This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
I think the bands that work today will always work no matter the design.
There are only so many things that people want to upgrade every year or two; while at the same time, no one wants to be seen wearing or using an old device. I would feel comfortable if the Watch design settles to four year upgrade cycles (after the next one in 2017, it could be a tad thinner and the two buttons got to go), the iPhone form factor changed every two years, and the Pad settled to four regarding its looks. Macs seem to be on a 5-6 year cycle? I am a pretty average person and feel that I could follow that upgrade cycle without breaking the bank, and feeling that I don't get pressured into buying the next gadget just for the looks.
But why do you have to upgrade your watch every time Apple comes out with a new model, unless they stop supporting yours, or they come out with a new feature -- or style -- you want to buy?
There's around 500 million potential customers for the Watch based on the number of activated iPhones worldwide. There's enough room there for everyone to get what they want and Apple to make massive profits.
But if they don't upgrade every year or even sooner, then they are losing both new customers who have already passed on the watch, and customers who will buy the new model because it looks nice. It's not unusual for people who wear watches to buy several watches, some as often as every year or two, and now that Apple has made it possible to pair more than one watch with a phone, that makes it even more likely that such people will do it for an Watch.
At the end of the day, there's no reason anyone has to upgrade every year anyway, unless they want the new features. However, people do "upgrade" their fashions every year just because of the way it looks. And that's how I thought Apple was going to do this differently, but they seemingly thought they'd get buy on the cheap by doing it only with the bands.
It's the cynics in all of us who think Apple will drop support for a watch within 5 years like they do with the phones, but the reality is, the watches don't have to work that way, unless Apple continues to treat it like a tiny iPhone, and force upgrades to drive sales.
It's the fashion angle that will set Apple apart from the crowd, and make the smartwatch a acceptable fashion item, thus spreading its acceptance. Unfortunately, Apple can't figure out what to do with the watch. On the one hand Apple is treating it like an iPhone, on the other like a high end fashion watch. And they're seemingly failing at both badly.
On your last point, I find it amusing that predictions of doom (they are seemingly failing at both badly) for a product still in its first year, and estimated to be selling quite well for the category, are rampant. Anyone that thought the Apple Watch was going to sell crazy numbers out of the gate simply wasn't thinking. If they end up selling 15M over the first 12 calendar months, then that is great. People have to stop thinking of iPhone numbers.
I do agree that Apple should update the design somewhat for Gen 2 to generate more interest. But "update" doesn't mean they have to make radical changes - just subtle enough that someone could distinguish the two. Of course the bands will still fit - it would be suicide for Apple otherwise.
Hopefully updated internals means more than just a faster SOC - but actually includes an additional sensor. Better battery life for me is not about getting much more duration of use, but looking forward to a low-power always on watch face. Faster charging would be more valuable than getting more than 18-24 hours in typical use.
Apple need to make the watch more useful to more people. Much of that can be in s/w, with the noted better battery life. - option for a low-power always on watch face (great to have nice watch faces, but rarely are they seen) - optional notification when you are leaving your iPhone behind (can justify the price of a watch for this reason alone, for many people) - lets have lots more watch faces, and more customizable. I really like using photos and time-lapse, but miss the functionality of seeing temperature, next meeting, etc. - more functionality in health and fitness apps - bump up the waterproof rating in the new h/w. It doesn't have to be a diving watch, but one that you are comfortable to leave on for a little dip in the pool or at the beach
For a device that is so intensely personal and so very much about appearance (since it is worn)....I don't believe for one second that "S" updates are even in the pipeline for Apple Watch.
They don't have nearly the resell value of other iOS devices, and there are no subsidies or financing offers....its just one tough device to upgrade. I just don't see it.
So is this week piss on Watch week? There's a story on Quartz about how one year later no one needs an Watch (because everyone's buying decisions are 100% based on need) and Re/code is running a story about some Watch survey where most people call it a dud, yet if you read into the story 77% those surveyed who own the watch say it's a success and 2/3rds plan to upgrade. So the ones calling it a dud are those who don't own one or were pessimistic about from day one. Such shoddy tech reporting.
it is more than shoddy reporting, it about human nature as you pointed out those who think something is great are those who have one, and those who think it is crap are those who do not have one. This goes on all the time with lots of products. The problem is there are load voices in both camps and you will never know what the truth is.
