I have to agree with everyone else, [@]dasanman69[/@]. Apple was able to capitalize on the miniaturization of computers paired with their long history of portable music devices to create the iPhone. That's not a synergy that comes along too often, and certainly not one I can see watch makers easily jumping into if it involves "computers" with radios, an OS and an interactive UI.
That's not to say that Apple will have an easy go of it, but we're talking about furthering the miniaturization and refining HW processes, which I think are much easier than trying to become a CE company when you aren't one. And we know this is harder because TAG is apparently partnering with at least one CE maker to make it happen. That in itself makes me think it'll be DOA.
Yet how many things throughout history have failed when it should've been a resounding success due to the expertise of someone, or something? If everything worked out the way it's supposed to the stock market would be easy. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong. Only that he's doing exactly what he's probably criticized others for doing.
Yet how many things throughout history have failed when it should've been a resounding success due to the expertise of someone, or something? If everything worked out the way it's supposed to the stock market would be easy. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong. Only that he's doing exactly what he's probably criticized others for doing.
The Newton should have been a success but it wasn't, and PowerPC should have failed a lot sooner than it did but it didn't, so dasanman69's generalization is right. We can keep going on an on about this, and there will be many examples where this generalization applies because the statement is so general. Its not overtly false that stupid concepts and ideas are market successes. Look at Android, probably the most invasive mobile device followed by BB but it has ~80% of the mobile market. Why do people even buy Android devices? I have no idea, but its a clear example where a lower grade mobile computing experience trumps a better, more integrated experience. And it will keep happening in tech.
We’ll see the Apple Watch in the display cases right next to the Rolexes, the Tag Heurers and such. And yes, a substantial number of people will be willing to pay a thousand dollars for it. In the luxury market high end watches are still very popular.
Next to Rolex? It's a nice product but you're dreaming if you'll think it fits next to luxury watches. People buy luxury watches because they are an investment and can be kept for generations or sold for a similar price or profit. If I buy a $1000 dollar Apple Watch will it keep its value over 10 years and also continuing working for decades so my son and his son can pass it down the family?
Yet how many things throughout history have failed when it should've been a resounding success due to the expertise of someone, or something? If everything worked out the way it's supposed to the stock market would be easy. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong. Only that he's doing exactly what he's probably criticized others for doing.
We're on page 3. What is the OP's position? My position is that it's a harder for a watch company to become a CE company than for a CE company to become a watch company, especially when the middle ground is a "smart watch". Nothing in my comment should suggest it's neither impossible not guaranteed from either starting position.
No-one is clamouring for an Apple watch because no-one wants one.
History will reduce the Apple Watch—if it ever reaches the shop floor—to a footnote in the annals of technology. It will be seen as the gimmick for the thumb twiddlers before the next big thing in years to come.
i want one. so the foundation of your opinion is broken.
no need for flamboyant flourishes like "if it ever reaches the shop floor".
That said, it was amusing on my last Caribbean cruise, which spanned time zones and the shift off of daylight savings time, that nobody was able to rely upon their phones and everyone had to watch the ship clocks because being away from internet, different timepieces and operating systems and utilities told different times, based upon the last cellular tower or internet they saw, the time zone they thought they were in, whether they believed DSL was in effect or not, and the various inconsistent data transmitted by island cell towers and the on-board WiFi. Compounded by the fact that the ship is governed by "ship time" which only changes when the captain says it will change. Which meant that even in "airplane mode" (supposedly unchanging of time), there were surprises. Many tardy arrivals to meals, and a few folks missed the boat by late return to the docks because of spurious data their electronics gave them. An old-fashioned, battery operated, dumb watch was what EVERYONE wanted.
thats strange -- all they had to do was toggle off the "Set Automatically" switch in their iPhone, set it to "ship time", and away they go.
Fools? It took almost a year before Apple would allow you to install an application on your "smartphone", now, we refused to call it a smartphone because it wasn't. iPhone OS 2 was closer to being a smartphone OS
and yet we consumers found it infinitely more useful than the RIM and Win-phones of the day, despite their applications.
How can my example fail if what the OP said hasn't been proven true, or false?
because you're likening a watch-maker (Tag) making a new smartwatch to a non-smartphone maker (Apple) making a new smartphone. its a faulty analogy because smartphones are more like mini computers than smartwatches are mechanical watches.
if i have to explain a false analogy to you then theres little point in continuing.
because you're likening a watch-maker (Tag) making a new smartwatch to a non-smartphone maker (Apple) making a new smartphone. its a faulty analogy because smartphones are more like mini computers than smartwatches are mechanical watches.
if i have to explain a false analogy to you then theres little point in continuing.
I did? That's news to me. Show me where I likened one company to another. I only likened what a poster wrote to what others said about the iPhone when it came out. I made no case for, nor against either company.
So you are saying that every feature phone Nokia, or Motorola sold in 2007 were a smartphone as they all had an OS? Good lad, it is important at AI to change the rules as you go along...
Just realised your link was Wikipedia. Go to the first reference off your page, you get this
A category of mobile device that provides advanced capabilities beyond a typical mobile phone. Smartphones run complete operating system (OS) software that provides a standardized interface and platform for application developers.
Since when was the definition of "smartphone" a phone that allowed 3rd-party apps to be installed? Oh yeah, when the original iPhone shipped without a finished SDK and app store for 3rd-party developers. It was the anti-Apple crowd that decided that in 2007 it wasn't how "smart" the mobile device was, but something that Apple didn't yet have. Each year those goalposts kept moving. In 2008 it was, "yeah, but, no but, yeah but, it still doesn't have a physical keyboard. whatevs!"
