Report: Apple Watch 2 Coming Late 2016 With GPS, Faster Processor and Better Waterproofing (9to5mac.com) 159
An anonymous reader writes: Apple analyst KGI's Ming-Chi Kuo says the Apple Watch 2 is right around the corner. The analyst says the Watch will arrive in late 2016 and will likely be announced alongside the iPhone 7 in September. It will reportedly feature a GPS, barometer, better waterproofing, as well as a new internal SoC for faster performance. Those looking for a fresh new design may be disappointed as KGI does not expect the physical design of the watch to change at all. The Apple Watch 2 will essentially be an 'iPhone S' update, where it keeps the same physical design with improved internal specifications. In addition to the updated Apple Watch 2, Apple is expected to update the original Apple Watch with a new SoC to improve CPU and GPU performance. The price of the Apple Watch in general should be cut even further than it already has. The original Apple Watch could receive more than a $50 reduction in its pricing, possibly pushing it below the $200 mark. We should know more in early September when Apple unveils the iPhone 7.
Facetime and health (Score:3)
But the true killer app for this kind of device will be the eventual addition of more health related sensors. Probably not in this release though.
Re: Facetime and health (Score:3)
Re: Facetime and health (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost all of those sensors are useless.
Temperature, sure. But is that going to change between the watch and the phone it's tethered to significantly enough for you to care? Likely not. Unless you want to measure something specifically and then you'll need a probe anyway.
3D scanner? You're going to run your wrist around a 3D object? Then what are you going to do with that data? Oh, yeah, ask the phone to do something with it.
Geiger counter? Come on. Cheap $20 sensors in every electronics store. Pointless even 20 years ago except in a "Cor, this is above average" kind of way.
Gas sensors? Much better suited to life-saving equipment designed to life-saving standards... or not at all.
Facetime camera has exactly the problem you suggest, and was my immediate first "Really?!" thought.
I struggle to think of anything vaguely useful for a smartwatch while it's still tethered to the phone that's doing all the work anyway, and if you could miniaturise the phone down to the smartwatch size reliably enough, that's a product in itself and has nothing to do with the applications of watches.
That said, I think I'd still find a watch more inconvenient than a phone. Sure, it's "on you", but it's difficult to have a private conversation without straining your arm, it has to be pulled back from under clothing to look at it for six months a year (my bugbear with watches entirely), and they are in the most inconvenient place to use for any length of time (the reason we put watches in breast-pockets for many years before wrist watches, and wrist watches are - as I've contended for several years - impractical as they are!).
Sod all the fancy stuff.
Shrink the phone down to your wrist first so that it's entirely self-contained and yet competitive with the most basic of smartphones.
Then you'll find how practical the rest is.
Hell, the BATTERY in my smartphone is larger than any watch I'd be comfortable wearing. We have a long way to go before smartwatches get anywhere close.
What we have is not a smartwatch. It's a bluetooth dongle on your wrist. An incredibly expensive, and impractical, one.
Re: Facetime and health (Score:2)
Re: Facetime and health (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When I mentioned health sensors I was thing about non invasive blood glucose and blood oxygen sensors etc -Apple actually hired people with phds in these subjects. Once they get this right for mass production and past regulations, that kind of feature will truly be a killer app.
A non-invasive glucometer that actually WORKS (there are a few, but they are wildly inaccurate and have a very small range of blood-glucose values for which they work even that well) would be a game-changer. Diabetics would buy a Smartwatch JUST for that feature alone.
Re: (Score:2)
I struggle to think of anything vaguely useful for a smartwatch while it's still tethered to the phone that's doing all the work anyway, and if you could miniaturise the phone down to the smartwatch size reliably enough, that's a product in itself and has nothing to do with the applications of watches.
Cannot happen unless people are happy with strapping a Cesium cell to their wrist for long periods of time.
Re: (Score:2)
Well that's what the Geiger counter is for: knowing when the nuclear battery is running out!
LG "Smart" Watch (Score:2)
My LG Smart watch can't even f'n keep time on it's own. If it sits on its base charging, but not bluetooth connected to the phone - within a day or two the time will go out of sync. Within 5 days, the time will be off by at least 30 minutes, and the date will be wrong.
