If the rumours about non-evasive glucose monitoring becomes reality; will be a game changer.
It really would, but I don't think that will happen this year. Would love to be proved wrong.
If the rumours about non-evasive glucose monitoring becomes reality; will be a game changer.
Umm if you buy a S4 in the USA ECG works in any country.I don't think there was any promise made to support ECG on series 4 outside the US. If you go to the foreign Apple websites, there's no mention of ECG. Zero. So I wouldn't be surprised if only series 5 has ECG support outside US.
Plus, given the amount of time that has passed, might as well wait for a series 5.
The reason is that apple has done nothing to make it work. If there are no application left, it wont hapoen by itself.
And that has nothing similar with apple pay. Many countries has their own nfc thing already - been years before apple pay - and banks are not interested in paying apple for apple pay.
Apple isn't submitting the approvals. (see: Canada, Australia) So yes, we have the right to be angry at Apple for advertising a feature that doesn't exist. I'm surprised there hasn't been any lawsuits yet.It’s so easy to take pot shots at Apple, isn’t it? Way easier than, say, reading the article, where you’ll be reminded of this:
It’s not Apple dis“allowing” anything. It’s the approval process in other countries that’s taking time. Let’s not get too indignant that an American company first rolled out a new feature to the American market.
Apple hasn’t advertised ECG as being a feature anywhere besides the US afaik. I’m not sure there’s anything to file suit about.Apple isn't submitting the approvals. (see: Canada, Australia) So yes, we have the right to be angry at Apple for advertising a feature that doesn't exist. I'm surprised there hasn't been any lawsuits yet.
Way too expensive for what the watch is, in my opinion.I'd like to see the ceramic come back, it's a great material for a watch.
Your refutation doesn’t really imply anything to my post and lacks substance. Let’s break this down:
It’s common knowledge, the ceramic is _not_ nearly as popular due to the exorbitant price point as the aluminum would be, simply because consumers aren’t willing to spend that much on a casing material, So put yourself in the minority of a demographic that actually would spend _that_ much on a smart watch with the ceramic, when most retailers wouldn’t even carry that specific model in their store, let alone the stainless, simply because of the popular/cheapest model, which would be the aluminum. Rather you choosing to not purchase a Series 4 because it doesn’t offer ceramic, that’s your prerogative, but it doesn’t change the fact that consumers are attracted to that specific casing, when they don’t care about that or even understand the direct advantages, especially when all the Apple Watch models are operating the same watchOS.
Apple isn't submitting the approvals. (see: Canada, Australia) So yes, we have the right to be angry at Apple for advertising a feature that doesn't exist. I'm surprised there hasn't been any lawsuits yet.
Here's an odd thing. I sprang for a ceramic Watch 3 and never really liked it because its high gloss finish made it look like it was a piece of cheap plastic. Now I have a Watch 4 with a space grey aluminum case and I like it a lot because its matte surface makes it look expensive. What's the point in owning a luxury product if it doesn't look luxurious?
Here's an odd thing. I sprang for a ceramic Watch 3 and never really liked it because its high gloss finish made it look like it was a piece of cheap plastic. Now I have a Watch 4 with a space grey aluminum case and I like it a lot because its matte surface makes it look expensive. What's the point in owning a luxury product if it doesn't look luxurious?
These devices already exist:When ECG gets through each countries regulations, then it will be activated.
If the rumours about non-evasive glucose monitoring becomes reality; will be a game changer.
I don't understand why they are not using Liquid Metal on Apple Watch. Yes Ceramics has its own set of issues, such as scratches and brittle. But it has much better Radio property than Aluminium. Stainless Steel keeps it clean and hard, but is awful at Radio, comparatively speaking. Aluminium Sits in between of both, while Liquid Metal gives you best of both world.
They could put some sort of layer on top of Ceramics to further protect it from Scratches and breaking. It could be Enhanced Sapphire coating.
+1
I like the idea of a scratchless case. But both colors of the ceramik case looked like cheap plastic.
I still use the first generation Apple Watch (Generation 0 I guess), I'm thinking to upgrade a newer one, if ECG will take years available outside the US I wonder should I get Series 4 or Series 3?
Are there significant differences between those two generations, besides ECG?
Apple isn't submitting the approvals. (see: Canada, Australia) So yes, we have the right to be angry at Apple for advertising a feature that doesn't exist. I'm surprised there hasn't been any lawsuits yet.
No, just look above messages when people has asked about their authority if apple has left applications or not in their country. I have also asked and our authority has no record that apple has left any application that is needed for ecg.
What do you mean? I never see sweat marks on my ceramic white Apple Watch, and it’s always scratchless, compared to the stainless steel Apple Watch I used to own.
I’m not sure if your conflating your own negative experiences with the Ceramic edition with the resale difficulty? Did you try pricing it at 50% or less of what you got it for?
Damn do you think it’ll be hard to sell my Hermès Series 4? I hope not. I mean, I don’t think I would even get rid of it just yet.
So... what's your point? My point is that ECG is not a feature on phones sold overseas. It never was. And probably won't be for series 4.Umm if you buy a S4 in the USA ECG works in any country.
Well my point, on this, is that you are wrong..... ECG is "a feature on phones sold overseas" if you buy your paired series 4 apple watch in the US.So... what's your point? My point is that ECG is not a feature on phones sold overseas. It never was. And probably won't be for series 4.
What? Read your own statement again... By overseas, I mean every country other than the US.Well my point, on this, is that you are wrong..... ECG is "a feature on phones sold overseas" if you buy your paired series 4 apple watch in the US.
So do I. Can you please read my statement again and just accept it. I have a iPhone bought out of the US and a S4 apple watch bought in the US. I am, at the moment, out of the US and the ECG "feature" works just fine.By overseas, I mean every country other than the US.
Now you're just playing word games. You know that's not my point. Even if you didn't know that before and somehow misunderstood, you know now. Do you have any substantive to reply to my argument? I don't really care if your apple watch works or not and have no interest in continuing (or even starting) a conversation about that.So do I. Can you please read my statement again and just accept it. I have a iPhone bought out of the US and a S4 apple watch bought in the US. I am, at the moment, out of the US and the ECG "feature" works just fine.
My experience is that my iPhone (bought overseas/out of the US) shows my Sinus Rhythm and tells me I do not have Atrial Fib. I can also send the chart to my Dr as a PDF if I choose. Is that substantive enough for you?Do you have any substantive to reply to my argument?
Again, as I have said, I don't care about your watch. That was not what I wanted to say in any of my posts. You're purposely ignoring my point and trying to divert the argument to something I have no interesting in talking about or even disagree about. So no, this is not a substantive reply to my argument.My experience is that my iPhone (bought overseas/out of the US) shows my Sinus Rhythm and tells me I do not have Atrial Fib. I can also send the chart to my Dr as a PDF if I choose. Is that substantive enough for you?