This is topic Apple Watch in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007283
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-09-2015, 10:49 PM:
 
How do people on the board think this new device will do?

I have a hard time believing that there are going to be a ton of people wanting this thing. I understand that Apple has a lot of iPhone users so I am sure it will sell some. The cost of the watch starts at $350 and it must be paired to an iPhone. For a phone with a nicer design the price goes up.

I have been reading some of the caveats:

-18 hour max battery
-Needs to be charged every night
-What about becoming obsolete when version 2.0 comes out
-power users are going to have some serious battery drain
-will the pairing with the iPhone drain the battery
and there are some others.

I personally do not wear a watch, I haven't in almost 25 years, I do like the idea of the health stuff like fitness or heart rating, not so sure about Apple Pay or getting emails on my wrist. If the cost was under $200 I could maybe see it working.

I do understand that Apple has very good marketing and a loyal Kool-aid drunk following, but I think this might be the first major Apple flop since the iPhone was released.
 
Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-10-2015, 01:47 AM:
 
Can't wait to have the "App experience" on my wrist...
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-10-2015, 01:50 AM:
 
I've only ever worn a watch when I worked at a movie theater and also high school so I could count the seconds until the bell rang. And also for riding the public bus to and fro during that time of my life. I can't see any advantages to such a device now especially if it requires you to already have a phone. But during my projectionist life it would have been cool to, say, have a CA Link status screen on display everywhere I go and I could control the projectors and sound system from my wrist (as long as the phone was not required).

If anything, the watch should replace the phone. It'd be funny to see people talking into their wrists. They'd also have a hell of a lot harder time taking pictures which itself would be a virtue to society. Plus it'd be harder to lose.
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-10-2015, 02:12 AM:
 
-
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-10-2015, 05:20 AM:
 
I believe that in cases like this, technology has developed past the point of its usefulness!
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-10-2015, 08:43 AM:
 
I have no use for this, as this would be useless for me unless I was wearing glasses, something I only do now for reading.

Even if I could see the screen clearly without glasses, the screen is really to small to be useful.

Not being able to work for an entire day without a recharge is a show stopper.

Being useless unless within Bluetooth range of my phone is a show stopper.

Requiring an iPhone is definitely sales limiting.

Ultimately, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Because it is Apple, I think it will be successful, but as a niche product. I don't think there is a mainstream need out there for this.
 
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 03-10-2015, 11:43 AM:
 
The believers will buy them, they drink any flavor koolaid Apple offers.
Watches, in general, are fashion accessories now. There's a video of a man asking 20ish people what time it is but they pick only people wearing a watch. They all ignore their watch and check their phones for the time.

There was another product in the apple announcement - a new macbook with odd features, especially having one USB-C port for everything... a grand total of exactly one port for charging, mouse, video... so you're on the hook for a costly ($80.00) adapter (from apple, there are/will be cheaper alternatives for sure) if you dare want to charge it and use a mouse or USB stick as well.
I think apple has done a lot for laptop computer design, but this idea sucks. I'm glad I'm not paying apple prices for the revolution in laptop design though (I remember when all laptops were thick, heavy, had horrible displays, and were slow... ): I can get most of the improvements apple pioneered in any brand wintel laptop. And almost always get an SD socket, HDMI port, multiple USB ports, separate charger socket... plus more memory and roomier HDD... cheaper. A lot cheaper.
 
Posted by Jim Cassedy (Member # 4115) on 03-10-2015, 12:41 PM:
 
Normally, I would have been working backstage on the rear-screen projection
crew at that big APPLE event yesterday, but I had a couple of previously
scheduled commitments that kept me from being there.

As for the product itself- I just don't 'get it'.

For one thing, who wants to charge their watch every 18hrs?
Some of my work days are longer than that!

And, as others have said "Who wears a watch anymore, anyway?"

Although I have a couple of nice "dress watches", most of the time, if I
wear one when I'm working, it's an el-cheap-o (under $20) plastic one
since I often have to work with my hands/arms in tight spaces and a
good watch would only get all scratched up, and a metal band might
short-circuit some of the equipment I work with in certain situations.

When the battery ran down, it was usually cheaper just to buy another
one than to change the battery. I used to buy them at Wallgreens, but a
couple of years ago, they stopped selling them. When I asked why they
no longer carried them, the clerk told me "nobody buys watches anymore"

So now, when I need to replace one I just usually get one from Hong
Kong cheap on e-bay.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2015, 01:01 PM:
 
IMHO, the biggest Apple-related news was HBO inking a deal with Apple to have HBO's new streaming service exclusively on Apple TV. You get HBO for $14.99 per month without needing an overpriced cable/satellite package pinned to it. That, and the price break to $69, ought to dramatically improve Apple TV device sales. Lately other devices like Roku and Chromecast have been doing very well in that market segment. The HBO deal definitely gives Apple an advantage.