A watch that can't even keep time is NOT a freaking watch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are, but they are specialist devices for measuring x-ray energies. We've had Lithium-Silicon Detectors (Si-Li [canberra.com]) for a long time now, but they were superseded about 10-15 years ago by the Silicon Drift Detectors (SDD [acceleratingscience.com]).
Granted, they may not be portable, and certainly not wrist-sized, but they do exist. If you sacrificed the ability to measure energy (throw away the sensitive amp, negating the need for active cooling, and use a charge-collector circuit) and made the device much smaller then there is no fu
Re: (Score:2)
The only things worth having on a watch are:
- Time/date/stopwatch
- Notifications
- Accurate, always on heart rate sensor
The heart rate sensor will give you a pretty good indications of calories burned. The notifications should include Google Now cards with useful info. Everything else is superfluous and just wastes battery power.
Where a watch is useful (Score:3)
maybe the killer applications will also be external sensors
A wrist watch really only has two things that it is valuable for. 1) portable notification of concise pieces of information (time, short messages, notifications, appointments, temperature readings, etc) and 2) a portable sensor suite and data logger (thermometer, barometer, altimeter, gps, accelerometer, compass, etc) . And these things are really only useful if they come in a package with substantial battery life (1 week minimum) and an interface that isn't absurd. The key word in all that is portable
Perfect is the mortal enemy of 'good enough' (Score:2)
On the other hand, if we waited for the first version of every product to be perfect before shipping, nothing would ever ship.
Complex product design is an iterative process. The first cars didn't ship with airbags, 300 horsepower engines, antilock brakes, and power steering.
Sometimes it's useful to release a product that is useful to a significant market segment, and then get usage statistics and product feedback in order to make it far more useful to a much larger market. And you get some revenue that yo
Get the framework right (Score:2)
On the other hand, if we waited for the first version of every product to be perfect before shipping, nothing would ever ship.
Doesn't have to be perfect. It does has to have the proper design intent. The iPhone got the fundamentals of a smartphone right. That's why pretty much every smartphone since has cribbed a lot of their original design. (which is a good thing) No Apple didn't get every detail correct right away but the framework was there. I don't think Apple has accomplished the same thing with the Apple Watch. Not yet anyway. I also think they are chasing what really is a pretty narrow set of use cases.
Complex product design is an iterative process. The first cars didn't ship with airbags, 300 horsepower engines, antilock brakes, and power steering.
No but they
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is properly informative and insightful
Re: (Score:2)
My take on it is that the technology isn't quite there yet for a really useful smartwatch.
Oh, the technology is there; but almost nobody wants a quarter-pound, 1/2-inch-thick ankle-monitoring bracelet strapped to their wrist, like the Gigantor LG Urbane.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if we waited for the first version of every product to be perfect before shipping, nothing would ever ship.
Precisely!
Re: (Score:2)
My concern with the Apple watch is that they are trying to turn it into another smartphone rather than a device that makes sense by itself within its own design constraints. It's like they are trying to stuff 10 pounds of crap into a 5 pound bag.
Actually, Apple seems to have sussed-out fairly well the dividing-line between what is possible in a Watch, and what still needs to be offloaded to that supercomputer in your pocket. Of course, that line will creep a bit as time goes on; but until there is a Star Trek-sized gain in battery performance (I want the battery that powers the hand-phasers!), then a SmartWatch will remain primarily a "terminal" and sensor-set for your nearby pocket-supercomputer (or other nearby Smart Device).
And, within those c
Status symbols (Score:2)
you forgot "status symbol".
I said "useful". So no, I didn't forget at all. The only thing about it that makes a watch a status symbol is the price and that is an independent variable from the design. A bag of shit could be a status symbol if you could convince people to pay a lot of money for one and display it prominently. (See Trump Fragrances if you need an example)
Re: (Score:2)
So we can get a real time Stamina Bar and HP Indicators.