So is this week piss on Watch week? There's a story on Quartz about how one year later no one needs an Watch (because everyone's buying decisions are 100% based on need) and Re/code is running a story about some Watch survey where most people call it a dud, yet if you read into the story 77% those surveyed who own the watch say it's a success and 2/3rds plan to upgrade. So the ones calling it a dud are those who don't own one or were pessimistic about from day one. Such shoddy tech reporting.
Its total crap media going for clicks.
The media calls the Watch a failure after selling 10 million units in its first 8 months. Yet it praises and hails the Amazon Echo as the next big thing even though it took over a year to sell its first million units.
Consider both companies do not post numbers stop spreading false information and lies about what you do not know as fact. oh I forgot you are on a site which is based on rumors and conjectures and hopeful thinking on many people's part.
This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
Apple should be able to make significant improvements to the watches electronics. They can easily go to one of the 14nm nodes and maybe even stacked chips. This should allow them to address power usage while upgrading performance a bit. Ideally they will beef up RAM which Apple is constantly stingy in device configuration. Depending upon how far Apple goes with tech the watch could be 50% faster at the same power levels.
This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
Agreed. There are maybe two third party apps I use, and only sparingly. So far, health tracking, Apple Pay, messages, and music are the primary features I'm using. Also, I find myself using the home screen very little. I find glances and complications work best. Just my thoughts.
People are hating on 3rd party apps because they take forever to load. I'll bet most people saying they have no use for 3rd party apps would feel differently if they loaded instantly. Apple probably should have waited with 3rd party apps but I get why they probably felt they needed to get developers on board right away and didn't want Android Wear or something else to become the platform of choice for developers.
I see on Twitter tech writers still complaining about battery life. I don't get it. I wear my 38mm watch go bed every night. I charge it for maybe a half hour before I got to bed and when I wake up it's about 80% so by the time I shower and get ready for the day it's fully charged again. Are these people spending 4 hours at the gym every day? Or is it just not wanting to have to charge another thing? I think that's a lame complaint. Takes 2 seconds to slap the watch on its charger and it doesn't take that long to charge at all.
If a personality likes to complain they will find a way or reason too.
I'm not a big watch wearer but that doesn't mean I can't see the foolishness of complaining about the battery lifetime of a wrist mounted computer. frankly this isn't much different than the people that comparing about iPhone battery lifetimes. If you can't learn how a device behaves and adjust your usage and management of that device to get the battery lifetimes you want, it isn't the iPhones fault.
As for apps on the watch, I really don't know what is happening there. However a combination of improved software and improved performance ought to significantly reduce those problems. Frankly I see the Watch in the same light as the first iPad, it was more of a proof of concept than a well functioning device. iPad has benefitted massively from all the process shrinks Apple was able to push through, so too will the Watch.
Let not forget that Watch isn't at 14nm yet, it was built upon 22nm tech if I remember correctly. So they have a process shrink available that has already been demonstrated to produce very good results. Apple could skip 14 and go to 10nm for an even bigger pay off. The low volume of Watch would allow them to take production off TSMC 10 nm pilot lines. One way to the other I suspect the watch performance problems will melt away.
This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
I think more storage, so you can cache apps, or at least buffer their state (so it's ready when you need it, though that uses a bit more battery), would do a lot for latency. Latency can be fixed if the most of the info needed is already on the watch when you needed, going to the network is too slow for glances. So, some good AI in the background could help.
It's not Kuo but the elevation of Kuo to well connected insider that rubs us raw. So drop that superlative please
Name an analyst with a better track record.
Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.
This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.
He's not even at 50%, probably like 30% in his prediction, that's pretty low. So, not sure what on earth your even saying by : track record. Are you actually keeping score of the massive amount of thing he throws out or just focusing on those that actually stick? If he was truly that well connected, he'd be better than a dartboard.
There's a difference between nailing product plans (which is debatable considering some of them are no brainier stat any one of us could nail) and sales projections. And considering Apple doesn't release sales figures for the Watch these predictions can never be proven right or wrong.
