Apple Close to Striking Deal with LG Display for iWatch OLED Displays

[makaveli559m]

I am hoping that those screens don't have that image retention problems that hit the Retina displays. Hopefully Apple makes the watches out of stainless steel instead of plastic. The coolest thing they can also add for long lasting battery life would be some solar cells on the actual band of the watch

 

[ActionableMango]

Oh geez. Will this line of thought never cease? The poor horse is so mutilated -- is there even anything left to kick?

(If your imagination can take you no further than to see a watch as only a timepiece or jewelery just accept the fact you are not a creative person and think linearly. No shame in that, everyone is widely differently. It's what makes us all unique. But don't beat up people b/c they can think differently and reinvent and update a common object for modern life.)

Wow, calm down. He said he was "curious to know what utility Apple thinks a smartwatch has for the end user", so it sounds like he's open to seeing what Apple can bring to the table. You complain that he's "beating up people" without recognizing that you're actually the one doing that.

 

[69650]

So you wouldn't want something that can fulfil all of those functions, plus have the fitness aspect?

My gut feeling is that Tim Cook is a fitness fanatic, has a FuelBand, sat on the board there and Apple seem to be cooking up an iWatch.

Jesus. Put 2 & 2 together!

Ok Tim Cook is an idiot then. I would not buy such a device. I want a tech smartwatch not some stupid fitness crap for show-offs in the gym. Add this to the gold iPhone and Apple are pandering to the elitist crowd once again.

 

[53buick]

Obviously you can't see the forrest for the trees. You also have a rigid thought process. Just accept it. Anytime someone starts off with "...by definition," it's a clue their mind processes with inflexible rules.

So let me speak your language. Definitions by definition may change as society changes or even among different societies. Gay in 1930 meant something entirely different than it does in 2013. In London a subway is a tube; elevator:lift, and so on.

In 1910 bacon was a lunch or dinner food. In 1940 it was used for all meals. In 1940 orange juice was predominantly for breakfast. In 1980 it was for anytime. Public relations and societal acceptance changed all that.

So when you say a watch by definition is a timepiece you are basically saying it can't ever have another meaning which is false because words are created by humans. The truth is a watch is whatever meaning a society puts on it. A lot of people understand the more modern meaning that it's something worn on the wrist that provides information and other functionality.

I like the way you think. The possibilities for this new iDevice are ultimately endless and this first one will be the next leap in technological, communicational and aesthetical progression. I'm looking forward to it.

 

[joejoejoe]

I hope not. If I wanted a Nike Fuelband I could buy one now or one of the many other fitness watches. I want something that acts as an addition to my iPhone. Something I can look at quickly to see who's calling without having to get my iPhone out of my pocket. Something that vibrates when I receive an email or reminds me that I have to leave for a meeting in 5 minutes. Something that vibrates when there's a wicket down in the cricket match I'm following, etc, etc. I don't want yet another fitness watch.

Mix being the operative word.

The iWatch will undoubtedly be an addition to the iPhone with all the features you listed. Not including fitness/biometric features such as those in the fuelband would be a wasted opportunity.

Between Touch ID and the M7 processor, Apple is really emphasizing our devices being more in sync with our body and movements. Not including this on the watch would not only be a missed opportunity, but a big disappointment to investors.

Since the iPhone, (less so since the iPad), Apple hasn't released a revolutionary product. There's a huge opportunity here for Apple to bring us something that changes the way in which we interact with tech on a daily basis (as the iPhone and iPad did).

Giving us something that simply acts as another notifications device will be a let down to the market. Pebble already did this, Samsung made a horrible rendition of it. It's apple's chance to step up.

All that aside, if you don't want to use motion/fitness features, I don't imagine you'd be forced to!

 

[Klae17]

Obviously you can't see the forrest for the trees. You also have a rigid thought process. Just accept it. Anytime someone starts off with "...by definition," it's a clue their mind processes with inflexible rules.

So let me speak your language. Definitions by definition may change as society changes or even among different societies. Gay in 1930 meant something entirely different than it does in 2013. In London a subway is a tube; elevator:lift, and so on.

In 1910 bacon was a lunch or dinner food. In 1940 it was used for all meals. In 1940 orange juice was predominantly for breakfast. In 1980 it was for anytime. Public relations and societal acceptance changed all that.

So when you say a watch by definition is a timepiece you are basically saying it can't ever have another meaning which is false because words are created by humans. The truth is a watch is whatever meaning a society puts on it. A lot of people understand the more modern meaning that it's something worn on the wrist that provides information and other functionality.

Why are you making so much sense!

 

[Chupa Chupa]

So then, your thought process is just as riged as mine if you cannot accept that others don't find a use for the current incarnation of smart watches.

Except I'm not making posts stating "I don't have use for product X therefore I don't understand why anyone else would have a use for it either or how it could be utilized in a way other than how its done right now."