I think the real killer feature would be so it can be used without being tethered to your phone. And you can take and make a call by putting your thumb in you ear and talking to your pinky.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear GCI is working on this very thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, good idea. Because it's incredibly easy to just get on a plane to Tokyo any time my girlfriend wants to have a face-to-face chat with her uncle or cousin.
What sort of asshole posts the kind of drivel you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Facetime? If I wanted to see someone's face then I'd talk to them in person. What sort of asshole calls you with video.
We finally live just a little bit in the promise of the Jetsons/2001 world, and you want to call people who use that technology "Assholes"?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it myself, email is faster/easier and uses less data.
But it is also much lower-bandwidth as far as actual information communicated goes.
60% of all communication in a face-to-face conversation is non-verbal. This is why online forum conversations often become so heated; partly because all the non-verbal communication-cues are completely lost. Video chats bring that very important aspect back.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it myself, email is faster/easier and uses less data.
But it is also much lower-bandwidth as far as actual information communicated goes.
60% of all communication in a face-to-face conversation is non-verbal. This is why online forum conversations often become so heated; partly because all the non-verbal communication-cues are completely lost. Video chats bring that very important aspect back.
Non verbal communication doesn't make sense. In fact, I rarely look at people when I talk to them. They need to say what they mean and be more direct. I do hate forums, but only because a mail list is much better and doesn't require yet another website sign up and password.
I'm truly very sorry about your Asperger's; however, for the vast majority of humans, non-verbal communication forms an important part of a meaningful dialog with another human, and even with some other species.
Re: (Score:2)
1) GPS. So you can' leave your phone to home and still go running, swimming, driving what ever, without worrying that you have your phone with you. And so that you can get your coordinates in case of emergency or point of interest (press button to store location).
3) Increased battery lifetime 2-3 times.
So, let's get this straight: You want GPS, which is a notorious battery-hog, and a 200-300% battery life (I assume you mean "Run-time") increase, right?
No problem; just as soon as you discover that alternative set of laws of physics, perhaps in that alternate universe you are apparently living in...
Smart watches are dumb (Score:2)
But for now the functionality is so low as to put them in the category
Re: Smart watches are dumb (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Unreliable heart rate detection, GPS and fitness tracking, voice recording on command, what else? In the future a smart watch will be able to project directions on the ground to somewhere or someone you're trying to find; to remind you in the grocery store that you wanted to pick up some milk; to answer arbitrary questions from the internet; to alert emergency services when you've suffered a stroke or car collision; an many other things. But for now the functionality is so low as to put them in the category of "ornament".
Ironically, by the time a smartwatch finally meets your expectations, I will be able to label the wearer an "ornament". At that point, you will have divested the human of any need for critical thinking whatsoever.
Gee, I can't wait to see how "smart" tech will forge The Dumb Generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when I can call Dick Tracey on one without an iPhone in my pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when I can call Dick Tracey on one without an iPhone in my pocket.
You can (sorta) do that now, if you want battery life measured in single-digit hours along with a nearly quarter-pound, 1/2-inch-thick watch.
Re: (Score:2)
How many "Version 1" of other products had 0 problems?
Remember what the original cell phone was.
Cell phone cameras have come far enough that I've ditched my P&S. It's my cell phone camera for the low end and my SLR for the high. That's technology that wasn't even out there a decade ago. The iPhone isn't even 10 years old and now we have Nexus, Samsung, HTC, et al smart phones that are all pretty damn amazing when you consider that in 2001 I took a 833 mHz single core laptop to college.
Yeah, smart watche
Re: (Score:2)
But for now the functionality is so low as to put them in the category of "ornament".
Ya know, when compared with the functionality of a mainframe computer, a VT-100 Terminal is pretty damned "low", too; but I sure wouldn't want to have to wait in line at the datacenter to use the System Console.
Think of SmartWatches primarily as a "Terminal" for your "mainframe-in-your-pocket" Smartphone.
Linux Fandroids are always saying their Smartphones are just little computers (which is sorta, kinda, maybe a little true); so, doesn't it make sense that it would have a separate "Remote Access Termina
Re: (Score:3)
You completely misunderstand the watch market I am afraid.