Totally agreed, the guy is very good, not perfect, but very good at product launches. But as far as I can remember average in sales forecasts.
He's BAD on forecast (they all are) and less than 30% on actual stuff if you actually tally all the crap he says. There is a lot of confirmation bias going on here. He's better at getting his name out, so good at communication and PR; and is not afraid to be wrong, which he is a massive amount of time, but that's doesn't make him good.
People excusing his shit by saying Apple changed this or that at the last second are completely laughable. That really explains the dozens of time he was wrong! That's a laugh.
This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
Apple should be able to make significant improvements to the watches electronics. They can easily go to one of the 14nm nodes and maybe even stacked chips. This should allow them to address power usage while upgrading performance a bit. Ideally they will beef up RAM which Apple is constantly stingy in device configuration. Depending upon how far Apple goes with tech the watch could be 50% faster at the same power levels.
The problem with power usage is that communication and screen are the major power users, not the CPU. With the shrink, the CPU's power usage will be almost negligible compared to the rest. I think loading up on RAM/storage so the watch can pre-fetch. keep in memoryta lot of stuff, a good caching, would reduce latency in third party apps.
For a device that is so intensely personal and so very much about appearance (since it is worn)....I don't believe for one second that "S" updates are even in the pipeline for Apple Watch.
They don't have nearly the resell value of other iOS devices, and there are no subsidies or financing offers....its just one tough device to upgrade. I just don't see it.
An "S" update doesn't make sense at all and I think this is pure speculation.
A new model makes sense, because the HW and SW are more tightly integrated in the Watch than any of Apple devices. "S" update what? Increase storage? Why? A new CPU? It doesn't have a CPU in the conventional sense, it is a SoC and if it will be updated that is mostly for HW reasons, such as new sensors, new display tech and alike. And these mean a new model, not just an "S" update.
More interesting to me is the fact that the second-gen iPad and iPhone both featured relatively significant changes from the first-generation hardware design. If Apple doesn't launch a Watch 2 until September, that'll be two years after the first Watch was announced, and if it keeps the same external design, that would actually buck Apple's own trend.
Interesting point. Certainly more interesting than discussing what's the best way to describe an analyst.
I've been considering that too. I think there would be little benefit to changing the case design, but a lot of reasons to keep it the same: including 1) make current customers happy with their watch not looking outdated, and 2) significantly reduce the anxiety of future buyers that they will buy something that will soon look dated. One of the common Apple myths I run into is that "apple releases something new every few months just to get you to buy more;" it sounds stupid, since Apple is probably the best in the industry at longevity and consistent product releases, but a lot of people think like this, and keeping the casing the same will help curb this type of thinking.
Apple can make significant improvements just with software/internals including: -faster load times (e.g. waiting for the exercise app to load as you're starting your exercise class is a pain) -better water proofing (already pretty good, I took regular showers with the ss watch for 9 months before there was water damage to the screen) -proximity awareness/antitheft -GPS -pulse ox readings (I remember reading that the chip in the watch is already capable of this, so it'd be great if this was possible to activate in gen 1 watches too).
I do hope/expect that we'll see another casing material, like the rumored ceramic, titanium, or possibly even liquid metal.
More interesting to me is the fact that the second-gen iPad and iPhone both featured relatively significant changes from the first-generation hardware design. If Apple doesn't launch a Watch 2 until September, that'll be two years after the first Watch was announced, and if it keeps the same external design, that would actually buck Apple's own trend.
Interesting point. Certainly more interesting than discussing what's the best way to describe an analyst.
I desperately tried to send the conversation in a more valuable direction than the one it inevitably went in, but what can you do.
Totally agree with you on the perception of "Apple obsoletes its products too quickly." Told a friend about the iPhone SE and her response was "Why can't they just pick one size already?"
We likely won't see GPS in the Apple Watch until it gets its own LTE radio. The reason for this is it can take 4-5 minutes to get a GPS lock (and even that is really unreliable), so devices like the iPhone help triangulate position with Wi-Fi and cellular towers. This is why the iPad with cellular has GPS, but the Wi-Fi iPad does not. And also why you cannot buy an iPod touch with GPS.