Regarding the new MacBook, I'm not interested in a super thin notebook that has only one USB port. That just sucks. Any notebook needs to be able to connect at least a mouse and external hard disc without an adapter that could risk burning up that lone USB port. Not that it matters. I won't fart around with notebooks whose screens are any smaller than 15". I'm sure this new MacBook will appeal to those who like carrying around a notebook exposed like it's a fashion accessory or status symbol. Normal people carry a notebook in a case, which unfortunately hides the holy Apple logo.

The iWatch does indeed seem like a solution in search of a problem. Not only that, but it's needlessly adding complication in the market segments where it wants to compete. FitBit wrist bands can get pretty expensive; the biggest model costs $250. But the FitBit doesn't require you to have a freaking iPhone paired up to it to work. I'm looking forward to the visual comedy that will take place when iWatch wearing people start showing up at the gym. It will be funny watching them fumble around with their phone and their watch before doing anything.

Again, I'm sure the iWatch will sell pretty well since it's an Apple product. We'll certainly see some celebrities and über-douchebags showing off the $10,000 18K gold version. That version of the watch could cause other problems though. Imagine an unwitting Apple fanatic blowing $10,000 on a gold iWatch, but spent only $3000 on his wife's wedding ring.
[Eek!]

quote: Jim Cassedy
For one thing, who wants to charge their watch every 18hrs?
Yeah, really. Especially these days when you have watches like Kinetic watches that require no charging or other power sources at all it seems pretty silly to sell a watch that has to be charged every day. But the iWatch will get charged right alongside the iPhone since it's really just a high priced accessory for an iPhone. I'm sure Apple's marketing will pressure customers about that. No iPhone is complete without an iWatch to go along with it.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2015, 01:05 PM:
 
I would say the biggest problem with this thing is the size of it. A watch, even a pretty good sized one, has a smaller face than the Apple Watch does and can be curved, circular, oblong, whatever. For ladies, forget it...a fashionable watch might have a face of a 3/4" or less.

So they're going to have something that fashion-conscious people won't want to wear because it looks dorky, and if they make it small enough to not look dorky, then it'll be too small to be useful. And most of the people, even the ones who don't think it's dorky-looking, don't wear watches.

All of that said, I have long been in awe of Apple's marketing department, so...this could still work.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2015, 01:14 PM:
 
If the iWatch had a brand other than Apple it would look dorky.

Style-wise, the iWatch is big, but not masculine looking. It looks like a toy next to men's sport watches and dress watches. The face is indeed too big for women's wrists.

Any other electronics company or watch/jewelry company would have to deal with those issues. Apple doesn't because Apple is Apple. I'm sure celebrities will be wearing the $10,000 version, even female celebrities.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2015, 01:53 PM:
 
For what it's worth, Hollywood Reporter does a whole "special issue" every year devoted only to watches. They have million dollar + watches in there.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-10-2015, 05:53 PM:
 
That's not surprising. Good accessories for a $1 million watch: a $20 million mansion and $30 million yacht. Nevertheless, I would expect that same watch issue from Hollywood Reporter to include that new $10,000 gold iWatch given all the Apple product placement in so many movies and TV shows.

The Gold iWatch is a unique douche bag item in that it's basically the same item as common folks with standard incomes can buy, just in a package $9650 more expensive.

That gets me thinking about all the smart phone theft related street crime. A gold iWatch could be a big invitation to get mugged in some places. I can also see people buying functional standard priced iWatch models and then modifying them in an attempt to pass them off as $10,000 gold models. It's bound to happen. During my time in New York City I saw plenty of street vendors selling bogus Rolex watches.
 
Posted by Martin McCaffery (Member # 37) on 03-10-2015, 06:23 PM:
 
I wonder if the iWatch, especially the Gold, is upgradable. How long will it be useful (as they define usefulness)?
Kinda like digital projectors, you'll never see a 50 year old iWatch, but you'll pay extra for a 50 year old Rolex.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 03-10-2015, 06:46 PM:
 
The limited battery life should be a deal-breaker for many people. Even the cheapest wind-up clock will run for more than twenty-four hours without attention.

As for laptops, I rather _dislike_ what Apple has done to laptop design. Glossy LCDs, chiclet keyboards, lack of connectivity (bring back serial ports! or at least Ethernet!), non-removable batteries, and non-user-serviceable parts are all awful ideas that started with Macs and spread (like cancer) to many PC laptops. The only good thing that Apple ever did in its laptop designs was the magnetic power connector which, oddly, seems to be about their only design element that has not been copied by the industry as a whole.

