhere for years) over and over again.
What's sort of depressing is that if this all comes to pass-- if Apple makes a watch, it's a hit, everybody else immediately shifts gears to make watches that follow Apple's lead-- people like you will continue to grimly maintain that Apple has done nothing of significance, that there was no innovation, that whatever they might do was going to happen anyway, was "inevitable."
So it would appear the moving target is all yours. You throw that out as if it were a common strategy of Apple apologists, but the facts of Apple's track record speak for themselves. The iPhone changed the mobile industry forever, full stop. The iPod changed the music industry. The iPad created an entirely new computing platform, one that is being adopted as quickly as possible by every competitor, after "tablets" had languished on shelves for 10 years without making a dent in the market. Are those moving goal posts? Sounds more like churlish muttering on your part because you can't think of an actual argument.
But I put it to you again-- if Apple is poised to take the moribund smart watch category mass market, what's going to change? You'll claim it's obvious after the fact, so tell us now. Apple doesn't innovate, so it shouldn't take too much imagination. Cheaper? Bigger? Faster? Prettier? Go ahead and set down some goal posts of your own, and we'll see were the movement is.