Spend some actual time with that device, and tell me that you can last more than a few minutes: squinting with one eye gets very tiring and painful very fast. And talking to the stupid thing — one looks/sounds like a fool.
This reminds me of all the people I see taking pictures/video with their tablets. It looks utterly stupid. Also, initially pretty much everyone thought people having conversations with their BT ear dongles looked/sounded ridiculous. It's pretty much accepted now.
'Hands-free' to do what (in a driverless car wearing GG)?
It will be a long time before we get to level 5, fully autonomous. In the meantime there will be a driver in driverless cars and the driver will be expected to take control of the vehicle under certain situations.
Driverless for now and for near future is a misnomer.
Time will tell whether Cook is bullshitting or not.
I don't think he thinks he's bullshitting but by adding "reasonable person" to qualify what is and what is not a new category... well, he's definitely on the edge.
This reminds me of all the people I see taking pictures/video with their tablets. It looks utterly stupid. Also, initially pretty much everyone thought people having conversations with their BT ear dongles looked/sounded ridiculous. It's pretty much accepted now.
Oddly enough, taking pictures with a tablet looks great to me. I always loved 8 X 10 view cameras, as clunky and heavy as they are. Being able to actually step back and view the whole scene was great. Squinting through a little hole to frame the view was always a pain in comparison.
@beluga I don't consider driverless cars innovative, or google glass. When you ship the finished product you get to claim innovation; until then it's a dream, even if you have working models, it's a dream with working models. Here's an example. A health tracking device small enough to imbed in a small slit cut into the earlobe. It tracks heart rate, blood pressure, glucose levels, etc. That's a dream. When somebody ships it, that's innovation.
I don't consider driverless cars innovative, or google glass. When you ship the finished product you get to claim innovation; until then it's a dream, even if you have working models, it's a dream with working models. Here's an example. A health tracking device small enough to imbed in a small slit cut into the earlobe. It tracks heart rate, blood pressure, glucose levels, etc. That's a dream. When somebody ships it, that's innovation.
i respectfully disagree.
nnovation (??n??ve???n)
n
1. something newly introduced, such as a new method or device
Just curious are other companies asked about whether the stuff they're working on is improvements to existing products or new categories? It seems like Apple is the only company where this question is constantly asked. I can't remember the last time Google or Microsoft was asked this question.
It's because behind closed doors, everybody knows they're waiting for Apple to move first like they always do. If they said that publicly, they'd weaken Apple's competition. The strategy is to always keep prodding Apple to come up with cool things but never thank them for it - treat them mean to keep them keen. People are held to different standards in all sorts of things and it's usually based on standards they hold themselves to. If a kid is the smartest in their school but they get a slightly lower grade, there's disappointment whereas a kid with constantly lower or failing grades is expected to fail. Apple's competition tend to be the latter. Not necessarily the F students but the B and C students. Google Glass, Galaxy Gear, well at least they tried, here's the certificate for attendance.
I noticed that Tim mentioned not liking any areas where they are second. One of the most prominent is being second to Samsung in sales volume. The problem here is the iPod. It's a class of device that is trending down fast:
43m 2011, 35m 2012, 26m 2013
The revenue is now the lowest of any category. Assuming that trend keeps up, there has to be a point where they replace it with something. People buying at the price point of the iPod Touch want a phone now, not just a music player. If they modify the Touch into a phone somehow, they can hit the lower-end prepay market and developing market, they'd just have to be careful and not make it so nice that people would avoid buying the higher models.
Whatever it is, that iPod trend gives an idea of the timeframe too. If it keeps going like that, it'll be 2014 or 2015 that its replacement arrives.
1. something newly introduced, such as a new method or device
2. the act of innovating
?inno?vationaladj?inno?vationistn
I don't need a dictionary to tell me what is and what is not innovating.
To say that the mouse wasn't innovative until Apple used it with its computers; to say that the gui wasn't innovative until Apple used it with its computers... *
... well, that's just silly to me.
( * fill in any innovation that comes to mind that was or wasn't used years later in a financially successful product)
Just curious are other companies asked about whether the stuff they're working on is improvements to existing products or new categories? It seems like Apple is the only company where this question is constantly asked. I can't remember the last time Google or Microsoft was asked this question.
Or intel. People seem satisfied with Moore's law, and aren't clamoring for whole new inventions.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/169839/Beluga" style="display:inline-block;">@Beluga</a>
and island hermit Ha! Boy have I been schooled! I stand corrected, and tip my hat to you both! Still like the shipped innovation best!