That said, the watch is an Apple product, which means that it will probably be a hit despite its high price and the fact that it will be obsolete in five years.
 
Posted by Ron Lacheur (Member # 1126) on 03-10-2015, 06:46 PM:
 
quote: Martin McCaffery
Kinda like digital projectors, you'll never see a 50 year old iWatch, but you'll pay extra for a 50 year old Rolex.
Give me a good Breitling any day of the week.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2015, 06:48 PM:
 
I remember when I started a thread when the iPad was first announced asking if people were going to get one. Almost everyone said no, it is stupid, etc etc but now almost everyone swears by their iPad (or similar tablet device). So who knows? Five years from now we could all be sporting iWatch 4.0's.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-10-2015, 10:23 PM:
 
quote: Scott Norwood
As for laptops, I rather _dislike_ what Apple has done to laptop design. Glossy LCDs, chiclet keyboards, lack of connectivity (bring back serial ports! or at least Ethernet!), non-removable batteries, and non-user-serviceable parts are all awful ideas that started with Macs and spread (like cancer) to many PC laptops. The only good thing that Apple ever did in its laptop designs was the magnetic power connector which, oddly, seems to be about their only design element that has not been copied by the industry as a whole.
From what I see, Apple is trying make the case of portability and wireless use for the new MacBook, there is a picture of a girl on top a building sitting on table using her Mac, Apple makes the case of tethering the MacBook to your iPhone. There is also a picture of a girl using Beats headphones while sitting on what look like public transport. Or another pic where a couple is sitting in the back of the vehicle using it. Wouldn't the iPad tablet be much better in all of these circumstances? I don't get the whole "hot spot" thing they are trying to push with the new MacBook. It seems to me that the new MacBook is more like a 12inch iPad with a fixed keyboard. There also appears to be push to use the MacBook on battery use, I wonder what will happen to battery performance after two year, perhaps you will need a new MacBook by then?

quote: Scott Norwood
non-removable batteries, and non-user-serviceable parts are all awful ideas that started with Macs and spread (like cancer) to many PC laptops.
Apparently there is no fan inside the machine, I am not that into the PC or laptop world so I am not sure if this is a first or not.

quote: Scott Norwood
The limited battery life should be a deal-breaker for many people. Even the cheapest wind-up clock will run for more than twenty-four hours without attention.
Someone dug into the Apple disclaimers and they claim that the watch battery will good for only 3hrs if you take a few calls. I assume your iPhone battery will be dead sooner as well as the phone should be technically taking the call as well.

quote: Mike Blakesley
So who knows? Five years from now we could all be sporting iWatch 4.0's.
I would purchase something like a fitbit for the health monitoring benefits. I think that stuff is kinda of cool, I would maybe buy new glasses with a monitor near my ear or something along those lines. I really do not want to wear a watch in any way shape or form.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-10-2015, 10:42 PM:
 
quote: Scott Norwood
The limited battery life should be a deal-breaker for many people. Even the cheapest wind-up clock will run for more than twenty-four hours without attention.
Apple is clearly relying on Watch users to be in the same habit they are with their iPhones, namely plugging it into a charger whenever possible (like, during lunch breaks) and definitely plugging it in every night.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-10-2015, 10:50 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
in the same habit they are with their iPhones, namely plugging it into a charger whenever possible (like, during lunch breaks) and definitely plugging it in every night.
As opposed to what Mike? I don't think there is any smartphone out there that can go longer than a day with normal use.
 
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 03-12-2015, 06:01 AM:
 
A lot of phones can go more than a day if used judiciously. Some even have (gasp!) replaceable batteries: you can pocket a backup if you really need to stay "in touch".
Apple's focus on making things thinner and ignoring what that loses (ports, battery access, battery life) doesn't impress me. When form and style eclipsed functionality they went too far.
The first few Macbooks and Powerbooks were revolutionary, and every other laptop maker quickly copied the thin screen - no more inch thick lids with wide bezels and a small low resolution screen. Average weight went from 7lb+ waaaaay down to compete with the Apple competition. I knew a lot of techs who switched to Apple because they were lighter. Once Apple switched to Intel CPUs you could even install Windows to avoid the restrictive and dictatorial Mac software prison. Now that you can get a very nice Windows laptop with HD display and a powerful CPU and GPU that doesn't weigh a ton (and at a decnt "apple tax" free price) I don't see so many Macbooks.
There will be a teardown video on YouTube within days of the new Macbook release: these are always entertaining, seeing what they've done to make them harder to service than the last generation was. I though changing any screws (only use screws when glue won't quite work!) to new heads that needed unavailable screwdrivers (and swapping in those screws if you sent an iThing in for repair) was typical Apple arrogance.