Watches that command $25k do so because of what they are - they are a way of demonstrating wealth. Those are decidedly midrange in this market.
The people who wear them would not be caught dead wearing any form of smartwatch. Smartwatches are a way of saying 'look how tech I am', which is a very different message.
These (
valuable' watches are also, very VERY specifically, timeless. they DONT update the models every year or two, or even every decade or
Re: Smart watches are dumb (Score:4, Interesting)
For watches that don't change very much, I've noticed they have changed without a ton of observation.
My wife gave me a Tag Heuer chronograph for my birthday. Now this is the fast food level of nice watches, but it was $2500 new in 2007. I'd like to tell you what it is new now, but they don't make a Tag with the same movement or features anymore. The most comparable chronograph (but without day) was close to $4000.
And when I was in the jewelry store to pick up my serviced Tag, I heard the jeweler telling a customer that her high-end Swiss watch no longer had a bracelet available for it from the manufacturer, if she wanted one they would have to try to find a third party bracelet and modify it to fit her watch.
IMHO, there may a couple of signature models (like the Submariner or the Omega Speedmaster) that are kept the same for brand identity purposes, but my take is that these brands are constantly revising their product line for fashion purposes and to align with whatever the Swiss movement consortium is putting out these days.
Maybe a handful of ultra-expensive watch brands are still the same as they ever were, probably those that make their own movements, hand assemble them and use a lot of precious metals, but overall the "nice watch" thing seems to be just another consumer product that changes with the whims of fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Smartwatches are a way of saying 'look how tech I am'
No, THIS watch [cathodecorner.com] (or perhaps THIS one [ebay.com]) is a way of saying "Look how tech I am".
BTW, Woz has worn [nuvitron.com] a Nixie-Tube watch for years
Re: (Score:2)
1H battery life (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
GPS sensors have come a long way.
http://www.mouser.com/ds/2/238... [mouser.com]
A GPS/GALILEO/GLONASS sensor that draws 16 mA tracking. That's ~15 hours on the Apple Watch battery (excluding all other loads).
Some intelligent power saving techniques to not monitor continuously and you could easily extend that.
Re: (Score:2)
A GPS/GALILEO/GLONASS sensor that draws 16 mA tracking.
Wow, that really IS stellar (pun intended)!
Too bad it's still vaporware...
Sigh (Score:5, Interesting)
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Otherwise it's water-resistant.
It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Otherwise it's water-resistant.
It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
Maybe it was only proofed against heavy water, and now they're expanding the proofing to tritiated water. I mean who uses the normal stuff these days anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Nothing is absolutely waterproof. If you take any watch to the bottom of Europa's ocean (where the pressure is several times the pressure of the Marianas trench), it will leak. Watches are usually considered "waterproof" if they can be submerged at least 10 meters. If they can go even deeper, then they are "more waterproof".
Waterproof is condition dependent (Score:2)
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Not true at all. A watch can be waterproof at 1m depth and not waterproof at 20m depth. That is true for any device, whether it be a submarine, a wristwatch or anything else. You can accurately describe something as waterproof as long as you also provide the conditions under which it is waterproof. Water resistant means that it will not immediately fail under a particular set of conditions but that prolonged exposure will probably result in damage or failure eventually. Water proof means it can withsta
Re: (Score:2)
ledow makes an idiot-proof statement.
Nature makes a better idiot in sjbe.
Re: (Score:2)
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Not true at all. A watch can be waterproof at 1m depth and not waterproof at 20m depth. That is true for any device, whether it be a submarine, a wristwatch or anything else. You can accurately describe something as waterproof as long as you also provide the conditions under which it is waterproof. Water resistant means that it will not immediately fail under a particular set of conditions but that prolonged exposure will probably result in damage or failure eventually. Water proof means it can withstand those condition indefinitely without ill effect. See the difference?
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
Incorrect. It means it is waterproof in conditions where it wasn't previously.
The correct answer here is E) None of the above, because no model of Apple watch is actually waterproof. They are merely water resistant. And unless Apple is going to reference a waterproof standard, at the end of the day it still means they are stupid enough to sell a "sport" model that can barely withstand being caught in a heavy rain.
