Abalos65

tenthousandthings said:

Abalos65 said:

corrections said:

Abalos65 said:

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: 

https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/14/editorial-when-apple-is-2-years-behind-you-put-your-things-in-order

 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.

corrections said:

Abalos65 said:

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: 

https://appleinsider.com/articles/17/05/14/editorial-when-apple-is-2-years-behind-you-put-your-things-in-order

DAalseth said:

rogifan_new said:

And the number of people who care is?

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?

davidw said:

Abalos65 said:

the1maximus said:

tehabe said:

When it comes to distribution of applications for iOS Apple is a monopolist. You can't buy applications anywhere else.

You can’t buy legit apps on android except from the play store.  How about amazon devices you can only get apps from the Amazon app store. Yes you can circumvent those platforms and download apps from 3rd party sites, but you put you device and your personal I formation at a huge risk. So please explains how that is monopolistic. 

Apple supplies a platform for developers to create and distribute their apps which allows their users to download or purchase items securely. 

chaicka said:

Perhaps I am too simple minded to get what all these fuss is about.

I choose Apple’s platform for what it is and how it is. If I have wanted choice of app stores or uncontrolled installation of apps which puts security and privacy at risk, I would have gone down the Android path.

It’s that simple. And it’s the same approach I tells my family members. It’s their choice and they can jolly well support and be accountable for their own choice of platforms/devices.

I do not get how allowing third party installs is inherently insecure. I get that it increases some small percentage of installing a malicious program, however good OS design and protection should limit the damage those can cause. I would for example say that MacOS is a secure operating system while allowing third party installs. Why would this be different for mobile operating systems?

No OS is safe from malicious programs, if the user chooses to install the software. OSX is more secure than Windows because it is much harder to install any software, without the users knowledge. But once the user chooses to install the software, nothing is preventing malware or viruses from being installed, along with whatever the user was installing.

This is why the users has to be careful of where they get the software they were installing from. There is a difference in how safe the software is of malicious programs when  downloading the software from torrent vs getting it from the Apple App Store (or Google Play Store). The software in the app stores are checked for malicious programs, as best as Apple and Google are able to, before they are allowed in the app stores. Just like there is a difference in security from installing software from an official retail install disc from Best Buy vs a copy of the disc from eBay or craigslist.

Even spyware embedded in programs, have manage to get through Apple App Store security check, every so often. Just who is going to check for spyware when you download the install software from a third party site?  

I think you are thinking about how safe the web site is, when visiting it to download software. That is not the insecure part of allowing third party downloads of software. The insecurity comes from downloading and installing software with the malicious programs embedded in the software.  No OS will stop that installation of those malicious programs, once the user chooses to install that software.