291–300 of 863 posts
For me it's now official: Apple has ceded its position as an industry leader/innovator, and become a follower. This is a really, really lame product.
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." http://beta.slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releas...
I haven't worn a watch in at least 15 years. A good chunk of my friends and colleagues as well. I'm sure there are interesting use cases, but my summary view is this seems like a current-generation iPod with a wristband. No prediction of how successful it will be, but I kind of think this will be more niche than mainstream.
Same; for me it was mostly a practical reason though, my wrists started to hurt from computer work and the strap (metal one) was annoying against the edge of my laptop, so I had it off most of the time. Of course, if this thing proves to have added value (and just notifications isn't added value for me, I don't get them that often and if I do they're not important enough to warrant having to check them at all times),…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet" The way Xcode (and iOS8) support dynamic layouts is nothing like Android. Xcode 6 allows you to have multiple designs/constaints within the same UI file, for different screen sizes. Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits…
Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits all", which is no way similar to what's Apple doing. Aside from CSS-type "responsive" design, Android layouts have always had resource tags, which means that you can set different layouts for screen sizes, orientations, pixel densities, cultures, text direction, and so on. Apps that didn't demonstrate this on tablets were as they were because the developers were lazy or s…
I haven't picked up my Android tablet in like half a year now, does Twitter and Facebook have a proper tablet android app by now?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments You should also remember that he was hardly in the majority with those comments. Further he was technically correct, and the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire (notably iTunes). But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought in…
>not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet" The way Xcode (and iOS8) support dynamic layouts is nothing like Android. Xcode 6 allows you to have multiple designs/constaints within the same UI file, for different screen sizes. Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or consider the first iPhone which had no 3G. Building your first iteration specifically not to go up against a particular competitor can be intentional, in hardware and software. Two or three generations down the road this watch could prove interesting (or may be not, like the iPad.)
No 3G, no app store(!!), no copy and paste, no GPS, worse call reception than the phones it replaced, the list goes on. It was still a massive success.
Am I the only one who thinks the available/previewed watch faces don't match the intended goal of the device? This event was all about fashion, inviting all of the fashion journalists and talking about personalization. Not a single one of those watch faces look appealing, and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I think the design has potential when it gets a little bit…
My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS. A sports watch without GPS, IMHO is a no go at $350. For (I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance). *Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.
This comment reminded me of CmdrTaco's slashdot comment after the iPod launch: http://t.co/RPAX2r93kx I think Garmin forerunner will be to the future of wearables what Nomad was to the future of music in 2002.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't argue that it would be an easier sell if it wasn't so anti-social to use. But it certainly can't be compared to 3D TVs or movies for that matter, which are an awful hack. This generation's VR is the real deal, and while the technology isn't quite there yet, it's within touching distance. People will be prepared to put up with the inconvenience because the experience will be significantly more compelling than…
I think that very much depends on perspective. The technology powering a current-gen headset might be brilliant, but the headset itself -- not the technology but the very idea that I need a headset is still very much an "awful hack". At least to me, and I suspect quite a few others. I could be wrong of course...just my predictions there, but that's my problem with the tech.
Putting on skis and getting to the top of a mountain is inconvienent but people still do it.
As much ink was spilled about competitors' failures, it's interesting that this won't be available some until vague window next year, and needs to be tethered to an iPhone. The interface looks interesting. The ridiculous draw pictures to each other bit, though -- what a gimmick.
It will be the most used feature by young lovers everywhere...
Maybe they will start using Watches instead of doing this:
https://www.google.es/search?q=bridge+padlocks&newwindow=1&h...
Seriously, I can see it being used, but it's still very gimmicky.