You are one sucker to spend $5000 on a watch even it is gold .I guess you have a lot of money to throw around. A Rolex at least has a good resale value.An Apple watch gimme a break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Read my comments. I made no such assumption.
Why disagree with me if you are really disagreeing with marvfox?
The quote button down the bottom right of people's posts adds it to your reply so that they know you've replied to them. Clicking 'quote' does the same as 'post a reply' but adds the text of who you are replying to.
The quote button down the bottom right of people's posts adds it to your reply so that they know you've replied to them. Clicking 'quote' does the same as 'post a reply' but adds the text of who you are replying to.
The quote button down the bottom right of people's posts adds it to your reply so that they know you've replied to them. Clicking 'quote' does the same as 'post a reply' but adds the text of who you are replying to.
There isn't? Because one of the sales blowhards at work has a $15,000 watch which is being serviced this month, which I would expect to be in the neighborhood of $500-1000. I have asked him about Apple Watch and he says he's "intrigued". I fully expect him to get a gold one.
There isn't? Because one of the sales blowhards at work has a $15,000 watch which is being serviced this month, which I would expect to be in the neighborhood of $500-1000. I have asked him about Apple Watch and he says he's "intrigued". I fully expect him to get a gold one.
An anecdote about a blowhard being intrigued by ?Watch does not 1) supply evidence ?Watch will have more resale value than a Rolex, 2) that it is actually more useful for more than flaunting your wealth than a Rolex, or 3) that it can be upgraded to the latest tech like a Rolex can be serviced.
An anecdote about a blowhard being intrigued by ?Watch does not 1) supply evident the Apple Watch will have more resale value than a Rolex, 2) that it is actually more useful for more than flaunting your wealth than a Rolex, or 3) that it can be upgraded to the latest tech like a Rolex can be serviced.
Cry me a river. Besides wether or not it can be upgraded to the latest tech or not, my point was that getting a new apple watch would be comparable to a servicing of a - much more expensive than a Rolex - watch. And there are plenty of people who will do just that. It may be anecdotal, but if there's a guy in my shit-sty company that will do it, there are 1000 more in my teensy weensy town.
You know, but feel free to parade your brilliant intellect around a rumor forum. I am honored to have had dialogue with such genius.
Cry me a river. Besides wether or not it can be upgraded to the latest tech or not, my point was that getting a new apple watch would be comparable to a servicing of a - much more expensive than a Rolex - watch. And there are plenty of people who will do just that. It may be anecdotal, but if there's a guy in my shit-sty company that will do it, there are 1000 more in my teensy weensy town.
You know, but feel free to parade your brilliant intellect around a rumor forum. I am honored to have had dialogue with such genius.
You don't need to brilliant to know an anecdote isn't proof of the three things stated.
Cry me a river. Besides wether or not it can be upgraded to the latest tech or not, my point was that getting a new apple watch would be comparable to a servicing of a - much more expensive than a Rolex - watch. And there are plenty of people who will do just that. It may be anecdotal, but if there's a guy in my shit-sty company that will do it, there are 1000 more in my teensy weensy town.
I think that this is really the ideal scenario - that is, you buy your expensive gold Apple Watch and you can literally slide in a new piece of hardware after a few years to keep up with the latest software developments. I'm not sure how high my confidence level is that this will happen, however. But it's certainly ideal, in terms of the investment you are making in an expensive timepiece.
I think that this is really the ideal scenario - that is, you buy your expensive gold Apple Watch and you can literally slide in a new piece of hardware after a few years to keep up with the latest software developments. I'm not sure how high my confidence level is that this will happen, however. But it's certainly ideal, in terms of the investment you are making in an expensive timepiece.
While that would be super cool, the biggest reason I don't see that happening is Apple's penchant for going thinner & thinner each design iteration. Are they really going to design a completely new "COC" for older models? How long would they keep that up? While obviously it is possible, there's basically zero precedent for anything like that in the consumer electronics industry ever. And it doesn't really fit into their business model either. Not saying Apple couldn't pull it off, but it'd be out of left field for sure.
While that would be super cool, the biggest reason I don't see that happening is Apple's penchant for going thinner & thinner each design iteration. Are they really going to design a completely new "COC" for older models? How long would they keep that up? While obviously it is possible, there's basically zero precedent for anything like that in the consumer electronics industry ever. And it doesn't really fit into their business model either. Not saying Apple couldn't pull it off, but it'd be out of left field for sure.