Therefore, to me, the question is: Will we get an LTE radio in the Apple Watch this year? Seems unlikely considering cost and battery life. But I do think the integrated Apple SIM in the 9.7" iPad Pro sets the stage for a future Apple Watch in that respect.
This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
I think more storage, so you can cache apps, or at least buffer their state (so it's ready when you need it, though that uses a bit more battery), would do a lot for latency. Latency can be fixed if the most of the info needed is already on the watch when you needed, going to the network is too slow for glances. So, some good AI in the background could help.
Yep and none of that has anything to do with aesthetic design. Seems to me the people calling for a design change are those who think people won't buy something new unless it looks completely different and everyone can see they have the latest and greatest thing. The same people freaking out that iPhone 7 isn't going to be a radical departure from iPhone 6.
This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
I recently purchased a 42 mm sport for heartbeat tracking. Contrasting to all I've read to date about the latency and battery, it appears to me blazingly fast with an excellent battery usage. I prefer to load no photo, no music and no apps except a very few glance or complication, maybe this is why it is still fast and good on battery. Is that the correct use for an Apple Watch? I don't care, I like it "as is" and I have no complaint. WatchOS 2.2...
More interesting to me is the fact that the second-gen iPad and iPhone both featured relatively significant changes from the first-generation hardware design. If Apple doesn't launch a Watch 2 until September, that'll be two years after the first Watch was announced, and if it keeps the same external design, that would actually buck Apple's own trend.
They lauched the Edition they still present with pride on the Apple Store... The presence of the Edition points to their intention to make that design classic, i.e. keep the same external design for a while at least...
SOG, what information do you have Apple was not considering all the above. Grant it I still believe the sapphire was for all the watches not the phone, thus the reason the watch was delay by almost a year. But apple could have been playing around with it for the phone. But you presented no evidence that Apple was not at some time looking at do the things Ming said Apple was doing. You seem to think that because apple did not do it means it was never in the consideration.
Thats pretty silly.
So no matter what Kuo says he will always be right.
Kuo predicts 5.5 inch iPhone. Correct! Kuo predicts 5.5 inch iPhone with Sapphire glass. Wrong. But still correct since Apple changed its plans.
Do you see where that makes zero sense? Kuo supporters can simply state Apple changed their plans and Kuo was still 'correct'
IMO, the things Kuo gets right are all obvious: larger iPhone screen, more memory, new chip, fingerprint scanner (duh. they did buy Authentech after all), new Apple TV with faster chip. Seriously. Tell me the stuff that Kuo got right that was really surprising?
Did he predict the new cylinder Mac Pro? Hell no. Did he predict the AppleWatch? Hell no. Dozens of other people mentioned the watch before him. Did he predict the iPad?
Anyone can make random predictions about RAM, CPU, screen size, ect. Make enough predictions and you will get some of them right. That is exactly what Kuo does.
IMO, Mark Gurman is a much better source of product news. When he says something its right about 75% of the time.
You forgot the AMOLED iPhone... IMHO his biggest mistake is that AMOLED one, the one wrong answer that cancels four or more correct answers.
The iPhone will never go AMOLED, any site who claim that should turn its white backround to black, because the white color on AMOLED consumes more electricity than LCD. This is why AMOLED phones have huge batteries, since more than 99% of the web backgrounds are white...
Our stories are written so that our large audience of casual readers, many of whom are not necessarily familiar with Kuo's name or past predictions, and who do not participate in the comments, get an idea of how reliable he is. Calling him a "well-connected insider" makes it clear to the reader that this isn't just some run-of-the-mill rumor. Doing so better informs our readers.
This is the exact same reason that we continue to tell readers that Gene Munster was the "Apple is going to build an HDTV by 2010" guy when he makes claims about an Apple Car or virtual reality. It's an editorial decision we've made, and it's not going to change unless Kuo's track record changes. But our commenters are, of course, welcome to continue criticize Kuo in the comments.
