IWatch
-
@solo said:
The truth, now I'm wondering with the absense of Mr. Jobs are there visionaries at Apple to continue the trend? What would Steve have done?
I know he was interested in transforming TV but not sure he had a watch on his mind.
i wonder if in 20 years or so, we'll look back on steve jobs' death and link it to the death of apple.. he was an incredibly unique individual with no real counterpart...
i mean, i don't think apple should now try to maintain a "what would steve do?" attitude.. of course, they should try to stay true to some of his visions but the reality is, once a few more years pass, nobody will actually know 'what steve would do' in the current state of the game..
i guess time will tell.
[edit] or hey.. maybe s.jobs already 'peaked' prior to his death.. and the timing actually worked out good in regards to forcing some of his proteges to take the reins.. (strictly talking about apple as a company.. of course his death is untimely no matter how you look at it)..
-
I occasionally read some Mashable and Mac rumour articles (they are huge Apple fan boys) as they get to my news feed (toilet reading), I have started seeing the trend of calling Steve a genius, a legend, etc, etc. Some even credited him to not only the creator of the tablet but also the PC citing all others to be hacks. So I guess no matter who replaces Steve and even how succesful they are, they are damned to fail as nobody can top a legend.
-
@solo said:
I occasionally read some Mashable and Mac rumour articles (they are huge Apple fan boys) as they get to my news feed (toilet reading), I have started seeing the trend of calling Steve a genius, a legend, etc, etc. Some even credited him to not only the creator of the tablet but also the PC citing all others to be hacks. So I guess no matter who replaces Steve and even how succesful they are, they are damned to fail as nobody can top a legend.
yeah.. and i personally probably put him into a legendary realm.. hero_ize him or whatever.. and i've never personally met the guy and know little about him other than a few blips here and there..
which could then possibly be tracked back to apple's hype machine.. "a company run by a god" type of deal..but, from what i can reasonably gather, he almost single handedly pulled apple out of the dumps and made it what it is today.. all the while, keeping me happy with most of my computer needs so...
-
So do you have a picture of him on the wall that you worship, would that be an iSteve or a simple iCon.
Personally for me it would be an iJobbie.
-
@box said:
So do you have a picture of him on the wall that you worship, would that be an iSteve or a simple iCon.
Personally for me it would be an iJobbie.
haha.. no..
i don't worship him like that.. i never even think about him unless there's a discussion like this or i'm watching an iEvent or something..now scarlett johansson et.al on the other hand...
-
Yeah, Steve Job's shadow will be difficult to get our from under by any new bright sparks in Apple no matter how good they are. BTW, I never regarded Jobs as an inventor just a bloody good innovator. He proved time and time again that its possible to get premium price even from the tight fisted ....... says I while typing on my nearly 3 year old MBP
I still think the iPhone4 was a retrograde step, ergonomically. The hard edges are not a nice feel in the hand. The old iPhone3 was much nicer to hold and surely a hand phone should be comfortable to hold!
It will be interesting to see the Apple TV set, curved, if rumor is to be believed! I think the iWatch will come after that, although the I'm Watch would be quite credible as an Apple product, quality wise! All Apple would have to do is drop the 'm' from the name and integrate the OS. Must check if I'm Watch are SM listed ...... maybe a few bob to be made
-
@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. They don't just buy new technology, they also invest heavily in developing it, both in house & through collaborations with other companies.
In one of the earliest (& often forgotten!) examples, almost nobody saw the potential of GUI interfaces until Apple developed PARC's crude implementation by adding key usability features like drop-down menus & overlapping windows … & even after they did, it took many lean years for that investment to pay off. Apple is among the very few computer manufacturing companies to ever have taken an active role in the design & development of CPU architectures optimized for a specific OS, first with the ill-fated (for Apple) AIM Alliance & currently in partnerships with Intel & Samsung.
We even have Apple to thank for Gorilla Glass. Only after Steve Jobs went to Corning in 2006 looking for a rugged, scratch resistant glass for the iPhone project did Corning commit a factory to manufacturing it in large quantities, initially just for the iPhone & now for around two hundred products from many different companies.
I think Apple is without peer in this respect. Its track record is far from perfect but it does seem to have an uncanny ability to make the right bets far more often than anybody else. That's a powerful inducement for other companies to follow suit.
-
Caught this on iClarified,
New renders show how Apple could make wristwatches work more like iPods
Some of the concepts turning up are excellent ...... looking at least
-
@mike lucey said:
Caught this on iClarified,
New renders show how Apple could make wristwatches work more like iPods
but that's basically already out there and being sold by apple nonetheless..
http://store.apple.com/us/product/H4077ZM/B/iwatchz-q-series-watchband-for-ipod-nano
and i highly doubt apple would have a 100 person dev team going at that
@unknownuser said:
Apple Inc. has a team of about 100 product designers working on a wristwatch-like device that may perform some of the tasks now handled by the iPhone and iPad, two people familiar with the company’s plans said.
idk.. i guess i'll just lay off the topic for a while.. but i think people hear "oh.. an apple watch" and think "a watch.. yeah, i already know what that is"
-
For Apple, the style has to be there. It can't just be a nerdy thing hanging on your wrist, and given the jewelry legacy of watchmaking, it's should to be tricky to pull off.
Mike, you make it sound like Job's ghost is more overbearing than having him walking around live to overpower the upcoming idea-person.
-
Meh!! keep the iWatch, gimme Google glasses.
-
-
@unknownuser said:
@solo said:
Meh!! keep the iWatch, gimme Google glasses.
Google goggles!
google maps superimposed via contact lens.. yes please .. sign me up!
-
.
hmmm.. new patent application..
New Apple 'iWatch' Patent Application Reveals Slap Bracelet with Wraparound Touch-Sensitive Display
A newly-published patent application from Apple discovered by AppleInsider discloses a new "bracelet" accessory with a wraparound design where the screen would cover the entire outer surface. While the word "watch" is not used anywhere in the patent application, which was filed in August 2011, the "wearable video device" described in the document could clearly serve as an advanced wristwatch.
MacRumors (www.macrumors.com)
note-- Many of Apple's patent applications of course never come to fruition in the form of released products, with Apple instead seeking to control certain technologies or aspects of devices that may appear in completely different forms. As a result, it is unlikely that Apple has plans to launch such a slap bracelet watch accessory, but the patent application does give some insight into what Apple has been considering as it has worked on the project.*
-
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.
I often think these patent drafters could do with SketchUp
On Apple. Looks like Google could well be giving the a run for their money with the Chromebook Pixel
-
@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.
Advertisement