Well, there would obviously be a life span for this sort of thing - no doubts there.
There may be zero precedent for this (although not entirely), but there's really zero precedent for smart watches, period. Apple aren't designing a new phone or laptop here; they are designing a piece of jewellery that is potentially extremely expensive, and doesn't lend itself to bi-annual replacement.
Replacing the innards of the device may not be realistic, but regardless, Apple will still need to grapple with the obsolescence question on some level - this might be done through software more than anything else.
Apple or anyone else can use whatever they term they want to describe their products. System in Package means nothing to most people, but Computer makes sense. You don't have to like it but you should accept when others use Computer-on-Chip or CoC in regrrds to the S-series chip and ?Watch. Apple surely isn't against renaming something if a better term grows out of the community. iOS was originally referred to as firmware, then as OS X iPhone, and finally iOS in 2009(?). I implore you think of a better term that works better.
Not when the term is incorrect. Apple calls it a SIP. Everyone else calls it a SIP. Including AppleInsider. CoC is stupid, especially since SoC means the same thing: computer SYSTEM on a chip.
"Apple custom-designed its own S1 SiP (System in Package) to miniaturize an entire computer architecture onto a single chip. Apple Watch also features Wi-Fi 802.11b/g and Bluetooth 4.0 to pair seamlessly with your iPhone."
"With Apple Watch, Apple is employing advanced system-in-package (SiP) technology that goes beyond the current A-series chip designs to include an entire computing system on a single chip. Dubbed "S1," the Apple Watch SiP is a custom-designed piece of silicon that stacks and integrates multiple subsystems into an area small enough to fit within a wristwatch's small footprint."
"Interesting that Apple chose a SiP rather then a SoC. The major disadvantage of a SiP is its size, since its a bunch of subsystems manufactured independantly. The CPU may be in 28nm, Memory in 14nm, Peripherals in 180nm. They are assembled inside the package by various techniques - vertical stacking, horizontal stacking. The other disadvantage is that the manufacturing costs are much higher."
"To driver the Apple Watch, Apple created a custom S1 SiP (System in Package) chip stack. Apple integrated a number of subsystems into one module, which was then housed in a resin designed to protect it from normal wear and tear."
I think that this is really the ideal scenario - that is, you buy your expensive gold Apple Watch and you can literally slide in a new piece of hardware after a few years to keep up with the latest software developments. I'm not sure how high my confidence level is that this will happen, however. But it's certainly ideal, in terms of the investment you are making in an expensive timepiece.
Comments
Read my comments. I made no such assumption.
Quote:
You are one sucker to spend $5000 on a watch even it is gold .I guess you have a lot of money to throw around. A Rolex at least has a good resale value.An Apple watch gimme a break.
Read my comments. I made no such assumption.
I'm disagrreeing with the specific claims you're making.
You win the internet today. I nearly lost my tea laughing.
I remember when the red hot chili peppers would perform live shows with SOC's on their COC's.
I'm disagrreeing with the specific claims you're making.
OK. As long as you are not agreeing with marvfox.
My socks would be too short—and bendy.
You win the internet today. I nearly lost my tea laughing.
I remember when the red hot chili peppers would perform live shows with SOC's on their COC's.
hahaha, I do too!!!
Hey what are you bitching about now?
The quote button down the bottom right of people's posts adds it to your reply so that they know you've replied to them. Clicking 'quote' does the same as 'post a reply' but adds the text of who you are replying to.
The quote button down the bottom right of people's posts adds it to your reply so that they know you've replied to them. Clicking 'quote' does the same as 'post a reply' but adds the text of who you are replying to.
Thanks
There isn't? Because one of the sales blowhards at work has a $15,000 watch which is being serviced this month, which I would expect to be in the neighborhood of $500-1000. I have asked him about Apple Watch and he says he's "intrigued". I fully expect him to get a gold one.
An anecdote about a blowhard being intrigued by ?Watch does not 1) supply evidence ?Watch will have more resale value than a Rolex, 2) that it is actually more useful for more than flaunting your wealth than a Rolex, or 3) that it can be upgraded to the latest tech like a Rolex can be serviced.
Cry me a river. Besides wether or not it can be upgraded to the latest tech or not, my point was that getting a new apple watch would be comparable to a servicing of a - much more expensive than a Rolex - watch. And there are plenty of people who will do just that. It may be anecdotal, but if there's a guy in my shit-sty company that will do it, there are 1000 more in my teensy weensy town.
