A good overview of the state of Android, especially on wearables. A couple of thoughts:
Google cluelessly aimed its watch platform at nerdy, techy users, there's no hope of Wear OS ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands.
Wasn't that what doomed OS/2 Warp? They targeted the Tech Heads, not the people making buying decisions?
Nice reference to the Potemkin Village.
Wear OS stands as more evidence that Android has very little real value outside of delivering high volumes of lower-end phone hardware that isn't very profitable.
I wonder if the next five years will see Android itself come under fire. Bloated, buggy, and marginally stable, it's ripe to be taken down. Some upstart developer will come along with a nice clean mobile OS, that drops all the spyware/crapware/adware, and annoying weirdness of Android. An OS that just works for a phone/camera/music player/game player. If someone comes up with that, and will sell it to companies for, say $5 per phone no strings attached, they will be a billionaire and Google w2ill find its revenue from Android collapsing. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of companies making phones are sick of dealing with Google's underhanded incompetence.
It already exists, and is called KaiOS. It's a fork based off the now-defunct Firefox OS. It's primarily for "smart feature phones", if that makes any sense. Of course, Google, Facebook, etc., are already trying to sink their collective teeth into to get a piece of this lower-end but growing market.
This is an Apple-Centric site. The article is about the state of a competitor for one of Apple's major products. And this bothers you why?
Sorry, but this editorial is not about the state of a competitor. Just saying android sucks is not describing a state of a competitor. Being a fan-site is not a get out of jail free card for such an editorial.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
Am I the only one who sometimes gets confused about which button to push to return to a certain screen on the Apple Watch? Who feels that the concept of the watch, focusing on the hardware-software interaction of the device, is very good, but not perfect?
Just asking out of curiosity. I know it’s only partly related the article.
A good overview of the state of Android, especially on wearables. A couple of thoughts:
Google cluelessly aimed its watch platform at nerdy, techy users, there's no hope of Wear OS ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands.
Wasn't that what doomed OS/2 Warp? They targeted the Tech Heads, not the people making buying decisions?
Nice reference to the Potemkin Village.
Wear OS stands as more evidence that Android has very little real value outside of delivering high volumes of lower-end phone hardware that isn't very profitable.
I wonder if the next five years will see Android itself come under fire. Bloated, buggy, and marginally stable, it's ripe to be taken down. Some upstart developer will come along with a nice clean mobile OS, that drops all the spyware/crapware/adware, and annoying weirdness of Android. An OS that just works for a phone/camera/music player/game player. If someone comes up with that, and will sell it to companies for, say $5 per phone no strings attached, they will be a billionaire and Google w2ill find its revenue from Android collapsing. I get the distinct feeling that a lot of companies making phones are sick of dealing with Google's underhanded incompetence.
It already exists, and is called KaiOS. It's a fork based off the now-defunct Firefox OS. It's primarily for "smart feature phones", if that makes any sense. Of course, Google, Facebook, etc., are already trying to sink their collective teeth into to get a piece of this lower-end but growing market.
Cool, I had not heard about that. I notice it is a fork off of Linux. Nice.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Bingo!
So Google tech journalists have their little helpers it seems.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Please don't come ruin a DED article by specifying facts.
This is an Apple-Centric site. The article is about the state of a competitor for one of Apple's major products. And this bothers you why?
Sorry, but this editorial is not about the state of a competitor. Just saying android sucks is not describing a state of a competitor. Being a fan-site is not a get out of jail free card for such an editorial.
Apparently you are not clear on what editorial means. It is not news. It is the opinion of one of the writers ot the editor. So, yes this piece is perfectly acceptable and very normal, as long as it is marked as an editorial, which this was.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
"The "the latest-and-greatest hardware" available to Watch OS vendors is laughably ancient compared to the aggressive advancement Apple's been making between its first Watch and today's Series 4, which sports an advanced S4 "Silicon in Package" chip. There aren't even any other devices that run entirely on a SiP, let alone the fourth generation of such package technology."
This is a twisted view. Although I am not surprised.
Can we also assume then, and by the same token, that some essential iPhone components are also 'laughably ancient' when compared to flagship competitors?
There is little to no reference here of modern (non Wear OS) hardware platforms - that have already been announced - that cover the entire gamut of use scenarios from earbuds - passing through watches and even cars - right up to data centers.
