Spork Boards

I Watch, You Watch, We All Watch For iWatch

John Willoughby's Avatar Picture John Willoughby – September 08, 2014 07:23PM Reply Quote
We need a thread for this, even in the vanishingly small chance that the iWatch isn't announced tomorrow.

James DeBenedetti – January 23, 2015 02:28AM Reply Quote
I don't know why anyone would be surprised to see the (current) AppleTV and (discontinued) iPad 2 and iPhone 4S SOC as the bottom end of Apple's iOS hardware range. That's 3-4 generations behind the state of the art at this point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2015 02:30AM by James DeBenedetti.

porruka (Admin) – January 23, 2015 11:22AM Reply Quote
The cat has your pipe.
Quote
John Willoughby
I think that the battery capacity, and its depletion over time, will drive people to replacements more than would otherwise be the case. I am still surprised that an A5-level CPU is required. Maybe ApplePay takes more horsepower than I though.

The tokenizing/encryption does need oomph for speed, yes. Personally, I'm surprised it's not a newer chip family because of the motion processing not appearing until the A7. Perhaps it's the older design with new additions.

ddt – January 23, 2015 12:17PM Reply Quote
Wouldn't it be more expensive (total for project, for the final product price) to develop a new chip rather than using something that's amortized all its R&D/manufacturing costs? With no guarantee or track record of lower power consumption?

ddt

porruka (Admin) – January 23, 2015 01:11PM Reply Quote
The cat has your pipe.
Quote
ddt
Wouldn't it be more expensive (total for project, for the final product price) to develop a new chip rather than using something that's amortized all its R&D/manufacturing costs? With no guarantee or track record of lower power consumption?

ddt

It would be. But this is something that could be a Cube if public perception gets on the wrong side early. There's already enough skepticism about it without failing to deliver.

Roger – January 23, 2015 02:31PM Reply Quote
It's definitely a new ultra-low-power chip in the watch anyhow. They just said it was roughly equivalent to the A5 in performance.

ddt – January 23, 2015 04:05PM Reply Quote
So we're all wrong? It's so nice when we can all come together like that.

ddt

johnny k – January 23, 2015 07:26PM Reply Quote
In any case, the processor ain't going to be nearly the power drain that the screen is. With Apple's display quality requirements, how do you get around that? Easiest win would've been to not go retina (see MacBook Air), but they didn't. Only other way I could've seen is if they tucked a wafer-thin battery in the strap as well.

Roger – January 26, 2015 06:58PM Reply Quote
On Gruber's latest podcast he says "I'll be impressed if it ships by March," and that the secondhand grapevine stuff he's hearing says "[the prototype Apple Watches are] still buggy enough and have poor enough battery life that March would be an achievement."

Roger – January 26, 2015 08:17PM Reply Quote

John Willoughby – January 27, 2015 06:18PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
On the earnings call, Tim apparently said shipping in April.

porruka (Admin) – January 27, 2015 07:12PM Reply Quote
The cat has your pipe.
Quote
John Willoughby
On the earnings call, Tim apparently said shipping in April.

And we got a bit more definition from TC about Feb 32nd -- apparently for product launches, Apple uses (roughly) thirds, not quarters when saying early, middle, and late.

Roger – January 27, 2015 07:21PM Reply Quote
That early-mid-late as 4-month periods thing struck me as more of an after-the-fact justification, so as not to call it a missed projection, rather than a real thing. I mean, surely if April was the plan all along they'd have announced "Spring" (or just April) rather than set the wrong expectations with "early." Anyhow, it's nice that they're finally committed to an actual calendar month.

ARL (Moderator) – January 27, 2015 08:20PM Reply Quote
And it'll be April 31st!

Roger – February 20, 2015 09:03PM Reply Quote
As much as I'm enjoying the endless speculation about the gold Apple Watch's price (will it be insane or merely excessive?), I think this obvious opinion piece is right: they've got to make an announcement about it or it's going to drive way too much of the conversation around the Watch's launch. Right now it's a manageable buzz; but in a month it's going to be a problem if the conversation is still about whether the top-end bling's price is $5K or $10K or $20K and not what the product can do and why ordinary people should want one. They can sell it as fashion, but they can't sell it as just fashion.

johnny k – February 21, 2015 11:55AM Reply Quote
Yeah, I think it's obvious that the high-end watch is not for me, but people who weren't going to buy it anyway will create a lot of chatter because Apple. Clearly, the Sport is meant for people who are comparing it to other smart watches - it's still higher-quality than any of them - the Standard is meant for brand loyalists who typically get the top model of whatever Apple makes. Sorta 5c vs 6. Apple could've stopped there. But the Edition is a curious thing. For us, it's the 20th Anniversary Macintosh (another Ive design). It's for Rolex buyers instead, and it's merely an iPhone 6 for them - best of breed, not a radically new tier. That's why Apple's hired all the fashion people. But how are they going to sell it alongside the rest without diluting the luxury experience? How will it affect the rest of us who might actually be turned off by luxury products? I'm a lot more interested by the Store redesign than I am the price of the Edition.

ddt – February 21, 2015 12:07PM Reply Quote
Agreed -- even though it used to be my business, all the froufrou about "what will it cost?" elicits in me only: I DON'T CARE and WE'LL KNOW SOON SO WHAT DOES SPECULATING TELL US ANYWAY?

ddt

bahamut – February 22, 2015 09:16AM Reply Quote
I didn't know that there were people talking about it. :/

John Willoughby – February 22, 2015 10:03PM Reply Quote
Cyberdyne Systems Customer Support
I honestly don't think that the watch is attractive enough to justify $10K or $20K for gold. Too thick. And you KNOW that people will be mocking whatever the highest price watch is for whatever its price is. If the watch flops, which is very possible, Apple doesn't need it put up there with the TAM. "Can you believe that they wanted $20,000? For that?!"

ARL (Moderator) – February 23, 2015 06:12AM Reply Quote
Quote
John Willoughby
I honestly don't think that the watch is attractive enough to justify $10K or $20K for gold. Too thick. And you KNOW that people will be mocking whatever the highest price watch is for whatever its price is. If the watch flops, which is very possible, Apple doesn't need it put up there with the TAM. "Can you believe that they wanted $20,000? For that?!"

I don't believe for a second there is a gold watch planned for now...

iWatch 2.0 or at least a good six months after the initial release if they have any sense. Gold plated cube, anyone?

ddt – February 23, 2015 09:58AM Reply Quote
Honest question: how much thicker is the Apple watch than, say, a $20k Rolex or others? There are thin ones, I'm sure, but I'm also sure I've seen honking thick ones (the "diver"-type, etc.,; thickness seems to be an objective correlative to "this thing can do serious shit").

ddt

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login