Xed

macgui said:

radarthekat said:

Had the technology for a digital watch existed right from the start, it would have been absurd to create a round watch body/face, as there simply would have been no imperative to create a form so inefficient to the function of the timepiece. 

I disagree. Apple has long sacrificed substance over style on many occasions. The Watch was an exception to their common though not absolute practice.

The rectangular shape is more efficient than a round shape at displaying maximum information. But like any aspect of our lives not everybody needs every possible feature of any given device. Most everyone I know has an Apple Watch. If not it's some feature watch not a smart watch. 

Style is an imperative. A round watch comes with some sacrifices that may or may not be important to the wearer. Style and function play different roles to different people based on their preferences. While Apple sticks to the rectangular case a great many of their watch faces are round, and still offer a lot of utility.

Sports cars vs saloons vs trucks, long pants vs shorts, hard top vs convertible, etc. One size doesn't fit all even if Apple says so. The Samsung watches offer a lot of utility in a round shape. A few I've seen are good looking to boot. They just don't offer watchOS so they're a non-starter for me.

A round Watch doesn't have to replace rectangles in a line up. I don't understand why people try to make it an either or situation. If Apple were to design a round Watch the vast majority of Watch fans would very like be surprised at how little would be lost in translation.

Apple should make their lineup thinner than it is now. If they made a round Watch it would sell. They probably won't do it. I have a vague memory of Jobs making negative comments regarding phablets. It's possible he never did. Yet iPhones keep getting bigger and bigger. So change is possible.

1) Can you give some examples of these plethora of Apple products that sacrificed utility in favor of style? I ask because I can only think of a small handful, like the hockey puck mouse. Remember, you claimed that "substance" from Apple when it came to Apple, which is something I wholeheartedly disagree with because I'm not buying their products if my workflow would be better with a different vendor.

2) You claim that Apple says that one size fits all, but this is a topic on their Watch which has had multiplet sizes from the start, and has even adjusted the sizes of the displays and casing whilst keeping the watchbands in the same two categories for a decades so clearly they don't feel that one size fits all. I don't think you understand the term size when you're talking about very different utility and aesthetics.

3) Samsung does offer a lot of utility in a round display, but they're also losing a lot of utility which is why Apple has won and will keep winning in this space. From internal capacity for components to the amount of pixels with a given pixel density you can display on its shortest axis the Watch will come out ahead every time. 

4) When the rumors were swirling about a smartwatch from Apple I was worried that they might have tunnel vision because of the long history of wrist worn clocks. I'm very glad they didn't make that mistake. I felt it was obvious not to be a round face, but sometimes people see tradition as mandatory or as good even when it's very clearly not as good, like the area of a square v a circle for a given diameter,.



5) I don't think it's not too thick, especially for what it does. I do suspect it could get thinner, but only because they're making it bigger in other regards. Previously I mention square v circle in terms of area, but it's a rectangle... and  there's a lot more space on the arm they can utilize to expand the device's battery capacity, components, and overall  general utility. So far, they've done a good job of increasing this albeit at a slower rate than I'd prefer.

6) If Wear OS wants to best Apple they'd make a widescreen rectangular watch face.

1) I thought blood oxygen sensing had been removed as a feature from the despite due to an ongoing patent issue. Has this been resolved?

2) Seems odd that Samsung doesn't include a compass. And why are they sticking with a round display for a device that isn't just a few hands on a central pivot? Probably just to be different from Apple.

spheric said:

danox said:

phillyfanatic09 said:

VictorMortimer said:

Intentionally omitting features as retaliation?  Yeah, Apple is gonna LOVE the multi-billion fine for this little stunt.

The EU is done playing.  Apple will behave, or they will PAY.

Or, shocker, Apple will leave the EU altogether. Companies are “for profit” entities and publicly traded ones like Apple have an obligation to the their shareholders to act in their interests. Loss of the EU market will hurt but paying out more in fines than you earn in profit makes no sense.

The EU wants smartphones to be like PCs where there is little differentiation between vendors and profit is mainly derived from directed advertising and sale of consumer data. As an American, I am perfectly content to let Europe live in that world but I definitely hope they don’t drag me into it.

A American company named Walmart is no longer in the EU they left…….

Yeah, they had rather crude ideas on employee privacy and rather illegal views on how employees should conduct their personal lives. 

Even after they managed to fix their HR to align with basic human rights, European customers had already told them in no uncertain terms to fuck off, and off they indeed did fuck. 

I'm not sure if it was intended, but Walmart's questionable ethos should not play into danox's example as they are also publicly traded and therefore have an obligation to their shareholders. While Walmart backing out of the EU doesn't move EU citizens to see just how caustic the their whimsically partisan attempts to siphon money from certain companies, Apple pulling out could open some eyes and cause the EU to start playing fair.

hexclock said:

Afarstar said:

mikethemartian said:

A simple fastener will do.

Like Velcro?

Alien Tape. 

Vulcan technology.

avon b7 said:

radarthekat said:

avon b7 said:

rob53 said:

avon b7 said:

This:

"Specifically, we are concerned that the interoperability requirements of the DMA could force us to compromise the integrity of our products in ways that risk user privacy and data security," said Apple. "We are committed to collaborating with the European Commission in an attempt to find a solution that would enable us to deliver these features to our EU customers without compromising their safety."

And then this:

"From previous statements including ones to AppleInsider, it's known that Apple has been continually working with the EU on its responses to the DMA, so it's reasonable to assume that will continue.

Leads to the question: Why even bother putting the subject into the public domain if communication and clarification are ongoing? 

Far better to say as little as possible until things are clarified. All it takes is clarification and all for a roll out that isn't even planned for this year! 

Basically FUD on Apple's part and Vestager has a valid point in her response to a question that wouldn't have been asked if it weren't for Apple. 

Basically FUD on the part of EU-loving commenters. Apple has a right to provide whatever capabilities it wants to in whatever country/region it wants to. You're buying a product with certain features. There's nothing that says Apple has to provide the EU with everything it has the capability of including. The EU can demand Apple provide everything but that's not the way companies work. This is a brand new Apple capability and Apple has the right to provide it when they feel it's ready, not when a corrupt EU demands it. At this point, I feel Apple is well within its rights to start charging for features in countries it wants to. As far as I'm concerned, Apple should start charging for macOS, iOS, tvOS, iPadOS along with every Apple app and feature it wants to. I'd like to see the EU try and force Apple to provide everything for free. It isn't going to happen.

No one is disputing Apple's right to bring or not bring certain features to the EU. That is up to them and is irrelevant here. 

The point is 'making a meal out of something' and putting it down to the DMA even when Apple itself claims it's in contact with the EU on the subject and also claims not to know what is possible or not. 

It's all completely unnecessary on Apple's part. Why not simply ask the EU and wait for a reply? 

Maybe Apple feels a bit of obligation to both inform its EU customer base and to disclose to its investors information that might be material to its business.  

Hardly. We are talking about features that in all probability were never mapped to see the light of day in the EU until next year. They won't even fully reach the US until next year. 

It was completely unnecessary on Apple's part and if it were 'material to its business', much better to tread carefully and not speculate when they quite clearly haven't clarified with the relevant bodies what the requirements are. 

So Apple shouldn't have even demoed these features for their future OSes because they weren't ready to launch immediately? What a great argument you have there.