You mean like how the AI crowd decided all other phones weren't a smartphone as they didn't have a touch screen?
Comments
Yet how many things throughout history have failed when it should've been a resounding success due to the expertise of someone, or something? If everything worked out the way it's supposed to the stock market would be easy. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong. Only that he's doing exactly what he's probably criticized others for doing.
Yet how many things throughout history have failed when it should've been a resounding success due to the expertise of someone, or something? If everything worked out the way it's supposed to the stock market would be easy. I'm not saying that the OP is wrong. Only that he's doing exactly what he's probably criticized others for doing.
The Newton should have been a success but it wasn't, and PowerPC should have failed a lot sooner than it did but it didn't, so dasanman69's generalization is right. We can keep going on an on about this, and there will be many examples where this generalization applies because the statement is so general. Its not overtly false that stupid concepts and ideas are market successes. Look at Android, probably the most invasive mobile device followed by BB but it has ~80% of the mobile market. Why do people even buy Android devices? I have no idea, but its a clear example where a lower grade mobile computing experience trumps a better, more integrated experience. And it will keep happening in tech.
We’ll see the Apple Watch in the display cases right next to the Rolexes, the Tag Heurers and such. And yes, a substantial number of people will be willing to pay a thousand dollars for it. In the luxury market high end watches are still very popular.
Next to Rolex? It's a nice product but you're dreaming if you'll think it fits next to luxury watches. People buy luxury watches because they are an investment and can be kept for generations or sold for a similar price or profit. If I buy a $1000 dollar Apple Watch will it keep its value over 10 years and also continuing working for decades so my son and his son can pass it down the family?
We're on page 3. What is the OP's position? My position is that it's a harder for a watch company to become a CE company than for a CE company to become a watch company, especially when the middle ground is a "smart watch". Nothing in my comment should suggest it's neither impossible not guaranteed from either starting position.
I agree with foggyhill... the smartphone market was "very small" back then.
I don't think even foggyhill agrees with himself. He seems to think that Nokia sold 60 million phones in 2007 rather than 60 million smart phones.
What exactly would make an Apple Watch a status item, even among watch aficionados?
Completely made in house, limited editions.
Foggyhill didn't say anything about Nokia... you were the one who mentioned them.
There were 1.15 billion mobile phones sold in 2007. Smartphones only represented 122 million of them.
Roughly 1 out of 10 phones sold in 2007 was a smartphone. So yeah... I'd say the smartphone market was very small in 2007.
And that's what foggyhill said.
No-one is clamouring for an Apple watch because no-one wants one.
History will reduce the Apple Watch—if it ever reaches the shop floor—to a footnote in the annals of technology. It will be seen as the gimmick for the thumb twiddlers before the next big thing in years to come.
i want one. so the foundation of your opinion is broken.
no need for flamboyant flourishes like "if it ever reaches the shop floor".
This post of yours is so mean and horrible.
no it isn't. he's a truth-teller. BJ Frost is an ugly human being -- his racism should not be tolerated. nor his mindless trolling on the Watch.
That said, it was amusing on my last Caribbean cruise, which spanned time zones and the shift off of daylight savings time, that nobody was able to rely upon their phones and everyone had to watch the ship clocks because being away from internet, different timepieces and operating systems and utilities told different times, based upon the last cellular tower or internet they saw, the time zone they thought they were in, whether they believed DSL was in effect or not, and the various inconsistent data transmitted by island cell towers and the on-board WiFi. Compounded by the fact that the ship is governed by "ship time" which only changes when the captain says it will change. Which meant that even in "airplane mode" (supposedly unchanging of time), there were surprises. Many tardy arrivals to meals, and a few folks missed the boat by late return to the docks because of spurious data their electronics gave them. An old-fashioned, battery operated, dumb watch was what EVERYONE wanted.
thats strange -- all they had to do was toggle off the "Set Automatically" switch in their iPhone, set it to "ship time", and away they go.
What exactly would make an Apple Watch a status item,
i dunno, being made of solid gold, maybe?
You're funny. Before iPhone OS 2, the iPhone was missing major features to be labelled a smart phone
and yet it was more useful and compelled more people to buy it than any MS smartphone did. ever.
Fools? It took almost a year before Apple would allow you to install an application on your "smartphone", now, we refused to call it a smartphone because it wasn't. iPhone OS 2 was closer to being a smartphone OS
and yet we consumers found it infinitely more useful than the RIM and Win-phones of the day, despite their applications.
How can my example fail if what the OP said hasn't been proven true, or false?
because you're likening a watch-maker (Tag) making a new smartwatch to a non-smartphone maker (Apple) making a new smartphone. its a faulty analogy because smartphones are more like mini computers than smartwatches are mechanical watches.
if i have to explain a false analogy to you then theres little point in continuing.
I did? That's news to me. Show me where I likened one company to another. I only likened what a poster wrote to what others said about the iPhone when it came out. I made no case for, nor against either company.
Who said anything about MS Smartphones, the ones that were available at the time were crap, nothing like the ones they sell now
Again, who said anything about RIM or Win-Phones, I said iPhone OS 1 wasn't a smartphone OS
So you are saying that every feature phone Nokia, or Motorola sold in 2007 were a smartphone as they all had an OS? Good lad, it is important at AI to change the rules as you go along...
Just realised your link was Wikipedia. Go to the first reference off your page, you get this
http://www.phonescoop.com/glossary/term.php?gid=131
to which we get this
So your definition is invalid
Why?
The first iPhone had email, messaging, calendar, web browsing, maps, etc. Those were features built into the OS.
That, to me, sounds like a smartphone OS.
You mean like how the AI crowd decided all other phones weren't a smartphone as they didn't have a touch screen?