Water proof means it can withstand those condition indefinitely without ill effect.
By your own words, I hope you now understand the parents point when defining "proof" as an absolute. Yes, there are varying standards (depths) of being waterproof, but it
They do reference a standard. (Score:3)
It's IPX7 under IEC standard 60529.
Then there's no such thing as "water-proof" (Score:2)
All that exists is various levels of water resistance.
Or are you saying that a cheap "water-proof" Casio will still work after being submerged to a depth of 10,000 ft for a year?
FWIW, the original Apple watch is rated IPX7 under IEC standard 60529, meaning that it can sustain being submerged under 1 meter of water for 30 min.
Re: (Score:2)
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
Otherwise it's water-resistant.
It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.
"Better waterproofing" just means it wasn't waterproof before.
I guess the article talk about better IP rating : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ [wikipedia.org]... [wikipedia.org]
The apple watch is rated IPX7. The first digit ‘X’ means that there's no certified protection rating for solid particle. But we can easily guess that's it's the equivalent of 6, which is "Dust tight" protection.
The second digit '7' mean that it's certified for immersion up to 1m depth. So you can bring your watch in a small pool, but not if you like to dive.
So, in this case, TFA is probably implies
Re: (Score:2)
It might be water-resistant at a greater depth, but if you're claiming water-resistance, it should at least be resistant to any reasonable depth the average (non-diver) might use to in anyway.
Oh, you mean unlike all those not-so-water-resistant Samsung phones [consumerreports.org], right?
Re: (Score:2)
"Proof" is an absolute. It's either waterproof or its not.
I assume you don't understand physics and don't realise that water exerts different pressures. There is no absolute water proofing. I'll take your fancy water proof smart watch and drop it in the mariana trench, and when we get it back lets see how well it worked.
Waterproof is a big sliding scale where anything is better than nothing but things can always be improved. My smartphone is waterproof. I have no problem putting it under a tap for a quick rinse, but I wouldn't take it on a diving trip. My gopro is
GPS = Hot! Not something I want. (Score:4, Interesting)
When I use the GPS on my iPhone5 it gets hot. (And it eats the battery.)
The last thing I want is something hot on my wrist unless it's 0C. (Which is hardly ever.)
And will /. ever enter the 21st Century and let me enter a fricken degree sign?
Re: (Score:2)
For sports activities, my wife acquired a TomTom GPS watch (including pulse measuring). I regularly wear it for running, and never noticed it getting hot. Same goes for my Samsung android phone, I never noticed it heating up more than usual when GPS is active. I'd guess that implementation on the iPhone is less than optimal, or there's another reason for it getting hot.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats the software using the GPS, not the GS itself. they use a surprisingly small amount of power these days.
The processor loads (and therefore power/heat) come from the software to display the pretty maps that people now expect/demand.
Having said that, unless the watch can operate independant of the phone, this is just stupid, because the phone already has a gps..
so, it is kind of assumed that they will be giving the watch a little more independence.
Re: (Score:2)
I run with an iPhone 6 (and RunKeeper) for about an hour and it doesn't get hot. Sounds like something is broken.
Re: (Score:2)
And will /. ever enter the 21st Century and let me enter a fricken degree sign?
If you wrote the temperature in kelvin you wouldn't need a degree sign....
Re: (Score:2)
"When I use the GPS on my iPhone5 it gets hot. (And it eats the battery.)"
This depends on the GPS app you're using. I hike with Motion-X, which autopauses the GPS readings when it senses that you are on a water break or have been eaten by a bear. This gives you enough battery life to hike all day.
Re: (Score:2)
or have been eaten by a bear
Not if the bear has to drag you back to its den first...
And the world said... (Score:2, Insightful)
...*yaaawn*
Sorry Apple, but your watch is not the killer product you thought it was. Beyond the usual fanboys nobody is interested, not just in your smartwatch, but in any smartwatch. Phones do everything the watch can do much better except as a convenient way to tell the time, and if thats all you need the watch to do you can get a a Casio for the price of a takeaway that will do it equally well and have a 5 year battery life on top.