Technology companies have a history of making bold claims but never delivering. The caveat is that the innovative technology itself may not be the consumer product rather an enabling technology for a consumer device.
Innovating without shipping is referred to as a non-practicing entity (NPE) which is often referred to as a patent troll although these aren't necessarily the same concept.
Tim looks terrible- I am talking skin, which is the mirror to one’s health. He looks thin, tired and terribly wrinkly for someone who is only fifty-three. I remember noting this a year or so ago but the pictures and videos of recent look even worse.
My suspicions is that the man’s diet is not healthy for him. Either he eats junk food (I think not) or he is on some kind of diet that might drive him down the same spiral that claimed his predecessor. The third possibility is that no matter what he does, his genes rule and he, or his skin just ages faster than the average.
We all make choices that influence our health. I doubt he smokes. I doubt he does drugs. I have read he exercises and whether that is extreme or moderate I haven’t a clue. If his food choices are political, well that is his choice.
I think he looks twenty years older than fifty-three.
I hope he is carefully cultivating his successor. We’ve been down this road before.
(I have had two friends whose skin made them look twenty years older than their age. One smoked the other did not. Both ate well, were not over weight and were quite fit, but their skin continued to age exponentially. It may just be genetic and the rest of his vitals may be quite vigorous and healthy.)
Either he eats junk food (I think not) or he is on some kind of diet that might drive him down the same spiral that claimed his predecessor.
Uh, I'm pretty sure what killed Steve Jobs was cancer and not getting it treated as quickly as possible. I don't really think a bad diet is going to lead someone to a rare pancreatic cancer.
Tim Cook revealed the company is hard at work on devices any "reasonable" person would consider to be new product categories.
<em style="line-height:1.4em;">[SIZE=9px]Note: Dumb Analysts, Wall Street lazy ass fatties, android / google losers are NOT considered "Reasonable"![/SIZE]</em>
The vast majority of people think that the iPad was the first tablet thus for them it was a 'new product category'.
The vast majority of people think that the iPad was the first tablet thus for them it was a 'new product category'.
For Apple it was a new product category... regardless of how many other tablets had come before it. Just as the iPod was a new product category "for Apple".
Unless, of course, someone really believes that the iPod is exactly like an iMac.
Comments
Augmented reality via one eye is not a strategy for anything other than developing a squint.
Brilliant.
hands free is huge IMHO
'Hands-free' to do what (in a driverless car wearing GG)?
Spend some actual time with that device, and tell me that you can last more than a few minutes: squinting with one eye gets very tiring and painful very fast. And talking to the stupid thing — one looks/sounds like a fool.
This reminds me of all the people I see taking pictures/video with their tablets. It looks utterly stupid. Also, initially pretty much everyone thought people having conversations with their BT ear dongles looked/sounded ridiculous. It's pretty much accepted now.
'Hands-free' to do what (in a driverless car wearing GG)?
It will be a long time before we get to level 5, fully autonomous. In the meantime there will be a driver in driverless cars and the driver will be expected to take control of the vehicle under certain situations.
Driverless for now and for near future is a misnomer.
Time will tell whether Cook is bullshitting or not.
I don't think he thinks he's bullshitting but by adding "reasonable person" to qualify what is and what is not a new category... well, he's definitely on the edge.
This reminds me of all the people I see taking pictures/video with their tablets. It looks utterly stupid. Also, initially pretty much everyone thought people having conversations with their BT ear dongles looked/sounded ridiculous. It's pretty much accepted now.
Oddly enough, taking pictures with a tablet looks great to me. I always loved 8 X 10 view cameras, as clunky and heavy as they are. Being able to actually step back and view the whole scene was great. Squinting through a little hole to frame the view was always a pain in comparison.
... but that's just me.
I don't consider driverless cars innovative, or google glass. When you ship the finished product you get to claim innovation; until then it's a dream, even if you have working models, it's a dream with working models. Here's an example. A health tracking device small enough to imbed in a small slit cut into the earlobe. It tracks heart rate, blood pressure, glucose levels, etc. That's a dream. When somebody ships it, that's innovation.
@beluga
I don't consider driverless cars innovative, or google glass. When you ship the finished product you get to claim innovation; until then it's a dream, even if you have working models, it's a dream with working models. Here's an example. A health tracking device small enough to imbed in a small slit cut into the earlobe. It tracks heart rate, blood pressure, glucose levels, etc. That's a dream. When somebody ships it, that's innovation.
i respectfully disagree.
nnovation (??n??ve???n)
?inno?vational adj ?inno?vationist n
'Hands-free' to do what (in a driverless car wearing GG)?
you dont find the ability of not having to drive your own car in order to get somewhere useful?