You know, but feel free to parade your brilliant intellect around a rumor forum. I am honored to have had dialogue with such genius.
You don't need to brilliant to know an anecdote isn't proof of the three things stated.
Cry me a river. Besides wether or not it can be upgraded to the latest tech or not, my point was that getting a new apple watch would be comparable to a servicing of a - much more expensive than a Rolex - watch. And there are plenty of people who will do just that. It may be anecdotal, but if there's a guy in my shit-sty company that will do it, there are 1000 more in my teensy weensy town.
I think that this is really the ideal scenario - that is, you buy your expensive gold Apple Watch and you can literally slide in a new piece of hardware after a few years to keep up with the latest software developments. I'm not sure how high my confidence level is that this will happen, however. But it's certainly ideal, in terms of the investment you are making in an expensive timepiece.
I never thought of it that way.
While that would be super cool, the biggest reason I don't see that happening is Apple's penchant for going thinner & thinner each design iteration. Are they really going to design a completely new "COC" for older models? How long would they keep that up? While obviously it is possible, there's basically zero precedent for anything like that in the consumer electronics industry ever. And it doesn't really fit into their business model either. Not saying Apple couldn't pull it off, but it'd be out of left field for sure.
While that would be super cool, the biggest reason I don't see that happening is Apple's penchant for going thinner & thinner each design iteration. Are they really going to design a completely new "COC" for older models? How long would they keep that up? While obviously it is possible, there's basically zero precedent for anything like that in the consumer electronics industry ever. And it doesn't really fit into their business model either. Not saying Apple couldn't pull it off, but it'd be out of left field for sure.
Well, there would obviously be a life span for this sort of thing - no doubts there.
There may be zero precedent for this (although not entirely), but there's really zero precedent for smart watches, period. Apple aren't designing a new phone or laptop here; they are designing a piece of jewellery that is potentially extremely expensive, and doesn't lend itself to bi-annual replacement.
Replacing the innards of the device may not be realistic, but regardless, Apple will still need to grapple with the obsolescence question on some level - this might be done through software more than anything else.
Apple or anyone else can use whatever they term they want to describe their products. System in Package means nothing to most people, but Computer makes sense. You don't have to like it but you should accept when others use Computer-on-Chip or CoC in regrrds to the S-series chip and ?Watch. Apple surely isn't against renaming something if a better term grows out of the community. iOS was originally referred to as firmware, then as OS X iPhone, and finally iOS in 2009(?). I implore you think of a better term that works better.
Not when the term is incorrect. Apple calls it a SIP. Everyone else calls it a SIP. Including AppleInsider. CoC is stupid, especially since SoC means the same thing: computer SYSTEM on a chip.
"Apple custom-designed its own S1 SiP (System in Package) to miniaturize an entire computer architecture onto a single chip. Apple Watch also features Wi-Fi 802.11b/g and Bluetooth 4.0 to pair seamlessly with your iPhone."
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/09/09Apple-Unveils-Apple-Watch-Apples-Most-Personal-Device-Ever.html
"With Apple Watch, Apple is employing advanced system-in-package (SiP) technology that goes beyond the current A-series chip designs to include an entire computing system on a single chip. Dubbed "S1," the Apple Watch SiP is a custom-designed piece of silicon that stacks and integrates multiple subsystems into an area small enough to fit within a wristwatch's small footprint."
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/11/13/apple-watch-chip-suppliers-rumored-to-start-production-soon-orders-at-30m-to-40m-units
"Interesting that Apple chose a SiP rather then a SoC. The major disadvantage of a SiP is its size, since its a bunch of subsystems manufactured independantly. The CPU may be in 28nm, Memory in 14nm, Peripherals in 180nm. They are assembled inside the package by various techniques - vertical stacking, horizontal stacking. The other disadvantage is that the manufacturing costs are much higher."
http://agoracom.com/ir/POETTechnologies/forums/discussion/topics/622309-apple-s1/messages/1950273
"To driver the Apple Watch, Apple created a custom S1 SiP (System in Package) chip stack. Apple integrated a number of subsystems into one module, which was then housed in a resin designed to protect it from normal wear and tear."
http://mashable.com/2014/09/09/inside-the-apple-watch/