Its not wireless inductive charging. It's magnetic inductive charging. There is a wire involved that must be magnetically connected to the back of the watch.
It’s still inductive, which means there’s no actual connection.
I suppose we (devs) won't need much more RAM - but that's disappointing as far as internal space.
Maybe they'll pull what they did with the original iPhone and drop the smallest capacity in exchange for the 8gb standard - that seems more acceptable as a basic size.
That thing is not only fugly; it's also absolutely DOA.
In other news, Tim Cook has reported first weekend sales of 10 million.
That's good, but not as stellar as I was predicting, which was 13 million. Of course, China wasn't included this year; it was, last year. I wonder if some spreadsheet whizz could estimate the difference not having China makes.
If you're an analyst, you'd probably be a terrible one. No way in hell that Apple would stock iPhone inventory to break previous record by 5 million units. The point is that they wanted to have enough to break the record and move on. Next time, they will have 12 millions and then 13 million a year later...It's a long term strategy, not stunning 1 time record and will never be able to break the record again.
Not really.
Last year, they broke their record of 5 million by 4 million and recorded 9 million sales.
This year, I predicted another 4 million beat—not 5 million as you assert—to move from 9 million to 13 million. Seemed like a reasonable prediction, seeing as there was supposedly pent-up demand for a phablet.
Here's my request to Apple to replace the iPod shuffle... Please make a shuffle/watch that will work with a pair of wireless headphones (Beats or Apple branded, either one). I don't really need every function of the Apple Watch, I personally just need a sports watch with iPod function. That's it.
Other than it's not $49 how is the watch not a shuffle replacement? The shuffle only has 2GB storage. The watch plays music to a bluetooth headset.
Somebody always comes up with the argument "Look how cheap thumb drives or micro SD cards are!" when discussing internal storage in the iPhone (or MacBook Airs and MacBook Pros.) That's comparing Apples (yeah, I said it) and oranges. The crap flash memory they put in those (which will be written to <1/1000 as many times as internal storage) is a fraction the price.
Last year, they broke their record of 5 million by 4 million and recorded 9 million sales.
This year, I predicted another 4 million beat—not 5 million as you assert—to move from 9 million to 13 million. Seemed like a reasonable prediction, seeing as there was supposedly pent-up demand for a phablet.
Go play with a goat.
Last year was different because of China market which was the first time. This year is not. Apple needed China launch at the same time last year to break the record because they knew that minimal upgraded iPhone 5S and rebadged iPhone 5C would never break that record in normal markets like a year before. It's all about playing cards to keep the sale look good and healthy. They knew this year they will make it without China.
That's what Wireless inductive charging is. The magnet just holds it in place. I object to the use of the word 'wireless' for these inductive devices that have to have contact between the device and the dock / charging thing - until we have a metre range (approx), they shouldn't say wireless.
If indeed GPS would be a working function, it means that I can leave my iPhone at home while doing my daily outside runs and walks.
There is no GPS on the watch, therefore it needs an iPhone if you want to record your course. You can however store and listen to music without an iPhone.
The reason sports watches are so thick is because they have GPS which is power hungry and therefore need a big battery.
Already pipped by Mac-sochist, but I just want to add that the mention of 4GB is for storage, likely to be NAND, which is waaaaay slower than RAM, which isn't used for storage as it gets wiped after a reboot or the loss of power.
I suppose we (devs) won't need much more RAM - but that's disappointing as far as internal space.
No way am I buying that watch until it has two Gb of RAM. I want to use it to write 8 channel music and I'd have to wear an armful of these to be able to do that. Instead, I'll just strap on my MS Surface 3 Pro and get the job done. :rolleyes:
I think the sci fi movie predilection of Bruce Campbell is showing there ... It took me a while to get used to him not encountering aliens or zombies in Burn Notice.
EDIT: Then again, Fiona may be an illegal alien!
Thou shalt not speak ill of Fiona lest thou want a bomb placed under his car
People will buy shirts with wider sleeves. Just like they bought pants with wider pockets to accommodate smartphones.
Yes, and this is not remotely a new issue. I believe my sports Timex is very nearly as thick as the Apple Watch and I've dealt with the cuff problem for years. It is an annoyance, but with a heavy hitter like Apple in the mix maybe clothing manufacturers will finally be motivated to put forth better solutions. It's not rocket science, but if they don't, it's no big deal. We won't be any worse off than we are today.