It's because behind closed doors, everybody knows they're waiting for Apple to move first like they always do. If they said that publicly, they'd weaken Apple's competition. The strategy is to always keep prodding Apple to come up with cool things but never thank them for it - treat them mean to keep them keen. People are held to different standards in all sorts of things and it's usually based on standards they hold themselves to. If a kid is the smartest in their school but they get a slightly lower grade, there's disappointment whereas a kid with constantly lower or failing grades is expected to fail. Apple's competition tend to be the latter. Not necessarily the F students but the B and C students. Google Glass, Galaxy Gear, well at least they tried, here's the certificate for attendance.
I noticed that Tim mentioned not liking any areas where they are second. One of the most prominent is being second to Samsung in sales volume. The problem here is the iPod. It's a class of device that is trending down fast:
43m 2011, 35m 2012, 26m 2013
The revenue is now the lowest of any category. Assuming that trend keeps up, there has to be a point where they replace it with something. People buying at the price point of the iPod Touch want a phone now, not just a music player. If they modify the Touch into a phone somehow, they can hit the lower-end prepay market and developing market, they'd just have to be careful and not make it so nice that people would avoid buying the higher models.
Whatever it is, that iPod trend gives an idea of the timeframe too. If it keeps going like that, it'll be 2014 or 2015 that its replacement arrives.
i respectfully disagree.
nnovation (??n??ve???n)
?inno?vational adj ?inno?vationist n
I don't need a dictionary to tell me what is and what is not innovating.
To say that the mouse wasn't innovative until Apple used it with its computers; to say that the gui wasn't innovative until Apple used it with its computers... *
... well, that's just silly to me.
( * fill in any innovation that comes to mind that was or wasn't used years later in a financially successful product)
Or intel. People seem satisfied with Moore's law, and aren't clamoring for whole new inventions.
@Beluga and island hermit
Ha! Boy have I been schooled! I stand corrected, and tip my hat to you both!
Still like the shipped innovation best!
Technology companies have a history of making bold claims but never delivering. The caveat is that the innovative technology itself may not be the consumer product rather an enabling technology for a consumer device.
Innovating without shipping is referred to as a non-practicing entity (NPE) which is often referred to as a patent troll although these aren't necessarily the same concept.
Would you care to share your experience?
This is off topic and now buried on page 3 of AI.
Tim looks terrible- I am talking skin, which is the mirror to one’s health. He looks thin, tired and terribly wrinkly for someone who is only fifty-three. I remember noting this a year or so ago but the pictures and videos of recent look even worse.
My suspicions is that the man’s diet is not healthy for him. Either he eats junk food (I think not) or he is on some kind of diet that might drive him down the same spiral that claimed his predecessor. The third possibility is that no matter what he does, his genes rule and he, or his skin just ages faster than the average.
We all make choices that influence our health. I doubt he smokes. I doubt he does drugs. I have read he exercises and whether that is extreme or moderate I haven’t a clue. If his food choices are political, well that is his choice.
I think he looks twenty years older than fifty-three.
I hope he is carefully cultivating his successor. We’ve been down this road before.
(I have had two friends whose skin made them look twenty years older than their age. One smoked the other did not. Both ate well, were not over weight and were quite fit, but their skin continued to age exponentially. It may just be genetic and the rest of his vitals may be quite vigorous and healthy.)
Either he eats junk food (I think not) or he is on some kind of diet that might drive him down the same spiral that claimed his predecessor.
Uh, I'm pretty sure what killed Steve Jobs was cancer and not getting it treated as quickly as possible. I don't really think a bad diet is going to lead someone to a rare pancreatic cancer.
The vast majority of people think that the iPad was the first tablet thus for them it was a 'new product category'.
Or intel. People seem satisfied with Moore's law, and aren't clamoring for whole new inventions.
OFFS... have you looked at Intel's 10 year chart.
Apple can sit on its hands if it wants to. No problem. Just keep shipping new iterations of its current devices...
... but don't expect the stock to be a growth stock. That's all that Wall Street is saying.
The vast majority of people think that the iPad was the first tablet thus for them it was a 'new product category'.
For Apple it was a new product category... regardless of how many other tablets had come before it. Just as the iPod was a new product category "for Apple".
Unless, of course, someone really believes that the iPod is exactly like an iMac.