IWatch
-
@mike lucey said:
Saw that also Jeff. Looks like they are quite serious about it. I also read that they (Apple) probably leaked their intentions about an iWatch for various reasons.
gotta get those shares back up somehow
it's like they've trapped themselves regarding $.. they've set the bar so high and now are expected to be able to maintain those types of figures consistently..re: this slap on watch..
i actually think it looks really cool but in this case, i definitely think the patent is a guise..that thing is way too easy to steal.. it will never see mass production simply based off that..
-
I'd say Apple have seen the buzz about the various iWatches coming on stream from small start-ups and want a piece of the action. I still think they intend to buy one of these start-ups out ...... after all Apple is still floating in a sea of cash
My money is on an i'm Watch buy-out ..... then again I also like the CooKoo watch
-
@livemixer said:
@unknownuser said:
... to me, apple is basically a marketing firm.. except they have enough money to just buy the inventions/products/technology then claim them as their own...
There is a lot more to it than that. Apple is among the very few major corporations willing to take big financial risks on innovative new products with no proven track record of success. [....]
right.. i fully see what you're saying.. but to me, the actual technology & the money side of things are not very closely related..
here's a post i made at a different forum.. i think it more accurately sums up what i mean when i say 'apple is basically a marketing firm'..
(background- at a mac forum discussing google glasses... two other people were talking along the lines of "google isn't innovating.. they're stealing ideas from such and such movie.. " (it was a bit more than that but this will do)...)
and i responded
@unknownuser said:
not sure if you've ever actually designed something but generally, you'll play with it in your head for a while.. then you'll rough sketch it, then add some details, get it into a tangible and or somewhat realistic concept.... all the while, you don't even know if the thing can work..
these glasses.. many of these things apple is selling.. etc.. these ideas are larger than any one company.. they've been accumulating over long periods of times and in most cases, longer than the corporations themselves have even existed..
movies/props are infact viable testing grounds for a future technology.. because you can use the designs -as they are designed to do or what the idea is about... while in the phase of progress when they don't have to actually work..
but come on.. give humanity/society some credit.. we're arguably failing in many ways but with technology, we're all more or less working as one..
point is.. of course they were a movie prop once..
-
@unknownuser said:
right.. i fully see what you're saying.. but to me, the actual technology & the money side of things are not very closely related..
To me, they are very closely related. Anybody can dream about using some great new partially developed technology for all sorts of things, but turning those ideas into useful, practical products is a difficult & expensive process. If you don't invest enough in R&D to get the details right, it doesn't matter how good you are at marketing.
For example, the basic concept of wearable computers with some kind of heads-up personal display, touch and/or voice input, & so on has been around for years (for decades, if you include "movie magic" & science fiction novels) but over the past three years Google has invested millions in turning that concept into a practical consumer product & the development team freely admits they are still a long way from that. They aren't even certain it ever will become anything more than a curiosity with no mass market appeal.
An interesting article about the Google Glass project is at http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4013406/i-used-google-glass-its-the-future-with-monthly-updates.
-
but even within a single corporation, you can still witness a separation of money and trchnology..
basically there are the bigwigs and they're in control of what money goes where.. but that board, those people are generally incapable of producing the product or researching the technology.. there are two entirely different skills sets going on.. the business minded then the actual technicians (employees being paid by bigwig for their knowledge)..
so while its possible to see apple the corporation as some incredibly smart/innovative corporation.. it's also possible to see them as an incredibly smart set of business people with powerful ways of luring the necessary technicians into working for them.
-
@unknownuser said:
so while its possible to see apple the corporation as some incredibly smart/innovative corporation.. it's also possible to see them as an incredibly smart set of business people with powerful ways of luring the necessary technicians into working for them.
I think Apple is both of these things. And like I said, it is also a corporation not afraid to place big financial bets on things that may not pay off, which is part of the reason it can attract top-notch talent. Same for Google.
-
.
Corning Says Devices With Flexible 'Willow Glass' Displays Unlikely to Appear for at Least Three Years
Corning Says Devices With Flexible 'Willow Glass' Displays Unlikely to Appear for at Least Three Years
While The New York Times reported earlier this month that Apple is working on a curved glass smart watch that could potentially make use of...
MacRumors (www.macrumors.com)
@unknownuser said:
Clappin noted that Willow Glass may find its way into some simple products as soon as later this year, but that more complex applications such as flexible displays will require substantially more work before they can be brought to market.
so i guess we're just not technically there yet as far as what i was imagining possible with an iwatch..
we'll probably see a 'kinda' version sooner... then the new tech trickles into it over the years.. (i.e.- wait til version 3 or so of an iwatch before actually buying one
) -
I couldn't imagine there was a risk at all (how can it not succeed?).
@unknownuser said:
wait til version 3 or so of an iwatch before actually buying one
But I'm impressed by your patience, respect !;-) Ok, that could prevent its success
-
@aerilius said:
But I'm impressed by your patience, respect !;-)
ha.. i remember when the iPad first came out.. i was thinking something similar (wait for a version that can do what i need.. ie- let me draw and/or obtain dimensions&cut lists from 3d models)..
.. i still don't own one
this might be a software thing instead of the tablet itself but either way....
-
Hey Jeff ...... I think you could be talking to yourself ....... can't have that
I've just noticed a leak that we could be seeing a reduced cost 4.5" iPhone5S in 2014 in polycarbonate. I'll hold on for that as I think it could be a winner, lighter, cheaper and easier on the hand. I don't like steel band!!!
Apple to Release Polycarbonate 4.5-Inch iPhone in 2014?
A new report claims that Apple will release a polycarbonate 4.5-inch iPhone in 2014.
iClarified (www.iclarified.com)
I see you are talking glass above and iPads ...... eeeeeerrrrrr ....... I won't say what happened to my iPad last week!but the end result is nastly!
Anyway, if I had a Rhino Sheild or as the dyslectic developer calls it, Rhino Shied!, I would not be looking as a nasty looking screen. Its a Kickstarter project and the pricing is fair considering a replacement screen costs in the region of $150+
Mike
-
I always thought the metal band was the antennae ?
even if it is, I guess they can get reception via other methods.re: broken iPad glass.. my daughters computer is an iPad. and I stepped on it last month.. and no- not pretty
-
-
(that's possibly getting into lcd damage there instead of just the digitizer.. might as well just trash it at that point due to repair costs being so high)
Advertisement