wiggin

longpath said:

AppleInsider said:

Garmin's highest-end smartwatch in some ways sets a gold standard for fitness trackers, but for the layman, it can be simultaneously overwhelming and lacking in creature comforts.

While this is largely a highlights piece, it would be nice to see a similar article on competitors from Suunto and Polar. I wasn't able to find anything done on the Suunto Ambit3, and the only thing I could find on the Polar V800 was a mention of it being announced last year. 

One of the best sources for GPS unit reviews: http://www.dcrainmaker.com

Grab a cup of coffee, or two or three, and settle in. "In-depth" doesn't even being to describe the reviews.

Here is a summary table comparing the Fenix 3 HR, Suunto Ambit 3 Peak, and Polar V800: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/product-comparison-calculator?type=watch&ids=57146,25838,34445#results

larrya said:

I think the Forerunner 230 (non-HR)/235 (HR) is a better value.  They do 90% of what this watch does, and the 230 is $250.  Many of the small differences can be made up with apps/widgets available on the ConnectIQ store.  An even better value than the Forerunner is the Vivoactive HR, for $250 (with buttons and touch screen).

All of these things are waterproof and have GPS (even Garmin's latest "step tracker" has GPS for $219) with multi-week battery life, so there really isn't any excuse for not including GPS in the Apple Watch.

If 90% of what you do is running and some biking (which is probably what the vast majority of people do), then yes the 230/235 are probably a better value. But if you think those watches do 90% of what the fenix does you need to go beyond the AppleInsider review to see what else the watch does (hint: the AI article is barely a "highlights" piece, much less a review of the watch). If you are a swimmer, triathlete, hiker, or skier the 230/235 will not meet your needs. If you give all activities equal weight (which of course, is never true), those watches do perhaps 30% of what the fenix does.

That said, the vast majority probably only want to track their running and a daily activity tracker. The fenix is very much overkill for those folks. But if you want more than running and biking, look beyond the 230/235. The FR 735XT would be the watch that does 90% of the fenix, but it's also roughly 90% the price of the fenix (and far more expensive than the 230235).

[No, I don't own a fenix. I have a FR 620, which is similar to the 230 except the notifications. And I've done enough research of GPS watches to know that the fenix clearly outclasses the 230/235...including in price and size of the watch.]

redefiler said:

wiggin said:

But what you really mean is collective determination.2/3s of the Scottish would disagree that they have been granted self determination. Regardless of what level of self/collective determination, that concept breaks down when the decision is based on false or misleading information from people who have zero accountability for their broken promises and lies. This has been the issue with every US Presidential candidate in the last several elections and appears to have also had significant influence in the UKs Brexist vote as well.

Ah there goes that cosmopolitan elitism again, you assume that you lost because your opposition doesn't know what they are doing or are stupid and easily lead.  Kettle meet pot, the information quality, public retention and associate media delivery methods on your side is equally banal.  Since it wouldn't be fair to leverage society based on equal relative lack of intelligence, self determination still wins.  Basically you're just name calling because you got beaten.  Not more intelligent, that's just being a sore loser. 

Scotland can always vote to leave the UK if they wish, ditto with Northern Ireland.  Few tears would be lost in Britain, and the economic savings might actually be a cause for some celebration.

However i I think it's highly unlikely they will, Scotland seems to have long since traded away it's taste for independence.

You assume I lost (actually, didn't have a dog in this particular race). But even when I'm on the "winning" side of the issue, I can recognize when my side was lying and am equally frustrated when people are asked to make choices based on that bad information. My comment was meant as an objective observation and applies to both sides of these issues. I don't give a rat's ass who you vote for...Republican/Democrat, Leave/Remain. But I do care that people be given honest information upon which to base their decisions.