If you think the iWatch is big - have you looked at a watch counter lately? Watches are used to tell time by basically Luddites and old ladies/geeks. They are either jewelry, status symbols, or both. Many men's watches would be good wall clocks or Flavor Flav could put one on a chain and look normal (for him...). Women's watches haven't gotten quite so monstrous - females seem to have more fashion sense than us.
I expected the iWatch to be bigger than it is.

What's with the special gold for those with $10K in loose change?
"Apple’s gold is a metal matrix composite, not a standard alloy. Instead of mixing the gold with silver, copper, or other metals to make it harder, Apple is mixing it with low-density ceramic particles" (from slate.com).
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-12-2015, 09:31 AM:
 
quote: Dave Macaulay
A lot of phones can go more than a day if used judiciously.
My HTC 4G LTE could go a couple days between charges with light use, but that was when the non-removable battery was new. All of those rechargeable batteries steadily become less and less efficient. After enough charge cycles the battery must be replaced. "Oh, wait! I'm sorry. You can't change the battery. Looks like you have to spend a bunch more money on a brand new phone."

quote: Dave Macaulay
Apple's focus on making things thinner and ignoring what that loses (ports, battery access, battery life) doesn't impress me. When form and style eclipsed functionality they went too far.
I think it's all about gouging as much money from customers as possible.

The product is dressed up to look fashionable, but it's so damned disposable. With glued in parts and batteries if something stops working the customer is forced into a choice between two very shitty options: 1. Spend a bunch of money and go through some considerable inconvenience paying someone else to fix your device. 2. Skip the inconvenience but spend a whole lot more money on a new copy of that product.

Since Apple pushed this sort of crap onto its customers and those customers ever so lovingly bought it a whole bunch of other electronics companies have been shifting to the same bullshit. I feel like Apple could get away with frying babies in ovens if the ovens were emblazoned with Apple logos. The marketing dept. would come up with some clever way to rationalize it. The problem is the enormous amount of slack the public and especially the media gives Apple does not extend to all those other companies trying to copy Apple's greedy moves.

Still, those companies are taking their chances with glued in parts and batteries. They've got to listen to their shareholders, those of whom are also watching Apple's currently lofty stock prices.

quote: Dave Macaulay
Some even have (gasp!) replaceable batteries: you can pocket a backup if you really need to stay "in touch".
A big selling feature for Samsung's Galaxy phones has been the removable battery. Guess what? The new "S6" model coming out in April has no removable battery and no micro SD card slot. "Hey everybody! It's finally just like an iPhone now!"
[Roll Eyes]

I'm kind of surprised Samsung went with the "S6" model number, even though it logically follows "S5." The problem is "S6" sounds strangely similar to the word "sucks." I guess Samsung didn't notice all the heat HTC caught when one of its HTC One models didn't have a Micro SD card slot; HTC had to bring the card slot back on later versions.

quote: Dave Macaulay
Now that you can get a very nice Windows laptop with HD display and a powerful CPU and GPU that doesn't weigh a ton (and at a decnt "apple tax" free price) I don't see so many Macbooks.
I still see a shit ton of MacBooks on TV shows and movies. There's so many of them when an non-Apple computer makes an appearance in a movie or TV show it sticks out like a sore thumb. Obviously a paid product placement from that PC maker. I hear there's a hell of a lot of Sony spam in that new Chappie movie that's bombing at the box office.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-12-2015, 01:19 PM:
 
quote: Dave Macaulay
A lot of phones can go more than a day if used judiciously. Some even have (gasp!) replaceable batteries: you can pocket a backup if you really need to stay "in touch".
Apple's focus on making things thinner and ignoring what that loses (ports, battery access, battery life) doesn't impress me. When form and style eclipsed functionality they went too far.
I don't think the removable battery issue really matters to people for both cell phones and laptops. Sure it is nice to have a removable battery but the majority of people are going to want a new phone (with the new technology or operating system) by the time the battery dies. More people are on contracts and price to upgrade the phone vs a battery replacement favors the new phone.

With the new MacBook, I can totally see what they are trying to market and that is portability without wires or charging, but the iPad or iPhone serve that function already? I don't get why they are showing someone on public transit listening with their blu-tooth headphones when an iPhone or iPad can do it all the same.

quote: Dave Macaulay
The first few Macbooks and Powerbooks were revolutionary, and every other laptop maker quickly copied the thin screen - no more inch thick lids with wide bezels and a small low resolution screen.
I am not much into lap top scene, but what else made them revolutionary?
 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-12-2015, 01:49 PM:
 
Nothing like Apple to get hackles up...