Wow, calm down. He said he was "curious to know what utility Apple thinks a smartwatch has for the end user", so it sounds like he's open to seeing what Apple can bring to the table. You complain that he's "beating up people" without recognizing that you're actually the one doing that.

If you read his post in context his tone is not of one who is open minded, but rather cynical and dismissive. And as far as me "beating" anyone up please who me where made abusive comments. People are different and different types of thinking have been and are vital to progress. Too much of either is not a good thing. Saying one is linear thinking is just a factual statement, not and insult.

 

[NixPix]

Think iPod Nano with iOS. No watch.
Think iPod Nano with Sensors.
Don't be radical, evolve.

 

[StoneJack]

Think iPod Nano with iOS. No watch.
Think iPod Nano with Sensors.
Don't be radical, evolve.

I very much think thats what gonna happen. I just reviewed my own Nano, bought few years ago and its looking great, thin, nice display, 4 gb of storage, nice OS (not iOS but its predecessor).

Now those 4-8 GB of memory with biosensor, motion chip, 1.5 inch OLED screen, AirDrop I think it can be new iPod reborn, with music, bluetooth headset for gyms or running, for calls, iMessage, reminders, clock. I do think it will have wireless capacity but not 3G (no data plans and sims). Definitely GPS and compass are must. It won't have traditional watch form but rather wristband form for accommodating larger display and chips. It will be a companion to Mac but won't need iOS devices to sync.

I am interested to see how this thing will be operated. I don't think it can touch screen because of costs, weather-sealing problems; it won't have camera and it can't have wheel like iPod. The only remaining alternative is voice operations maybe gestures if it included gyroscope sensors.

 

[BMcCoy]

....says the guy on a rumors website. People are weird.

rumors are the not the same as leaks.

 

[Binarymix]

Except I'm not making posts stating "I don't have use for product X therefore I don't understand why anyone else would have a use for it either or how it could be utilized in a way other than how its done right now."

Please, show me where I have said that. In fact I have said the exact opposite.

What is with these blind defenders, defending that which doesn't even need defending? :/

 

[Jayse]

Obviously you can't see the forrest for the trees. You also have a rigid thought process. Just accept it. Anytime someone starts off with "...by definition," it's a clue their mind processes with inflexible rules.

So let me speak your language. Definitions by definition may change as society changes or even among different societies. Gay in 1930 meant something entirely different than it does in 2013. In London a subway is a tube; elevator:lift, and so on.

In 1910 bacon was a lunch or dinner food. In 1940 it was used for all meals. In 1940 orange juice was predominantly for breakfast. In 1980 it was for anytime. Public relations and societal acceptance changed all that.

So when you say a watch by definition is a timepiece you are basically saying it can't ever have another meaning which is false because words are created by humans. The truth is a watch is whatever meaning a society puts on it. A lot of people understand the more modern meaning that it's something worn on the wrist that provides information and other functionality.

You sir are an emeritus professor of...life. The world needs more of you!

 

[Tech198]

If it looks anything like 'that', its a poor design.

My first thought, is "Make it better looking."

People wanna see this thing on the streets.

 

[alexgowers]

NO NO NO, please I know my opinion is only mine but please apple don't make a bloody watch, it's a joke category of products and won't sell well. Just make the big iphone and have done with it please!

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Please, show me where I have said that. In fact I have said the exact opposite.

What is with these blind defenders, defending that which doesn't even need defending? :/

Let me unconfuse you then. You stated:

I agree with brianvictor7. Cell phones took the place of watches, and a whole lot more.

I cannot see the point in strapping something to my wrist, something I have to worry about charging frequently; just for updates - to which I can easily see if I just take my phone out of my damned pocket for 2 seconds.

If anyone is being a blind defender it's people like you who defend the notion that information displayed on a wristband is antiquated and shouldn't be revisited even before seeing what it being proposed. I am not defending an Apple watch because there is no such animal to defend. I am only of the position that it could be a good product and not being dismissive about the concept; i.e., open minded.

 

[Binarymix]

Let me unconfuse you then. You stated:



If anyone is being a blind defender it's people like you who defend the notion that information displayed on a wristband is antiquated and shouldn't be revisited even before seeing what it being proposed. I am not defending an Apple watch because there is no such animal to defend. I am only of the position that it could be a good product and not being dismissive about the concept; i.e., open minded.

Notice the use of the words, my and I. That is not speaking for everyone.

I also stated that I would buy one if Apples 'watch' had a use for me.


I'm done with you.

Moving on.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

Notice the use of the words, my and I. That is not speaking for everyone.

Yes, I noticed your use of personal pronouns. No need to point them out. My years are past 2nd grade grammar class.