Calling Kuo a "well-connected insider" is not helping casual readers or any readers at all. Why? Because it is totally FALSE and a flat out LIE. By definition an insider is someone WHO ACTUALLY WORKS AT APPLE or HOLDS SIGNIFICANT OWNERSHIP OF APPLE. PERIOD.
Now if you want to push lies and falsehoods to get more clicks go ahead. But don't try to blame casual readers. Don't try to say that you are giving an analyst a false title to help casual readers. You are doing the exact opposite. You are misleading casuals who have no idea who Kuo is and what his real job is.
This a the real definition of insider: An insider is a director or senior officer of a company, as well as any person or entity that beneficially owns more than 10% of a company's voting shares. For purposes of insider trading, the definition is expanded to include anyone who trades a company's shares based on material non-public knowledge. Insiders have to comply with strict disclosure requirements with regard to the sale or purchase of the shares of their company.
Kuo is a guy who has a bunch of contacts to Apple supply chain vendors. Thats it. Calling him anything else is ridiculous and misleading.
Holy crap Sog, Are you kidding? You just made yourself a laughing stock (though I continue to hold you in high esteme) by using, and then citing, the "financial" description of a "financial insider". Maybe try using a simple english dictionary for the definition of the word, as used in the article?
Interesting point. Certainly more interesting than discussing what's the best way to describe an analyst.
I desperately tried to send the conversation in a more valuable direction than the one it inevitably went in, but what can you do.
Totally agree with you on the perception of "Apple obsoletes its products too quickly." Told a friend about the iPhone SE and her response was "Why can't they just pick one size already?"
We likely won't see GPS in the Apple Watch until it gets its own LTE radio. The reason for this is it can take 4-5 minutes to get a GPS lock (and even that is really unreliable), so devices like the iPhone help triangulate position with Wi-Fi and cellular towers. This is why the iPad with cellular has GPS, but the Wi-Fi iPad does not. And also why you cannot buy an iPod touch with GPS.
Therefore, to me, the question is: Will we get an LTE radio in the Apple Watch this year? Seems unlikely considering cost and battery life. But I do think the integrated Apple SIM in the 9.7" iPad Pro sets the stage for a future Apple Watch in that respect.
Great point about the GPS. I wasn't considering that. LTE definitely doesn't seem likely to be coming in the next gen, and would likely qualify as a separate (perhaps "pro") product anyway, as most people are not going to want the financial and battery costs of having a cellular connected watch. Being an accessory to the iPhone seems like a perfect niche for the watch.
Comments
I do agree that Apple should update the design somewhat for Gen 2 to generate more interest. But "update" doesn't mean they have to make radical changes - just subtle enough that someone could distinguish the two. Of course the bands will still fit - it would be suicide for Apple otherwise.
Hopefully updated internals means more than just a faster SOC - but actually includes an additional sensor. Better battery life for me is not about getting much more duration of use, but looking forward to a low-power always on watch face. Faster charging would be more valuable than getting more than 18-24 hours in typical use.
Apple need to make the watch more useful to more people. Much of that can be in s/w, with the noted better battery life.
- option for a low-power always on watch face (great to have nice watch faces, but rarely are they seen)
- optional notification when you are leaving your iPhone behind (can justify the price of a watch for this reason alone, for many people)
- lets have lots more watch faces, and more customizable. I really like using photos and time-lapse, but miss the functionality of seeing temperature, next meeting, etc.
- more functionality in health and fitness apps
- bump up the waterproof rating in the new h/w. It doesn't have to be a diving watch, but one that you are comfortable to leave on for a little dip in the pool or at the beach
They don't have nearly the resell value of other iOS devices, and there are no subsidies or financing offers....its just one tough device to upgrade. I just don't see it.
it is more than shoddy reporting, it about human nature as you pointed out those who think something is great are those who have one, and those who think it is crap are those who do not have one. This goes on all the time with lots of products. The problem is there are load voices in both camps and you will never know what the truth is.
Consider both companies do not post numbers stop spreading false information and lies about what you do not know as fact. oh I forgot you are on a site which is based on rumors and conjectures and hopeful thinking on many people's part.