Some of the comments I'm seeing here do echo commentary I saw in quite a few places when the iPad came out. At the time, it was difficult for people to understand its usefulness, especially at the price Apple was asking.

The nice thing about Apple and its products is that millions of units are sold, so their products are tested extensively by the market very quickly. Conservative estimates put it at 15 million and 20 million units in 2015 (if that happens, it will leave other "smart wearables" in the dust), so that's a lot of people putting it through its paces and seeing if it's something worthwhile.

While many people think that watches are not worn anymore, they are a fashion accessory for some (likely the same audience that will be first to purchase an Apple Watch, especially the more expensive ones). I still wear a watch when I'm on the go, because glancing at my wrist is far easier than pulling my phone out, just to check the time. The younger generation likes to think that watches are passe, and something that their dads and grandfathers wore, so why would they do it?

However, plenty of people are wearing fitness trackers of some sort (Fitbits, Garmin Vivofits, Jawbones, etc.), and some of them not only track health stats, but have watches built into them. I would imagine that the Apple Watch provides the same functionality, and more. I've been using my iPhone 6 to track steps, and it's actually pretty useful, but I don't carry my phone everywhere I go, so I can see where having that functionality in a watch would be cool.

That's not compelling enough to get me to part with $350 of my money, though. (At $200, I'd likely buy it.) I'm happy to see where this goes and what improvements might be made in the second gen devices. Just because it's not a good fit for me right now doesn't make it useless and a bad product. I'm not about to look down my nose at millions of people that make a different choice and marginalize them with terms like "sheeple" and such.

To each his own, and I applaud Apple for giving it a shot. They rarely get things perfect the first time out, but they tend to learn quickly and deliver something that gets progressively better and is attractive to an ever-growing number of people.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2015, 01:57 PM:
 
When this topic first started I did a Google search for pictures of the iWatch. It's amazing how dorky it looks. It looks like something a kid would wear. I think it's just the size and thickness of it. It just looks dorky, geeky and gadgety on a person's wrist.

I can see men wearing it, since it'll sort of hide under a shirtsleeve but it's still too big and thick and gangly looking. I still say the average mainstream woman won't be caught dead wearing this thing, unless she's at a gym or a track meet.

-

So, they'll have to come up with reasons to make it a "must-have" that can overcome this problem. People are super-picky about the stuff they put on their person.

It'll be interesting to come back to this thread in a few years and see how things actually played out.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-12-2015, 03:45 PM:
 
I still think the iWatch will sell very well, even to women, all because it's an Apple branded product. It's already "must have" since it has an Apple logo on it somewhere.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't think the removable battery issue really matters to people for both cell phones and laptops. Sure it is nice to have a removable battery but the majority of people are going to want a new phone (with the new technology or operating system) by the time the battery dies.
I can understand the business logic behind making a phone with a non-removable battery along with having other user non-serviceable parts. They want people to keep replacing their phones every 18-24 months even though that business model is now clearly falling apart.

Doing the same thing with a notebook computer is only a very stupid and very greedy, anti-customer stunt.

Some notebook computer system crashes require a hard reset. Sometimes that means literally taking the battery out of the back of the computer. How is someone supposed to do that when the battery is glued into the machine? Do they just have to wait for a few hours until the battery goes dead?
[Roll Eyes]

Then there's the simple economics of the matter. Some people may be able to stomach spending $300 on a new phone every couple years. It's a different matter to expect them to do the same thing with a $1500 notebook computer.

quote: Scott Jentsch
The nice thing about Apple and its products is that millions of units are sold, so their products are tested extensively by the market very quickly.
Are the people taking part in the beta testing and market research really giving their honest opinions? I can't help but think some of the people doing the secret product testing feel so very priveldged to be involved in an Apple beta program. Maybe they worry if their user experience feedback is less than glowing they won't be invited to take part in future product tests.

I can't help but think at least some of this crap is going on, given how things like glued in batteries and other non user-service parts are creeping into more and more Apple products. I'm really annoyed with it because other electronics companies are copying the same shit. It's one thing if you don't want to buy an Apple product and other people are buying the glued in crap by choice. It's going to be a real pisser when every product in the market is infected with the glued in crap.
 
Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 03-12-2015, 06:16 PM:
 
I look a this "wrist toy" and ask, "who would want to really be tethered to such a device", let alone being in an area where one can easily bust the glass crystal by accident.

Employee here has the Google version of a smart watch where it's nice and round, size of a half dollar and no continual lit display. Tap on it and it wakes up and do your beckoning.

