Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google Launches 'Android Wear' Project for Wearable Devices
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
please be aware, that the forums actually include the time and dates stamp that you edit your post.
you have editted your posts, post responses in order to change your statements.
Here is some recommendation:
"The best way of saving face, is to keep the lower half shut"
Apple announced when they did because they had to. They had to file with the FCC.
And Jobs used real products on stage. Obviously he didn't have a time machine and couldn't use the exact product that would come out on shelves 6 months later. But it wasn't a fake.
Apple also didn't make a fake commercial showing fake people using a product 6 months prior.
Love 'em or hate 'em, The fact is Apple is the best at waiting until they have a real product on shelves or as close to that as possible.
That's point #1.
The other point is wake me up when its on store shelves. They can say anything about their product between now and then and it doesn't mean jack sht. No one knows whether there is market for this product. Do people really want another device that they have to buy that needs charging that perhaps makes some functionality on their phone a tad more convenient? The jury is out.
You seem to assume that the same thing didn't apply to Apple in 2007. It did.
But you just didn't have Apple putting out fake commercials.
----------
YOu should take your own advice. REad my post and tell me how I changed my statement. All I did was add an explanation of why I think its bs instead of just saying bs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting article for all the naysayers:
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswi...erested-in-wearing-tech-on-their-sleeves.html
http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswi...erested-in-wearing-tech-on-their-sleeves.html
MOre bs. More counting chickens before they hatch. More talk about how people are interested in a product whose capabilities they know nothing of and whose user experience they haven't the faintest clue about and whose price is unknown. The survey is faulty in that regard. Plus who isn't interested in some degree about tech of the future? I'd say few aren't. So the survey says little.
It would be the same thing if people said the opposite. HOw would people know they are totally uninterested unless they know how these devices work and perform?
But so far all I see is Samsung released a watch and well, ...... how's that doing? There's another watch out there as well. Pebble watch or something. How's that lighting the world on fire?
Pretty obvious they can put digital info on a watch face. But not so obvious they can make a great user experience out of it at an acceptable price.
Last edited:
Lol, why does everyone get so heated over this? It looks like a cool watch and I'm looking forward to its release. I thought it was an interesting study, it doesn't predict the future, just thought it was interesting for discussion.
In reality we won't know until it's released how it will do. We are all just technology armchair quarterbacks totally guessing what will happen.
Personally I love the goal post moving by some people. And also the very very short memories of others.
Pebble is actually doing well considering they're a Kickstarter competing with public companies like Samsung and Sony that have huge supply chain and engineering leverage. General consensus is that the Steel is the smartwatch to beat right now.
From the Nielsen website you summarily panned:
Neilsen said:
Nielsen is well-qualified as a source. They research markets and are paid well for it.
I later looked closer at the video, and at one point I did see a rounded display.
Turns out the rectangular parts I saw, were when he was swiping between option cards.
I totally agree with you that Apple was not likely to show something they weren't going to sell...
... but the same thing goes for Motorola. I can't think of anything they've come out and said they were going to sell, that never arrived.
That myth is an entirely different topic. Jobs was an accomplished salesman. He would tell the truth, but rarely the whole truth.
For example, he showed pictures of smartphones with keyboards, which was just one version of them. He talked about needing a stylus, which again was not always necessary. He also claimed that Apple invented multi-touch, which of course wasn't true at all. So we have to take things he said with a big grain of salt.
--
By late 2006, everyone knew an iPhone was coming. That by itself was no surprise. Fan concepts were everywhere. We even knew that Foxconn had gotten the contract to make it.
As for the FCC, no sir, they didn't make it necessary to show the iPhone off in January 2007. In fact, it wasn't outed by the FCC until it got approval in mid May, FOUR months later.
Even then, all the important details were confidential. All that was revealed was the general shape of its back (where the FCC stamp goes), and that it was missing 3G. Nothing about the front or sides, or touch, or the UI. Heck, it could've used a trackwheel for all anyone could tell from the FCC.
Moreover, Apple could've kept it entirely secret right up until launch time if they had wished. That is what they did with the Verizon iPhone, which was publicly approved by the FCC on the same day that its existence was announced.
(You can ask for approval to be delayed until a day that you have requested. This keeps everything secret right up until you're ready to sell it. )
The upshot is, I think the real reason Jobs showed off a semi-working device six months ahead of time... an action that goes against all usual Apple secrecy... was because there had been demos of capacitive touch smartphones during much of 2006, and the yearly Barcelona mobile show was coming up in a few weeks. I think Jobs simply did not want his phone's debut to possibly get upstaged by another.
.