Re: (Score:2)
"Sorry Apple, but your IPad is not the killer product you thought it was. Beyond the usual fanboys nobody is interested, not just in your iPad, but in any tablet. Laptops do everything the iPad can do much better except as a convenient way to surf the web and if thats all you need the iPad to do you can get a a Netbook for the price of a takeaway that will do it equally well and have a 5 year battery life on top."
Didn't you post this same thing a few years ago!
Re: (Score:2)
"Sorry Apple, but your iPod is not the killer product you thought it was. Beyond the usual fanboys nobody is interested. No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."
Re: (Score:2)
"Didn't you post this same thing a few years ago!"
No. But its hardly a unique opinion.
Que the usual jokes... (Score:5, Funny)
How does a Apple fanboy know when it's 12 o clock? He looks at his wrist and sees his Apple watch has run out of battery.
Are we supposed to get in line with other jokes? (Score:2, Funny)
Or are you really so fucking stupid that you don't know how to spell "Cue"?
Re: (Score:2)
Er, no. In this context, cue is correct, queue is incorrect. How long would it have taken for you to check your correction on Google? But then, I guess the fact that you don't know the difference between cue and queue is ample proof that you're too dim to think of doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
Cue, as "Cue the haters to queue their abuse."
Or in "fucking english", that would be "Cue, as in fucking queue the goddam haters to queue their dumfuck asses up to shit their abuse."
Upgrade? (Score:2)
I wish they'd do something similar for their computers, given the fact that most of their computers are non-upgradable and it's all soldered on the motherboards now (CPU, GPU and RAM).
And so the hype begins... (Score:2)
Two of the most important missing feature (Score:2)
It baffle me that we now buy watch that fail at it's actual main purpose : being a watch.
So far, most smart watches are inferior at their main job compared to "not smart" one. And the key feature (in my mind) are :
- Give you the time efficiently
- No need to recharge
- It's look (will you wear it in a interview?)
So far, the first apple watch fail at those three task (like most smart watch anyway). I wouldn't be wearing one if it wasn't for a girlfriend that bough me one as a Christmas present and I'm glad tha
Better waterproofing? (Score:2)
Something is waterproof or it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Something is waterproof or it is not.
I guess the article talk about better IP rating : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The apple watch is rated IPX7. The first digit ‘X’ means that there's no certified protection rating for solid particle. But we can easily guess that's it's the equivalent of 6, which is "Dust tight" protection.
The second digit '7' mean that it's certified for immersion up to 1m depth. So you can bring your watch in a small pool, but not if you like to dive.
So, in this case, TFA is probably implies that the Apple
Re: (Score:2)
Nice post. Would mod informative.
Better Waterboarding? (Score:2)
And it's still a POS (Score:2)
"GPS, Faster Processor and Better Waterproofing" ...and it'll still be a flop.
Re:News for nerds, (Score:4, Insightful)
Less space than a Nomad. Lame.
We all know the iPod had zero affect on anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Because when a company has success with one thing once, clearly every shit they come up with later must be equally successful.
I think following up the success of the iPod with the success of the iPhone is pretty much an example of "Lightning Striking Twice" as far as disruptive consumer product creation goes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see these things as lightning strikes. Apple had a period of 10+ years where they were making some pretty innovative stuff.
The company seems to have lost its way with Jobs gone now, as evidenced by junk like the Apple Watch, the missing headphone jack on the iPhones, etc etc. They have lost the focus on user experience.
But the iPod and iPad weren't just lightning striking someplace randomly. Apple completely changed the way consumers bought PCs in the 2000s, changed the music industry, and many othe
Re: (Score:2)
But the iPod and iPad weren't just lightning striking someplace randomly. Apple completely changed the way consumers bought PCs in the 2000s, changed the music industry, and many other areas of the marketplace.
You're right. Perhaps I used the Lightning-Striking analogy a little incorrectly.
And it was actually THREE times (iPod, iPhone, iPad) pretty much in a row, which is even more remarkable.
However, I disagree that Apple is "lost" without Jobs. He just happened to exit this plane of existence pretty much at the same time as the technological low-hanging-fruit was becoming hard to find.