Asked the kid how much that thing was and still wonder on who would spend that kind of money on that item being made for more form than function.

Guess these toys are made for the "Y" generation and that is who is going to blow their 15 buck an hour, hamburger flipping career earnings on.

Need a magnifying glass just to see the screen, for us old tired eyes.

-Monte
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-12-2015, 06:18 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
You get HBO for $14.99 per month without needing an overpriced cable/satellite package pinned to it.
Holy crap! HBO isn't worth $15 a month in any way, shape or form! Netflix offers far more valuable content at less of a price. Screw HBO. What do they have that's worth watching, anyway?
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 03-12-2015, 11:02 PM:
 
quote: Dave Macaulay
Apple's focus on making things thinner and ignoring what that loses (ports, battery access, battery life) doesn't impress me. When form and style eclipsed functionality they went too far.
quote: Bobby Henderson
I think it's all about gouging as much money from customers as possible.
I'm sure that was a part of the design decision but there are other considerations. I'll list some here off the top of my head.

1) As mentioned above, it allows for a smaller, thinner device.
2) Less parts make up the housing. You don't need to produce a battery door that has tooling costs.
3) The plug connector that is internal is much cheaper than a battery contact block. Yes, we're talking less than $1 difference but multiplied by millions of units, it adds up.
4) Lowers the chance of stupid consumers killing their phone using a defective battery made in some back ally in china.
5) Less likely to have something break when the phone is dropped. With removable batteries the door tends to fly off and the battery shoots out.

I personally hate the non removable batteries but there are good arguments to design phones with them. When I worked for Motorola years ago designing the phones for Nextel, we debated using a non-removable battery on a low end phone purely for cost savings. At the time, the reason we didn't do it was that battery life hadn't gotten good enough yet and heavy users tended to have spare, charged batteries to swap.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-12-2015, 11:31 PM:
 
quote: Joe Redifer
Holy crap! HBO isn't worth $15 a month in any way, shape or form! Netflix offers far more valuable content at less of a price. Screw HBO. What do they have that's worth watching, anyway?
HBO is one of the few reasons I've kept my satellite TV service this long. I don't really care about any of the Hollywood movies they show; if it's a movie I cared to see I probably would have rented it already. But HBO does have some very good original programs.

Game of Thrones alone will attract subscribers to the HBO Now streaming service. The first season of True Detective was very good (the 2nd season is supposed to revive Vince Vaughn's career). The Leftovers was another good series. HBO usually has some good documentaries, like the Oscar-winning Citizen Four.

Pay TV customers have wanted to pick their own channels for their own package for a very long time. I'd be happy with HBO, Comedy Central, AMC, FX, TNT and a few sports channels. Most of the other cable networks have gone to shit, deviating from their original programming genre to marathons of reality TV bullshit.

I don't even tune into the Weather Channel anymore. The NBC-Universal-Comcast folks transformed TWC from a straight-forward, boring yet still respectable network into a reality TV infected, sensationalist sewer. They show reality TV whenever possible. And then when they actually do bother covering the weather TWC now takes it upon itself to name winter storms and have Jim Cantore go totally batshit crazy at the sight of thundersnow. The crap going on with The Weather Channel is a good symptom of what's wrong with cable in general.

It seems streaming services are really the only way how pay TV customers are getting any illusion of choice. One downside is the exclusive deals Netflix and Amazon are making with movie studios and networks is viewers are having to subscribe to more than one streaming service or do without certain programs.

The nice thing is more and more real content from cable networks is making its way into streaming services. Maybe if I can manage to "cut the cord" I won't be giving up much more than just some live sports programs.

As for the Apple TV device, I did a little more reading about the HBO Now deal with Apple. The exclusive deal is apparently just for the first three months after HBO Now is launched. The exclusivity will go to Apple TV and iOS devices. By the end of summer HBO Now could be popping up on Roku, Chromecast, Fire TV, etc. So that makes the Apple TV & HBO deal quite a bit less impressive, especially considering the old age of the Apple TV device itself.
 
Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 03-13-2015, 07:56 AM:
 
I did this years ago but didn't record it. Actually I drilled into one and destroyed a drill bit.
With a cell phone, be aware of what you have in your pocket:https://youtu.be/7-xPHopebiE
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-13-2015, 08:51 AM:
 
I've heard the rationale for non-removable batteries as "protecting our customers" before. I call "bullshit" to that, especially with how thin and fragile a smart phone can be without some kind of protective case. There's all kinds of news stories about phones over-heating, catching fire and even exploding while in someone's pocket.