The Newton was kind of the right product but at the wrong time. It just needed communications and interaction technology to progress enough to make it useful. The iWatch is starting from a point where communications and interaction technology is at an advanced level. For it to be Newton-like, there would have to be an advance in future that would eventually make the watch useful. The problem here is when you see the usage breakdown of smartphones:
The watch would work with news and utility so about 10% of everything a smartphone is used for. Given that people are going to be immersed in the phone for the 90% of things the watch can't do, where's the incentive to get the watch? It doesn't have to replicate the smartphone but what are the killer features that are unique to the device? You can send a heartbeat to someone already (a Valentines gimmick people will mostly use once):
[VIDEO]
You can do fitness tracking, you can control music, do payments. Its only killer feature is allowing you to not have to take the phone out for 10% of the activities but that's hardly compelling when people are happily taking them out for the other 90%.
That thing is not only fugly; it's also absolutely DOA.
Not a chance.
I've worn a watch for decades and my initial reaction was that it will have great functionality but looked a little boring. I was never a fan of rectangular watch faces, but I've always preferred an analog face and round is the natural shape for an analog face. However, this is not an analog watch, and a rectangular screen is a natural shape for a computer with graphical display, however small.
Ive & Co must have been staring at every reasonable configuration for years and I can well imagine that after living and working with it they've settled on a design that feels like the right compromise. For your basic rectangle, this thing is smooth and has some pretty sexy curves; I find myself liking it more every time I look at it. I originally thought I'd wait for gen 2 but now don't think I'll be able to wait for another year.
It's not an iPhone, but it's going to fly off the shelf.
The watch would work with news and utility so about 10% of everything a smartphone is used for. Given that people are going to be immersed in the phone for the 90% of things the watch can't do, where's the incentive to get the watch? It doesn't have to replicate the smartphone but what are the killer features that are unique to the device? You can send a heartbeat to someone already (a Valentines gimmick people will mostly use once):
...
You can do fitness tracking, you can control music, do payments. Its only killer feature is allowing you to not have to take the phone out for 10% of the activities but that's hardly compelling when people are happily taking them out for the other 90%.
That other 90% is better handled with a larger device than what most folks have today. It may not be as compelling for a 4" device but with a 5.5" device it may be.
Between a BT headset and the Apple watch I can see moving to a larger device that is much more geared toward being near you (backpack, purse, briefcase, jacket) than on you except when you are actively using it.
In any case, the killer apps are payments and keys. I can carry nothing but the watch and have the ability to pay for stuff, open doors, start my car, etc.
In any case, the killer apps are payments and keys. I can carry nothing but the watch and have the ability to pay for stuff, open doors, start my car, etc.
I bolded that because I think the goal with smart watches (and Apple Watch) to is extend that 10% with other activities that benefit from the device.
Comments
It’s still inductive, which means there’s no actual connection.
I suppose we (devs) won't need much more RAM - but that's disappointing as far as internal space.
Maybe they'll pull what they did with the original iPhone and drop the smallest capacity in exchange for the 8gb standard - that seems more acceptable as a basic size.
That thing is not only fugly; it's also absolutely DOA.
Not really.
Last year, they broke their record of 5 million by 4 million and recorded 9 million sales.
This year, I predicted another 4 million beat—not 5 million as you assert—to move from 9 million to 13 million. Seemed like a reasonable prediction, seeing as there was supposedly pent-up demand for a phablet.
Try reading his post before making dumb replies.
Somebody always comes up with the argument "Look how cheap thumb drives or micro SD cards are!" when discussing internal storage in the iPhone (or MacBook Airs and MacBook Pros.) That's comparing Apples (yeah, I said it) and oranges. The crap flash memory they put in those (which will be written to <1/1000 as many times as internal storage) is a fraction the price.
Not really.
Last year, they broke their record of 5 million by 4 million and recorded 9 million sales.
This year, I predicted another 4 million beat—not 5 million as you assert—to move from 9 million to 13 million. Seemed like a reasonable prediction, seeing as there was supposedly pent-up demand for a phablet.
Go play with a goat.
Last year was different because of China market which was the first time. This year is not. Apple needed China launch at the same time last year to break the record because they knew that minimal upgraded iPhone 5S and rebadged iPhone 5C would never break that record in normal markets like a year before. It's all about playing cards to keep the sale look good and healthy. They knew this year they will make it without China.