Last edited:
Google needs TO STOP launching "things", and start FOCUSING ON ONE THING AT A TIME. I'm sure their employees love riding around the courtyard on rainbow coloured unicycles, but they need to FOCUS and stop treating their "customers" as their playground.
Seriously Google, my contempt for you is beyond measure (yes, even more than yours for your "customers"). If you want a concept to succeed to its' full potential, keep it secret and don't give Google the idea - they'll toy with it then KILL it dead.
----------
... and CLOSING up:
Messing it up totally, leaving it as an eternal "Beta", then abandoning it through lack of focus.
Yes, Googles Jack of all trades, but master of ONE ONLY; search.
A google engineer:
Seriously Google, my contempt for you is beyond measure (yes, even more than yours for your "customers"). If you want a concept to succeed to its' full potential, keep it secret and don't give Google the idea - they'll toy with it then KILL it dead.
----------
... and CLOSING up:
Messing it up totally, leaving it as an eternal "Beta", then abandoning it through lack of focus.
Yes, Googles Jack of all trades, but master of ONE ONLY; search.
A google engineer:
Last edited:
Weird. For a second I thought you were actually talking about Apple, and how instead of focusing on their current products, they launch things that are screwed up and often eventually get dropped.
Ping and MobileMe come to mind as major failures either electronically or socially.
Cards was okay, but got dropped anyway.
Maps was screwed up at launch, but has improved.
Everyone makes mistakes. Before you can know for sure what not to do, you have to try something.
Apple generally sit back and let everyone ELSE make those fatal mistakes before trying something where eventual disinterest and failure is pretty much a given; it saves them the hassle and embarrassment. That's why Apple's successes VASTLY outnumber their failures, which they've made of course, but Google seem to be stuck, doing failure habitually.
I like the idea Google is presenting here, but that watch on the frontpage of this article is quite ugly designed i.m.h.o.
out of curiosity what are among the recent google failures and what are among the recent apples failures?
Love it. Some really good stuff in there. Although I was not really a believer in using a "smart" watch the idea of having something like Google now (or similar) on a watch does appeal, especially if the watch looks like a watch and not like a 1970's calculator.
Yesterday I took note of the number of times I took out my phone to check the time, check google now, check my calendar etc - not browsing or looking at stuff in detail - just glance and put it away again. I could have easily glanced at a watch and seen the same thing only quicker and with less juggling of keys, coat and whatever else I have in my hands.
Yesterday I took note of the number of times I took out my phone to check the time, check google now, check my calendar etc - not browsing or looking at stuff in detail - just glance and put it away again. I could have easily glanced at a watch and seen the same thing only quicker and with less juggling of keys, coat and whatever else I have in my hands.
Those "facts" have been pretty heavily refuted by someone who was actually working on Android (Dianne Hackborn) and their version actually makes sense...
http://www.osnews.com/story/27481/Sooner_prototype_dropped_well_before_the_iPhone_announcement_
Her full reply: http://www.osnews.com/permalink?517243
By people who actually care to research, there were two reference designs in the pipeline pre-iphone, one with a hardware keyboard (named Sooner) and a full touch screen device (Dream) which evolved into be what was released.
http://www.osnews.com/story/25264/Did_Android_Really_Look_Like_BlackBerry_Before_the_iPhone_
Making quality, premium products and not selling out your user data to third parties and advertisers is what I want from a company.
Cheap and free = tacky.
That's not setting the bar very high lol, I didn't think it could look cheaper but by adding a metal band it does. The bar is not high at all right now with ugly watches predominating, that's why the Moto 360 may just be a sleeper hit, especially if they make it respond to voice like the MotoX does.
----------
Those are awesome!!
----------
Thankfully Apple doesn't do this...
http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/class-action-lawsuit-claims-apple-sells-customer-data
As someone that loves technology - I enjoy seeing companies push boundaries and try - even if they fail. Apple Maps really affected paying customers. Can you name (sincerely asking) a Google "failure" that has cost/affected as many customers?
Google is bound to have more failures - they try and experiment more. I don't see that as a bad thing really. I don't see anything wrong with Apple's model either. Different companies. Both will have successes and failures.
He does have a point, but it's not as important as he makes it out to be. Google Now, for example, doesn't work anywhere nearly as good as Siri as a personal assistant, it needs perfecting. Many things in Android need perfecting, not anything huge, but just the subtle sculpting that Apple takes the time to do.
The one thing that boils me about Google though, and that he is right about , is axing apps/programs. Google Voice is rumored to be axed in a couple of months, and I rely VERY heavily on that, they already axed XMPP support so you can't use a VOIP app with Google Voice anymore. The rumor is that some GV features might be rolled into Hangouts, but that's a lot of features to shoehorn into a chat program.