581–590 of 863 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your statistic confused me until I realized you were [assumedly] referencing females who keep their phones in their purses/bags.
Please try to say women, not "females." I don't think you meant anything by it but when you always see that usage, (common in tech spaces) it starts to feel a little dehumanizing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. The fact that you believe what Apple says about Google rather than taking the two minutes to actually look at how Android Wear works and see that that statement is completely false shows that the distortion field is in full effect.
I mean, this is the same company that, during the keynote today, repeated the lie that they're the mob that brought us the computer mouse. People just accept Apple's misstatements and half-truths and outright lies as fact now.
Still, when they were talking about the digital crown, they did make it sound like they were trying to claim they invented the optical rotary encoder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its a bit of both. But when it comes to utility. A simple watch has not been replaced by smart phones yet. That is because there are places, instances and people where/who just can't pull out their phones and check time.
Why do you think anyone cares whether phones replace watches? How is that at all relevant to the purpose of watches?
But that didn't cover all people and all use cases. There are many use cases where you can't use your phone to check time. And in such places a wrist watch is a indispensable utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why the face wouldn't be reversible - it detaches completely from the strap, and it's not like the software UI is going to be upside down - your phone can already handle that. The only difference will be that the crown is below the button.
Agreed, it just seems like something that Apple ought to mention. Can't find it anywhere on their website. And orientation changing makes sense for a phone feature because people switch between portrait and landscape, while this is a permanent setting that 90% of people would never touch. It'd be a giant oversight for Apple though, and I'd be surprised if nobody on their design team is left handed.
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…
The reality distortion field and the ability to spin those negatives as positives are features, though. A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. How well it tells the time or does other things is much less important than how fashionable it is. Branding is one of Apple's strong suits, and you can't take that away by adding features as if consumer purchasing decisions are based on some kind of checklist-like RFPs like…
or saying a watch is for time keeping is not very forward thinking IMO. Its like saying 10 years ago, a smart phone is just a phone. Less and less people actually use it to make calls and use it more for many of other functionality it provides.
I worry this will be a massive target for theft. If someone sees you wearing an Apple Watch they know you have at least a $350 watch and $400+ phone on your person.
At least with the watches, if you wear long sleeved shirts, nobody will see it. Only while wearing tshirts it would be visible.
As far as mugging potential goes, I think nowadays you could attempt to mug any person on the street and chances are pretty high that they carry a smartphone which has at least a value of 350 dollars. Android or iOS. So, I don't really think that theft would be a bigger problem than it already is with smartphones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
(Totally offtopic but running near the Whitehouse in DC is funny because they screw with GPS accuracy so you bounce all over the place)
How is that possible? GPS satellites are sending the same signal out to everyone, I don't see how they could possibly target a certain area.
[1]: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21582288-satelli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." Both of these are trivially demonstrated false. And I'm sure Google has put thought and effort into Android Wear, but what you dismiss as a "trite speech from Tim Cook" looks to me like a stake in the ground. Google says…
> Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch Citation needed. As GP said, the Android Wear team has considered the UX for wearables from the ground up. You're delusional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay, can you give me an example of a ui element that would be usefully different on a 6" phone vs a 6" tablet?
Unlock screen. Inactivity timer. Lockscreen alert message. Wifi configuration. Notification center.
My biggest take away is that Apple has failed to advance the state of the art in any meaningful way here. I guess hype is always hype, but people really expected that Apple would do something that would knock this out of the park - a week long battery life, a flexible watch face, or a bracelet style 360 degree screen or something else that would just reset the whole space. It didn't happen. This device may sell well…
It's exactly one generation ahead.
I fail to see what this offers that the other products in this space doesn't have. At least hardware-wise.