Really? Then why are all my calendars square?Because time doesn't have corners...
(BTW, It's a clever slogan, so kudos for that. You should write advertising copy for the old (round) Swiss watchmakers. Just make sure you're paid up-front.
Really? Then why are all my calendars square?Because time doesn't have corners...
The intended customer for the Edition Watch isn't someone who usually spends half as much (or less) on their watches and jewelry. More likely those who typically spend twice as much (or more) on their other watches (e.g. brands above mid models of Rolex), thus making an Edition an inexpensive experiment in comparison.
I wasn't saying Apple shouldn't have cheaper and more expensive watches (like Rolex). I wasn't aware that Rolex is selling the same model in gold and fake gold, if they really do I was wrong in first place. But I don't really think so.Sorry, but you are jumping from argument to argument without addressing the other points. Ironically, your point that Rolex does have cheaper, non-handcrafted Rolex watches obviously means that it must be worth their while to produce more expensive ones as well. What could be the reason to sell golden and hand-crafted watches in addition to those when people are unable to distinguish them from afar? The reason is simple: some people like spending good money on pristine quality and exclusivity.
My assumption was on what the analyst was predicting.Right... You started with: "How STUPID would apple be to make a gold/rose gold sports watch? Does anybody think anyone would buy an edition watch, if they are nearly indistinguishable from a sports watch?" You entered the discussion yourself with that claim, so don't retract now by saying that it's all speculative. Moreover, based on Apple's current and previous use of these materials: aluminium has a matte finish, whereas stainless steel has always been shiny. Unless they start using completely different finishes now, the assumption goes in favour of a matte gold finish as well, just like Apple uses for the iPhone and the new MacBook.
True, trueEither way, I don't think it is fruitful to continue this line of discussion.
Your argumentation doesn't make sense. A smart watch is something entirely different than a regular watch. For all the functions that a smartwatch has (with maybe the exception of the traditional watch face that it could show) it makes sense to have a rectangular shape.
Just that you like or would prefer a round smartwatch, doesn't mean that from a logical point of view makes sense to the rest of the world. It doesn't.
That would be terrible. Thunderbolt 3 is months away.NEW THUNDERBOLT 2 DISPLAY PLEASE!!!
Give it to your wife or girlfriend.I'm not buying another iPad air until it stops vibrating. I used to update every cycle since the original iPad until the Air 2.
My guess is that they're not going to fix the issue so no revenue from me.
Future iterations of the Apple Watch will have features and capabilities that make the first generation Watch seem primitive.
If Apple still wants to be cheap ...
...and 640K should be enough RAM for everyone...
It doesn't make sense to you. You are not the rest of the world either. One of the main purposes of this forum is to share your opinion not to prove you are right or wrong.Your argumentation doesn't make sense. A smart watch is something entirely different than a regular watch. For all the functions that a smartwatch has (with maybe the exception of the traditional watch face that it could show) it makes sense to have a rectangular shape.
Just that you like or would prefer a round smartwatch, doesn't mean that from a logical point of view makes sense to the rest of the world. It doesn't.
Your argumentation doesn't make sense. A smart watch is something entirely different than a regular watch. For all the functions that a smartwatch has (with maybe the exception of the traditional watch face that it could show) it makes sense to have a rectangular shape.
Just that you like or would prefer a round smartwatch, doesn't mean that from a logical point of view makes sense to the rest of the world. It doesn't.
Why would anyone (and by that I mean 99% of consumers and 100% of professionals) need a 2TB SSD in their primary computer? In my humble opinion if you have over 500GB of data stored on your iMac, everything else needs to be on an external hard drive. 2TB, in most cases would be media such as music and movies, in which case you should really have a Mac Mini or something else being used as a media server. It's always the same people who come to me with their 500GB or 1TB drives maxed out and often failing that don't have their "precious" data backed up.iMac's with Skylake? Any chance of it gaining a 2TB SSD, similar to the one Samsung just released? What about a 4k 21.5 inch?