In my previous post I neither implied or stated you were speaking for everyone but rather included you in a subset of people with similar thought. There is a difference there. Critical reading my friend. Cheers.

 

[nickgri]

Smarter Watch

http://www.extremetech.com/computin...ely-increase-image-quality-reduce-reflections

Please make it unfold so it becomes almost as big as an iphone. Snap off earpiece/mic. How about like a belt buckle, or shoe that contains the rest so we can get rid of the phone altogether -carrying it around in pockets sucks and leaving it trying to find painful at times.

 

[Naaaaak]

LG make excellent screens. This whole notion of them making screens with retention issues is outdated. Every manufacturer has some problems when it comes to that.

I completely disagree and I have an early MBPr with bad image retention issues to prove it. I've used many screens from various manufacturers over the last 10 years and I've never had a display with image retention issues as bad as this. I can look at anything for about 30 seconds, reveal desktop, and still see outlines of what I was looking at. It's worse with darker colors. That makes it difficult to edit images and annoying to switch apps and read something on a different background.

Imagine closing a window and being able to see it faintly for about a minute or more if there are any big color differences with whatever you were looking at before and after. Just imagine almost every window you look at actually remains with maybe 5% alpha when you switch away and you get my screen.

It started off as a "Whatever, I can deal with it" issue because I had to try to make it present itself and it went away fairly quickly. Over time it has only gotten worse. That "over time" part is key. It's been over a year for me and I know if I go to an Apple Store and show them they'll give me the "it's been over a year so you must have magically done/own this" bullshît.

That also affects my resale value. How do I list this in a couple of years? "2012 MBPr w/Image Retention" like it's a feature? The only way I see is to undercut the market by a few hundred and be upfront about it. Or pay Apple a few hundred to fix it now (maybe what, $500?), because I know they won't cover me.

At this point I hear someone say, "How do you know? You haven't even tried!" Call it my consumer instinct. I'd be really surprised if they did.

The right thing for Apple to do would have been to issue a recall. Maybe I'll take it in just to exhaust the possibility of them not covering it. I show the genius some quick tests, argue that it's an exceptional case that's gotten worse that they should cover (because they know about it), hear him tell me it's policy that they "can't" (which I know means "won't"), then just pay them to fix it. I'll keep documentation of it, wait a few years when the class action thing goes through, and get a refund. What a shîtty way to handle things (I hate lawsuits).

So to conclude, no, I don't think LG makes excellent screens being stuck with one of theirs in my MBPr. I'm also not going to apologize for any company involved that sells something defective and then doesn't do the right thing.

 

[vomhorizon]

While interoperability with IOS devices is certain, i think the iWatch will certainly be a stand alone capability more then capable of raking up sales just on the basis of its own capability/features rather then how it gels with ios devices such as Ipad and Iphone...Apple likes to nail down a concept that can find Wide acceptance as a product...i would not be surprised if they come out with a device that sells in the millions and has plenty of features to aid the user at least in the western world..

 

[xofruitcake]

Ok Tim Cook is an idiot then. I would not buy such a device. I want a tech smartwatch not some stupid fitness crap for show-offs in the gym. Add this to the gold iPhone and Apple are pandering to the elitist crowd once again.

And you still think Apple is catering to the mass that don't want to pay premium price for premium products? . 5c pricing decisions already told us that Apple is not going to go down market. And the hiring of the new retail head confirm that (again). So why should we be surprised that new product are geared toward the upper income individual?

 

[johnnyturbouk]

Yeah, it needs to be sleek so it doesn't look geeky and ridiculous.

Is it really preposterous that a tech company may be inspired to design products for their primary consumer base. I appreciate that tech has expanded exponentially and far transcends its humble beginnings as small group of guys in their mom's basements and garages, and now permeates into every substratum of our modern world, but contextualizing the fallacy of tech companies catering for their primary market is a little redundant, like scolding a fashion house for creating products for the rich, the slim, and the elites. Although i agree we should strive to better ourselves, to expand our horizons; companies are currently modelled on capitalist paradigm. Yes apple could and maybe should look to broaden their current markets, but for them to make something more 'fashionable' [whatever that means], such a subjective term, is reductive IMHO. I like the apple watch and don't think it looks geeky.

Not very likely since OLEDs cannot yet match the high brightness of normal backlit displays without hearing up and wasting power.

I've read the contrary to this, especially for tvs, phones, and tabs; do you have any sources for this.
http://www.androidauthority.com/amoled-vs-lcd-differences-572859/

But a watch is not just a tool for utility.. It's also an accessory. It *has* to look good. I'm actually considering wearing watches again. For the looks, more than anything else.

I agree with you, in that a watch, whether as an accessory, a time piece, or an expansion of the iphones should look good.
However, these assertions are based on opinions, are subjective, and are not universally generalizable to the expectations, needs, and wants of all consumers.