As for apps on the watch, I really don't know what is happening there. However a combination of improved software and improved performance ought to significantly reduce those problems. Frankly I see the Watch in the same light as the first iPad, it was more of a proof of concept than a well functioning device. iPad has benefitted massively from all the process shrinks Apple was able to push through, so too will the Watch. Let not forget that Watch isn't at 14nm yet, it was built upon 22nm tech if I remember correctly. So they have a process shrink available that has already been demonstrated to produce very good results. Apple could skip 14 and go to 10nm for an even bigger pay off. The low volume of Watch would allow them to take production off TSMC 10 nm pilot lines. One way to the other I suspect the watch performance problems will melt away.
Latency can be fixed if the most of the info needed is already on the watch when you needed, going to the network is too slow for glances. So, some good AI in the background could help.
So, not sure what on earth your even saying by : track record.
Are you actually keeping score of the massive amount of thing he throws out or just focusing on those that actually stick?
If he was truly that well connected, he'd be better than a dartboard.
There is a lot of confirmation bias going on here.
He's better at getting his name out, so good at communication and PR; and is not afraid to be wrong, which he is a massive amount of time, but that's doesn't make him good.
People excusing his shit by saying Apple changed this or that at the last second are completely laughable.
That really explains the dozens of time he was wrong! That's a laugh.
With the shrink, the CPU's power usage will be almost negligible compared to the rest. I think loading up on RAM/storage so the watch can pre-fetch. keep in memoryta lot of stuff, a good caching, would reduce latency in third party apps.
A new model makes sense, because the HW and SW are more tightly integrated in the Watch than any of Apple devices. "S" update what? Increase storage? Why? A new CPU? It doesn't have a CPU in the conventional sense, it is a SoC and if it will be updated that is mostly for HW reasons, such as new sensors, new display tech and alike. And these mean a new model, not just an "S" update.
I've been considering that too. I think there would be little benefit to changing the case design, but a lot of reasons to keep it the same: including 1) make current customers happy with their watch not looking outdated, and 2) significantly reduce the anxiety of future buyers that they will buy something that will soon look dated. One of the common Apple myths I run into is that "apple releases something new every few months just to get you to buy more;" it sounds stupid, since Apple is probably the best in the industry at longevity and consistent product releases, but a lot of people think like this, and keeping the casing the same will help curb this type of thinking.
Apple can make significant improvements just with software/internals including:
-faster load times (e.g. waiting for the exercise app to load as you're starting your exercise class is a pain)
-better water proofing (already pretty good, I took regular showers with the ss watch for 9 months before there was water damage to the screen)
-proximity awareness/antitheft
-GPS
-pulse ox readings (I remember reading that the chip in the watch is already capable of this, so it'd be great if this was possible to activate in gen 1 watches too).
I do hope/expect that we'll see another casing material, like the rumored ceramic, titanium, or possibly even liquid metal.
Totally agree with you on the perception of "Apple obsoletes its products too quickly." Told a friend about the iPhone SE and her response was "Why can't they just pick one size already?"
We likely won't see GPS in the Apple Watch until it gets its own LTE radio. The reason for this is it can take 4-5 minutes to get a GPS lock (and even that is really unreliable), so devices like the iPhone help triangulate position with Wi-Fi and cellular towers. This is why the iPad with cellular has GPS, but the Wi-Fi iPad does not. And also why you cannot buy an iPod touch with GPS.
Therefore, to me, the question is: Will we get an LTE radio in the Apple Watch this year? Seems unlikely considering cost and battery life. But I do think the integrated Apple SIM in the 9.7" iPad Pro sets the stage for a future Apple Watch in that respect.
They lauched the Edition they still present with pride on the Apple Store... The presence of the Edition points to their intention to make that design classic, i.e. keep the same external design for a while at least...
The iPhone will never go AMOLED, any site who claim that should turn its white backround to black, because the white color on AMOLED consumes more electricity than LCD. This is why AMOLED phones have huge batteries, since more than 99% of the web backgrounds are white...
You just made yourself a laughing stock (though I continue to hold you in high esteme) by using, and then citing, the "financial" description of a "financial insider".
Maybe try using a simple english dictionary for the definition of the word, as used in the article?