That thing is not only fugly; it's also absolutely DOA.
They will absolutely sell millions of them.
That's what Wireless inductive charging is. The magnet just holds it in place. I object to the use of the word 'wireless' for these inductive devices that have to have contact between the device and the dock / charging thing - until we have a metre range (approx), they shouldn't say wireless.
There is no GPS on the watch, therefore it needs an iPhone if you want to record your course. You can however store and listen to music without an iPhone.
The reason sports watches are so thick is because they have GPS which is power hungry and therefore need a big battery.
Already pipped by Mac-sochist, but I just want to add that the mention of 4GB is for storage, likely to be NAND, which is waaaaay slower than RAM, which isn't used for storage as it gets wiped after a reboot or the loss of power.
True.
But the material one is already known: that this is Apple's second Newton.
Nah.
No way am I buying that watch until it has two Gb of RAM. I want to use it to write 8 channel music and I'd have to wear an armful of these to be able to do that. Instead, I'll just strap on my MS Surface 3 Pro and get the job done. :rolleyes:
you can't spell "you're"
People will buy shirts with wider sleeves. Just like they bought pants with wider pockets to accommodate smartphones.
Yes, and this is not remotely a new issue. I believe my sports Timex is very nearly as thick as the Apple Watch and I've dealt with the cuff problem for years. It is an annoyance, but with a heavy hitter like Apple in the mix maybe clothing manufacturers will finally be motivated to put forth better solutions. It's not rocket science, but if they don't, it's no big deal. We won't be any worse off than we are today.
The Newton was kind of the right product but at the wrong time. It just needed communications and interaction technology to progress enough to make it useful. The iWatch is starting from a point where communications and interaction technology is at an advanced level. For it to be Newton-like, there would have to be an advance in future that would eventually make the watch useful. The problem here is when you see the usage breakdown of smartphones:
The watch would work with news and utility so about 10% of everything a smartphone is used for. Given that people are going to be immersed in the phone for the 90% of things the watch can't do, where's the incentive to get the watch? It doesn't have to replicate the smartphone but what are the killer features that are unique to the device? You can send a heartbeat to someone already (a Valentines gimmick people will mostly use once):
[VIDEO]
You can do fitness tracking, you can control music, do payments. Its only killer feature is allowing you to not have to take the phone out for 10% of the activities but that's hardly compelling when people are happily taking them out for the other 90%.
That thing is not only fugly; it's also absolutely DOA.
Not a chance.
I've worn a watch for decades and my initial reaction was that it will have great functionality but looked a little boring. I was never a fan of rectangular watch faces, but I've always preferred an analog face and round is the natural shape for an analog face. However, this is not an analog watch, and a rectangular screen is a natural shape for a computer with graphical display, however small.
Ive & Co must have been staring at every reasonable configuration for years and I can well imagine that after living and working with it they've settled on a design that feels like the right compromise. For your basic rectangle, this thing is smooth and has some pretty sexy curves; I find myself liking it more every time I look at it. I originally thought I'd wait for gen 2 but now don't think I'll be able to wait for another year.
It's not an iPhone, but it's going to fly off the shelf.
The watch would work with news and utility so about 10% of everything a smartphone is used for. Given that people are going to be immersed in the phone for the 90% of things the watch can't do, where's the incentive to get the watch? It doesn't have to replicate the smartphone but what are the killer features that are unique to the device? You can send a heartbeat to someone already (a Valentines gimmick people will mostly use once):
...
You can do fitness tracking, you can control music, do payments. Its only killer feature is allowing you to not have to take the phone out for 10% of the activities but that's hardly compelling when people are happily taking them out for the other 90%.
That other 90% is better handled with a larger device than what most folks have today. It may not be as compelling for a 4" device but with a 5.5" device it may be.
Between a BT headset and the Apple watch I can see moving to a larger device that is much more geared toward being near you (backpack, purse, briefcase, jacket) than on you except when you are actively using it.
In any case, the killer apps are payments and keys. I can carry nothing but the watch and have the ability to pay for stuff, open doors, start my car, etc.
In any case, the killer apps are payments and keys. I can carry nothing but the watch and have the ability to pay for stuff, open doors, start my car, etc.
I bolded that because I think the goal with smart watches (and Apple Watch) to is extend that 10% with other activities that benefit from the device.