Clearly the underpinnings of alternatives are already in place. Not to mention what will happen when Wear OS + hardware is finally fully baked.
So while Apple is working on its end user, consumer electronics devices - which appeal to only a fraction of the market - and has nothing outside of that CE 'bubble', other players are not only thinking about the far bigger picture but actually developing platforms and products to tackle current and future needs and which are applicable to literally - every single piece - of the puzzle. The underlying communications infrastructure (hardware and software and industry standards), the userland devices (hardware and software) and how it all ties together.
That puts any piece on 'a watch' into very sharp focus.
This is a hit job on Google (once again) and of very scant value.
Wear OS may not be performing as expected at this point in time but no one knows if it will allowed to 'fully bake' or not, but if it is half baked today, perhaps it won't take much longer to hit its stride. Who knows.
HiSilicon, Samsung and Qualcomm are not waiting on Google anyway so Wear OS itself isn't even a big deal.
You, for starters. You care enough to click, read, and comment on every single column DED writes, only to profess how much you don’t care. Uh huh. Sounds to me like he’s living rent-free in your head.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Please don't come ruin a DED article by specifying facts.
On the contrary, DED columns use facts and reason to make solid points. Which do you contest, specifically?
"The "the latest-and-greatest hardware" available to Watch OS vendors is laughably ancient compared to the aggressive advancement Apple's been making between its first Watch and today's Series 4, which sports an advanced S4 "Silicon in Package" chip. There aren't even any other devices that run entirely on a SiP, let alone the fourth generation of such package technology."
This is a twisted view. Although I am not surprised.
Can we also assume then, and by the same token, that some essential iPhone components are also 'laughably ancient' when compared to flagship competitors?
There is little to no reference here of modern (non Wear OS) hardware platforms - that have already been announced - that cover the entire gamut of use scenarios from earbuds - passing through watches and even cars - right up to data centers.
Clearly the underpinnings of alternatives are already in place. Not to mention what will happen when Wear OS + hardware is finally fully baked.
So while Apple is working on its end user, consumer electronics devices - which appeal to only a fraction of the market - and has nothing outside of that CE 'bubble', other players are not only thinking about the far bigger picture but actually developing platforms and products to tackle current and future needs and which are applicable to literally - every single piece - of the puzzle. The underlying communications infrastructure (hardware and software and industry standards), the userland devices (hardware and software) and how it all ties together.
It’s not a “twisted” opinion at all, it’s simply fact - AW hardware has advanced rapidly, while Weak OS devices haven’t — some even use the same exact processor as last year. Gross.
And your second point is nuts - you purport that Apple is only working on the CE devices of today, while your chinese knockoffs are busy solving the problems of tomorrow. That is pure gibberish. It’s your standard moving of the goalposts trick tho — pretending that only your knockoffs will advance, and Apple will remain static. Pathetic.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
"The "the latest-and-greatest hardware" available to Watch OS vendors is laughably ancient compared to the aggressive advancement Apple's been making between its first Watch and today's Series 4, which sports an advanced S4 "Silicon in Package" chip. There aren't even any other devices that run entirely on a SiP, let alone the fourth generation of such package technology."
This is a twisted view. Although I am not surprised.
Can we also assume then, and by the same token, that some essential iPhone components are also 'laughably ancient' when compared to flagship competitors?
There is little to no reference here of modern (non Wear OS) hardware platforms - that have already been announced - that cover the entire gamut of use scenarios from earbuds - passing through watches and even cars - right up to data centers.
Clearly the underpinnings of alternatives are already in place. Not to mention what will happen when Wear OS + hardware is finally fully baked.
So while Apple is working on its end user, consumer electronics devices - which appeal to only a fraction of the market - and has nothing outside of that CE 'bubble', other players are not only thinking about the far bigger picture but actually developing platforms and products to tackle current and future needs and which are applicable to literally - every single piece - of the puzzle. The underlying communications infrastructure (hardware and software and industry standards), the userland devices (hardware and software) and how it all ties together.
It’s not a “twisted” opinion at all, it’s simply fact - AW hardware has advanced rapidly, while Weak OS devices haven’t — some even use the same exact processor as last year. Gross.
