- Last Active
retrogusto said:Question for watch owners: do you find yourselves wishing it were bigger in daily use? For me, the benefit of having multiple devices that can perform similar functions (desktop, laptop, iPad, phone, watch) is that ideally each is optimized for specific use cases, which for the watch means being as compact as possible but always readily available on the wrist. I’m not looking for more functional overlap at the cost of reduced optimization; I don’t need or want to read the news on my watch while lying on the couch at home, if it means that the rest of the time I’m carrying around something bulkier than it needs to be.
Now it is more about health apps. A later generation helped me understand I may have afib and when it started getting really bad I got to a hospital.
The larger sized screen is better because I can fit more complications. So a bigger screen maybe compelling to me.
Battery life is okay for me since I wear a previous gen watch for sleep monitoring so I can charge the main one at night.
I will evaluate whether an additional 4mm is worth it. That decision will be based on the new features and if they are only available in the pro version and there are worth it to me I will probably get one.
The best situation is for Apple to manufacture products for China's internal market in China. And move everything else out of the country (as feasible as possible).
Because at some point China is going to to create an international situation (invade Taiwan, take over the South China Sea...) that will cause the western governments to block the majority of trade. Apple will be in a very precarious position if a significant portion of their international product remains in China.
I stopped buying Apple monitors 20 years ago. The price and feature set has not been favorable compared to other vendors. I rather save the money and use that on Apple computers instead. I have only one rule and that is not to buy any Samsung displays. Dell's out too. Even with that limitation you can get monitors that are equivalently spec'd to an Apple one at half the price.
Here's a selection of USB-C monitors are all types of activities.
Bottom line, Apple monitors will always be more expensive because they cannot sell in the same volume as other brands.
Devices like the HomePod that connect via Wifi should be able to play lossless. It just a question of a software update to enable the ability.
I still don't get how Apple didn't have at least one dedicated sound device be able to play lossless. Fair point on the limitations of bluetooth but not getting the HomePods up to snuff prior to the release was a bit dumb. Advertising that the iPhone can play lossless is laughable given how tinny the speakers are.
It sounds to me that Apple wanted to beat the competition to the punch and rush out the service as a result.