For example here is a news article about someone getting 2nd degree burns from a newly purchased iPhone 6.

quote:
iPhone 6 catches fire in man's pocket

One man in Arizona says the iPhone 6 is literally the hottest phone on the market. He says his newly purchased phone caught fire while it was in his pocket.

Phillip Lechter says it even left his leg with second-degree burns.

"It's been a little over a week now, so I've had the opportunity to get some good medicine on it," said Lechter, who is still nursing the burn.

"It wasn't like a puff of smoke, I could actually feel my leg burning and I couldn't figure out what it was," he said.

Lechter was in Tucson for the University of Arizona football game October 11th. He says he was riding in a rickshaw with his family when it hit something and started to tip over. His iPhone was in his front pocket.

"As the rickshaw tipped, I stepped out like this, and it drove the Apple phone into the bar of the rickshaw... luckily we weren't injured at all, it was just one of those weird sensations like a rollercoaster ride until I realized my pants were on fire" said Lechter.

Lechter says the phone burned through his jeans and his boxers.

"So these were the pants I was wearing... the part had the most heat was the glass, and that was up against my leg," he said.

Lechter described seeing flames from his phone.

"The flames were coming out of the pocket the smoke was coming out of here... it did burn me as I pulled it out," said Lechter.

He took photos of the iPhone shortly after the incident.

"It's a lithium battery, it's a situation through the bending of the phone, it popped the lithium battery which caused the burning," he said.

Lechter was able to get the phone out of his pants, and he threw it to the side. Someone walking by happened to get video of a cup of ice being thrown on the phone.

Lecther says he took the iPhone to the Apple store in Scottsdale the next day.

"They were pretty shocked; they'd never seen something like that before," said Lecther.

Apple replaced the phone, but Lechter wants the company to address what he says happened to him.

"If a child or teenager was riding their bike, had their phone on them, they fell and hurt themselves and couldn't get the phone out of their pocket, what kind of situation are we in there now... they need to make sure they protect the public. Because I always used the case to protect the phone, I didn't know I needed a case to protect myself" he said.
When reading stories like that it makes me think about people like my niece. She went through a phase of breaking 3 different iPhones because she insisted on putting them in her pocket and forgetting about it when sitting. She's lucky she didn't literally roast her butt doing that.
[Eek!]
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-13-2015, 11:33 AM:
 
So the consensus of our members seems to be centered on two major points:

1. The iWatch is too expensive, too big, may not be useful, is dorky, is not consumer-friendly, is inconvenient to own, is going to be obsolete in a year or so, and in most respects is just a bad idea all around.

2. It's going to sell in the tens of millions.

What a world we live in, eh?
 
Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-13-2015, 01:42 PM:
 
You're right on #2, but as far as #1 goes, the consensus of our members doesn't mean a great deal. Keep in mind that people a lot more savvy about these things than we have made utter fools of themselves trying to second guess Apple. In 2001 a financial analyst named David Goldstien predicted that Apple retail stores would be a cataclysmic failure, saying in part: "I give them two years before they're turning out the lights on a very painful and expensive mistake". In 2012, another "expert", John Dvorak, predicted that the iPhone would be passe within three months. "Cover your eyes, you're not going to like what you'll see" he said. I hardly need tell anyone what was borne out of both.

I myself didn't see the point of the iPad when it was announced, and I said as much somewhere in this very forum, predicting that I wouldn't buy one. But after a while, after handling one and seeing the sense and utility of it, I broke down and bought a Mini. It's my constant companion now, and the last ten or so books I've read were bought from either the iBooks or Kindle for IOS app.

We here might not see the point of some of these gadgets, but others do. I won't buy an iWatch because I can't stand wearing a watch in general. My neice, on the other hand, is beside herself anticipating this thing. She runs, does cardio, texts and all the other things this is designed for. There's no point in my (or anybody) trying to tell her that the iWatch is foolish, because I (and we) are not the intended market and likely wouldn't get much use out of it anyway.

EDIT: In the 45 min. since I made this post, I've had to pull my iPhone off my belt eight times to answer texts. Maybe I will buy the damn watch.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-13-2015, 05:03 PM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
She runs, does cardio, texts and all the other things this is designed for.
So what happens when she goes for a run, she has to take the phone with her for the watch to work.

quote: Mark Ogden
You're right on #2, but as far as #1 goes, the consensus of our members doesn't mean a great deal. Keep in mind that people a lot more savvy about these things than we have made utter fools of themselves trying to second guess Apple. In 2001 a financial analyst named David Goldstien predicted that Apple retail stores would be a cataclysmic failure, saying in part: "I give them two years before they're turning out the lights on a very painful and expensive mistake". In 2012, another "expert", John Dvorak, predicted that the iPhone would be passe within three months. "Cover your eyes, you're not going to like what you'll see" he said. I hardly need tell anyone what was borne out of both.
Apple is very successful because of the iPhone first and foremost, without the iPhone where would they be? Also, Apple stores generally have the product in the largest stock quantities on open day for a release than local stores,