And your second point is nuts - you purport that Apple is only working on the CE devices of today, while your chinese knockoffs are busy solving the problems of tomorrow. That is pure gibberish. It’s your standard moving of the goalposts trick tho — pretending that only your knockoffs will advance, and Apple will remain static. Pathetic.
It is twisted when the whole thing is edified around the premise of taking a jab at Google. It's an opinion nevertheless, as is mine.
As for 'gibberish', is Apple participating in, creating and furthering 5G? - Yes, the future!
Does Apple have its own 5G (or 4G for that matter) modem? Is Apple laying thousands of kilometres of undersea fibre optic cables to move communications data around the world? Is Apple participating in the carrier roll out of telecommunications hardware? Does Apple have anything like the Ascend platform? Has Apple publicly presented a proposal for the management of 'digital skies'? A proposal to manage flying objects up to 300 metres. You know, that is part of the future and a problem that needs solving.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension here — “entirely new features” describes those features relative to the earlier wearable iPod nano. It doesn’t describe those features relative to Wear OS devices. Corrections was being polite as he ignored this error on your part and directed you to his actual point about how the relationship between iOS and Watch OS isn’t one-way and that’s a sign of Apple’s good health. Yes, it’s “simply written” — but it doesn’t say what you said it does. Once could be a misreading of a long and complicated editorial, twice is either sloppiness or trolling.
The point of the editorial is to illuminate how things work at Apple. DED’s audience is largely Apple investors. AI has other writers who are focused on Apple products and customers. DED’s job is to assess the press coverage of Apple and to step back and provide a sense of where Apple stands relative the industry as a whole. I first became aware of his work long ago when he was an independent tech blogger and I was looking for perspective on Apple’s acquisition of NeXT and Rhapsody and the subsequent complete rebuilding of Mac OS from the ground up, which would become the foundation of iPod, iOS, Watch OS and everything going forward. DED got this pretty much exactly right from the beginning, in real time. Ignore him at your peril.
While I agree with the fact that WearOS is half baked, I do find this editorial adding absolutely nothing of value. It is just a piece hating on everything Google, taking a whole article to basically say; 'Everything Apple Good, Everything Google Bad'. You don't even go into detail as to why WearOS was half baked, what it missed, what didn't work. You just say it was half baked and rushed only. Furthermore, most of the article is not even about WearOS.
You say that WearOS is targeted to only tech users and never ever realistically supporting a selection of either sporty or luxuriously fashionable bands. What about the Diesel, MontBlanc, Skagen and Fossil watches then? Or do you really mean bands and not brands? In that case your point is even weaker, as most WearOS watches have support for standard watch bands, making the selection much larger compared to the ones of the Apple Watch. The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging,weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?
And to be clear, I do not like WearOS.
Android Authority (link in the article) detailed what was half baked about Wear OS. The article here isn't trying to make the case that Wear OS is unfinished and unsuccessfully not going as planned because those ideas are not even controversial.
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
I'm not defending anything as I expect WearOS to flame out. After this you make an assumption about what some random people are saying, which can't be proven or disproven, so I'm going to ignore that. Based on what was Android Wear a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform? Just saying it doesn't make it so.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
The person you replied to is DED. Corrections is his forum name.
He's not ever acknowledged that AFAIK. Perhaps using DED or his actual name or otherwise identifying himself as the author when commenting on his own articles which is more typical behavior. That's his choice of course as part of the AI family.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
He linked to his own article as evidence
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
No, he linked to his own articles to demonstrate that the OP was misreading him.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.
Comments
Any brand can use Wear OS to try to deliver a product, but the fact is that what google gave them to work with was a nerdy tech-enthusiast platform that isn't resulting in strong products from sports or luxury makers. That's why it isn't selling.
If you're going to argue that something about Watch OS is successful, you need to point out where this success is occurring. After 5 years it's gone nowhere. You sound like the people who insisted for years that Google Glass was about to get fixed and become successful Real Soon Now, before they stopped talking about it and decided the subject was old news and that it doesn't matter if Google is successful or not because its selling ads and hardware isn't really something that it needs to succeed in, and honestly wasn't really trying because why would it?
"The features you mention on the Apple Watch like wireless charging, weatherproofing and OLED were also available on WearOS watches, so why are these mentioned as features only the Apple Watch has?"