Personal Music Players were already quite popular when the iPod debuted. Same thing with cellphones: A company who had alr
Re: (Score:2)
I think following up the success of the iPod with the success of the iPhone is pretty much an example of "Lightning Striking Twice" as far as disruptive consumer product creation goes.
Careful with the cherry picking. While there's no doubt that the iPod and the iPhone were phenomenal successes, there are a myriad of failures in there as well even between the devices. Remember the god awful iBook anyone? Even after the iPod came out Apple was pretty much a joke in the computing world unless you were a graphic artist, and somehow they managed to piss off those users too before the introduction of the sleek aluminium Macbook AFTER the introduction of the iPhone.
Sometimes the goose that lays
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
All I know is that it's not powered by a Raspberry Pi, it doesn't have a 3D-printed case, it's not an IoT device and it's not OSS nor OpenHardware.
Re: (Score:2)
But does Elon Musk wear one?
Re: (Score:2)
and can I buy it with Bitcoin?
Re:News for nerds, (Score:4, Insightful)
Nobody? There are more than 1 person who has an Apple watch and cares about it.
Sometimes we put Apple on a different set of standard for success.
the iPod, and iPhone were huge and changed how we dealt with mobile hardware.
the iPad and iWatch are mostly toys based off of the success of the iPod and iPhone. Being that they didn't completely change the industry doesn't mean it is a failure. I personally don't see the iWatch worth the money. However some do. And I am not going judge them on that. Because there are things I get for myself that are just as silly but makes me feel good. Like my mechanical keyboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Like my mechanical keyboard.
Don't forget the high DPI mouse with ZeroLatency(tm) 'gold plated' signaling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The great thing about being a company with more spare cash than most national budgets is that every so often you can throw out not just a test product, but an entire test category. Apple wants to know if some use case emerges that will motivate people outside the jewelry-watch demographic to start wearing something on their wrist again. A secondary question the Watch is asking is whether there are good use cases for other sorts of wearable devices. A pendant? A skin patch?
Re: (Score:2)
Your right there is more than 1 person who has an Apple Watch and cares about it.. I like it and I like my mechanical keyboard too.
Re: (Score:2)
and some additional stuff that nobody cares about..
Like your comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone figured what the point of a smartwatch is?
Yes. The purpose of a smartphone is to impress people that you don't like. It is a fashion accessory, not a tech device.
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone figured what the point of a smartwatch is?
Yes. The purpose of a smartphone is to impress people that you don't like. It is a fashion accessory, not a tech device.
OK, that's smartphones sorted. But what about smartwatches?
Urgent attention getting (Score:2)
The most common use case I hear for smartwatches is "I don't need to pull out my phone to look at notifications during meetings!". Yeah, neither do The sort of notification that may require my immediate attention during a meeting (or any other situation, really) comes with a klaxon, a red strobe light and people wailing about the awakening of Cthulhu and end of the world (i.e., the network is down).
Exactly. If something really demands my immediate attention either A) I know about it in advance and just warn people when socially necessary that I might have to attend to whatever it is or B) I don't know about it in advance but it will come from a source that will know how to get my attention in an emergency (call my secretary, etc) and so a watch provides zero additional value. But almost always it can wait a few minutes. I just don't get the notification argument for a phone. The marginal value of
Re: (Score:2)
It is a toy. That may offer some minor conveniences to your life.
However I remember back in the early 2000's that PC Modding was big. PC with a Window full of Neon Lights and Fans with LEDs, colored cooling water cool tubes. Or those curvy "ergonomic" keyboards back in the 1990's that were so popular. We had a brief trackball trend, and Laptops made from different metals.
Other than getting a fuel efficient car that can fit you and your family, people opt for larger cars, and trucks even if they are not ha
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone figured out what the point of a cell phone is?
I understand household phones but why would you need to talk to anyone not at home?
Re: (Score:2)
Only cultists, refer to their opponents as "haters". Go consult your e-meter, dude.
Only Anonymous Cowards post worthless, untruthful hatred on Slashdot.
So STFU and FOAD, COWARD.