So take the chip off your shoulder for a second and reread my post. You'll notice that I didn't criticize the people casting the votes. I criticized the people running the campaigns who intentionally provide false and misleading information knowing that they will never be held accountable for it. I don't expect people to become experts on every topics that may be asked to cast a vote on. But is it too much to ask for (hope for) those people to be given a fair chance at making the decision that's best for them based on truthful information. Because, and this was my point, it's not really self determination if it's based on bad info.

macxpress said:

wiggin said:

Or it becomes the "education" model for those schools who feel that a tablet is not the best device for their students. If a school decides that a tablet (of any kind) is not enough and want to go with laptops, Apple really offers no affordable options. I'm not suggesting that Apple compete with Chromebook on price, but if they keep with the slightly older technology in the Air and bump the price down just a tad it would be competitive. 11" model for younger students, 13" for older students which would give continuity as students progress through the grades.

I don't think giving students an old under powered Mac with a horrible screen is in the best interest of Apple. Most schools such as ours just buy 13" MacBook Pro Retina models (or the 13" MacBook Pro w/SuperDrive). There's a large difference between a chromebook and a Mac. We use both and both have their places. There are many things a Mac can do that a ChromeBook cannot. The only place Apple is getting hurt are these 1-to-1 initiatives which from our experience and others in this same region never work. 

If Apple really wanted to compete with the ChromeBook they'd release a regular iPad with the smart connector on it and include the keyboard case. The keyboard is the iPad's biggest downfall because the onscreen one sucks for typing and others are bluetooth with constant dead batteries. Other than that an iPad will do far more than any ChromeBook would and isn't any harder to manage with the right management software (JAMF Casper). iPads just get a bad reputation because schools don't plan before they deploy so iPads turn in to "toys" instead of learning tools. 

Some fair points, and it was the 1-1 initiatives I was thinking of. If a school is looking to do that (arguments as to whether that's a good idea), a $1300 MBP for every student probably isn't feasible except for schools in fairly affluent school districts or with wealthy benefactors. So I'd still argue that for most schools, if a school decides that laptops are the way they want to go, Apple doesn't really have an offering that is cost sensitive. Even an iPad starts getting expensive if you are adding keyboard and cases.

As for performance, a MBA is only under powered if you compare it to your MBP. The low-end MBA compares favorably to the current mid-range MacBook...Apple's "latest technology". On Geekbench 3 for single-core it's a score of 2835 vs 2878. Multi-core similarly shows the MB with only a slight edge. That year-old, low-end MBA actually beats the low-end MB that was just released this year. (Yes, there is more to performance than that. Just showing that they are about on par.)

And of course the screen isn't Retina, but ask yourself, what are we using them for? Other than some classes (film editing, some art classes, etc), for general school work I'd consider Retina display a nice-to-have, but not a necessity.

I'm not suggesting Apple shouldn't make any improvements to the Air. But IF they did want to offer an affordable educational laptop, it could be a viable alternative for about the same price as an iPad plus accessories. (I can't even imagine the nightmare of trying to manage an iPad + keyboard set-up in a school. The keyboard would be lost, forgotten, and/or broken in about 5 minutes. A MBA would probably be more durable and much easier to manage from a logistics perspective.)

cali said:

loekf said:

No competition for HomeKit, because HomeKit is a joke. It's a missed opportunity for Apple. They could have made the AppleTV the central hub, but looks like they insist on buillding it around your phone (or iPad).

I have an Amazon Echo here, loving it.

Yeah Apple is really dragging their feet here.
I do think iPhone is a better hub since it's always with you and not in another room, but how much progress has HomeKit really accomplished? Apple TV was certainly lacking a ton of features and opportunities. 

And where's the Home app?
HealthKit/Health
HomeKit/Home.
i figured we would get Home at least by iOS 9.

Actually, I think the iPhone is a horrible hub...because it's always with you, even when you are away from home. It's a great interface to a hub, which needs to stay home to control your devices. There are many different protocols/methods to communicate with smart devices (wifi, bluetooh, zwave, zigbee, insteon, etc) and we are a long way off from having any sort of unifying standard. Your phone is simply incapable to communicating with a large number of smart devices without going through an intermediary. If I need to go and purchase a hub (SmartThings, Wink, Iris, Hue Bridge, etc) I'm going to end up using that hub's supplied app to control it.

Apple could have made Apple TV a smart home hub with zigbee and zwave support and a control app on your phone and it would have likely crushed nearly all of the other smart home systems out there and placed Apple in control of a large portion of the smart home market and collected billions in "Made for Apple Home" licensing fees.