They weren't. They were listed as technologies Apple developed for Apple Watch that later were used to enhance iPhones. It's pretty well known and uncontroversial that other vendors were delivering these features first. There's even entire articles about that:
https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/14/editorial-when-apple-is-2-years-behind-you-put-your-things-in-order
Just asking out of curiosity. I know it’s only partly related the article.
The piece says 'entirely new features', you can try to invent another meaning for this, but it is simply written as if it was totally new and unique. Clicking on this reveals another editorial whining about the press, before saying that Apple sells more, therefore it's better. I am new here on this site, so I didn't know the writer DED, but after this I am hesitant to read another one, so I only skimmed the one you linked. The level is unfortunately largely the same from what I saw in the other two, so I guess I will stop reading these editorials from DED.
When "Corrections" started out we didn't know he was also Daniel Dilger, assumed he was a normal poster like the rest of us. The regulars here eventually figured it out on our own. Newer members such as the OP probably are unaware as I don't believe DED has never mentioned it, and perhaps a few of the older ones too don't know, so your post was a timely mention.
This is a twisted view. Although I am not surprised.
Can we also assume then, and by the same token, that some essential iPhone components are also 'laughably ancient' when compared to flagship competitors?
There is little to no reference here of modern (non Wear OS) hardware platforms - that have already been announced - that cover the entire gamut of use scenarios from earbuds - passing through watches and even cars - right up to data centers.
https://blog.huawei.com/2019/02/05/activating-ai-power-with-the-ascend-chipset/
Clearly the underpinnings of alternatives are already in place. Not to mention what will happen when Wear OS + hardware is finally fully baked.
So while Apple is working on its end user, consumer electronics devices - which appeal to only a fraction of the market - and has nothing outside of that CE 'bubble', other players are not only thinking about the far bigger picture but actually developing platforms and products to tackle current and future needs and which are applicable to literally - every single piece - of the puzzle. The underlying communications infrastructure (hardware and software and industry standards), the userland devices (hardware and software) and how it all ties together.
That puts any piece on 'a watch' into very sharp focus.
This is a hit job on Google (once again) and of very scant value.
Wear OS may not be performing as expected at this point in time but no one knows if it will allowed to 'fully bake' or not, but if it is half baked today, perhaps it won't take much longer to hit its stride. Who knows.
HiSilicon, Samsung and Qualcomm are not waiting on Google anyway so Wear OS itself isn't even a big deal.
And your second point is nuts - you purport that Apple is only working on the CE devices of today, while your chinese knockoffs are busy solving the problems of tomorrow. That is pure gibberish. It’s your standard moving of the goalposts trick tho — pretending that only your knockoffs will advance, and Apple will remain static. Pathetic.
The fact that he posts on the forum under a different name to his author credit says a lot. Do any of the other AppleInsider contributors do that?
As for 'gibberish', is Apple participating in, creating and furthering 5G? - Yes, the future!
Does Apple have its own 5G (or 4G for that matter) modem? Is Apple laying thousands of kilometres of undersea fibre optic cables to move communications data around the world? Is Apple participating in the carrier roll out of telecommunications hardware? Does Apple have anything like the Ascend platform? Has Apple publicly presented a proposal for the management of 'digital skies'? A proposal to manage flying objects up to 300 metres. You know, that is part of the future and a problem that needs solving.
https://www.itpro.co.uk/networking/29952/huawei-wants-to-create-drone-friendly-mobile-networks
Where is the gibberish?
The point of the editorial is to illuminate how things work at Apple. DED’s audience is largely Apple investors. AI has other writers who are focused on Apple products and customers. DED’s job is to assess the press coverage of Apple and to step back and provide a sense of where Apple stands relative the industry as a whole. I first became aware of his work long ago when he was an independent tech blogger and I was looking for perspective on Apple’s acquisition of NeXT and Rhapsody and the subsequent complete rebuilding of Mac OS from the ground up, which would become the foundation of iPod, iOS, Watch OS and everything going forward. DED got this pretty much exactly right from the beginning, in real time. Ignore him at your peril.
I think the use of a pseudonym on the forums stems from the politics that infused his commentary in the past — he would regularly attract political trolls with no interest in technology. AI experimented with redirecting this, but at some point a decision was made to quash it, and the political references disappeared from DED’s writing on the site. You can still argue with him on Twitter if you need that validation. He’s not shy.