How successful would the stores be with the iPhone?
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-13-2015, 06:43 PM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
How successful would the stores be with the iPhone?
About as successful as they have been, I guess.
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-14-2015, 03:14 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
I remember when I started a thread when the iPad was first announced asking if people were going to get one. Almost everyone said no, it is stupid, etc etc but now almost everyone swears by their iPad (or similar tablet device). So who knows? Five years from now we could all be sporting iWatch 4.0's.
Exactly right. You're all making assumptions about a product you and the world haven't actually played with yet.

I bought my first gen iPad because I thought it would be nice to have something I could instantly access the web on near my TV for when links popped up I wanted to check out. But once I had the thing, it COMPLETELY TOOK OVER MY LIFE. It could do SO much. And its potential wasn't even fully realized.

Such is the case with Apple Watch. As it grows, developers will find new things for it to do nobody had thought of previously.

Having said that, I'm not getting one, but I'm interested in seeing how many people want to go back to wearing watches. Years ago, Mitsubishi came out with a line of cell phones. The base model didn't have a clock on it. I didn't think it would be a big deal, but nearly every one my company sold was returned for that very reason...the lack of clock. That many people had quit wearing watches in favor of using their phone for that. And this was 10-15 years ago, prior to the smart phone era.

As for the new MacBook, this is not designed to be anyone's primary computer (unless you're a really basic user). This is designed to be the portable compliment to your main desktop, convenient and powerful enough for travel needs. Web browsing, e-mail, number crunching, no problem. Even video playing. Sync it all to your main device in the cloud. (I'm not one to advent STORING stuff in the cloud, but I don't mind transferring that way.)

I also disagree with Bobby's assessment on the single USB-C. I bought a mouse for my MacBook. It was used twice. The glass trackpad was FAR superior. And the new ForceTouch trackpad looks to have a lot of new versatility to it. Aside from charging my MacBook or syncing my devices, I never have anything plugged into it.

So the new MacBook will indeed probably replace my existing one when it comes time. I'm hoping for a 14" version by then.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-14-2015, 04:32 PM:
 
quote: Sam Graham
Exactly right. You're all making assumptions about a product you and the world haven't actually played with yet.

I bought my first gen iPad because I thought it would be nice to have something I could instantly access the web on near my TV for when links popped up I wanted to check out. But once I had the thing, it COMPLETELY TOOK OVER MY LIFE. It could do SO much. And its potential wasn't even fully realized.

Such is the case with Apple Watch. As it grows, developers will find new things for it to do nobody had thought of previously.
You make some good points Sam, but iPad sales are no longer growing like they used to, aside from the iPhone which has had believable growth year after year, a lot of consumers are not upgrading their iPads like an iPhone. The iPad does sell in very high numbers but that does not mean Apple is immune to pressures of having to try and sell more units each year.

I think it could be argued that current Mac/Macbook sales are at a high level because of the good will and popularity of the iPhone. But eventually Apple is going to have to slow down, everything they make cannot always be a hit.

I wonder what is going to happen to iPhone sales now that they have finally gotten their phone sizes up to the industry standard size.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-14-2015, 05:04 PM:
 
quote: Sam Graham
As it grows, developers will find new things for it to do nobody had thought of previously.
I'm sure you're right, but the one thing about the Watch that makes it different from every other iProduct is, you have to WEAR it on your arm. That's a world of difference from sticking it in your pocket or hanging it on your belt. I go back to my original point that women (and a lot of men too) won't want to wear that big ugly thing due to its looks. Anybody that has a physically-demanding job won't want to wear it either, for the same reasons they don't wear watches now.

I remember a time not too very long ago when I didn't think I needed a cell phone. Now I'm right there with the rest of the iPack plugging my phone in every day. (But I still resist looking at it during movies!) So while I can see the problems with the Watch, I also won't be surprised if Apple figures out ways to fool, I mean educate people into ways to ignore, I mean overcome them.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-14-2015, 11:30 PM:
 
quote: Mark Ogden
Keep in mind that people a lot more savvy about these things than we have made utter fools of themselves trying to second guess Apple.
I don't think many people here are trying to second guess Apple. Those of us, like me, who are making negative comments are just saying what we don't like about the iWatch and new MacBook (or even Apple's HBO Now deal for Apple TV and iOS devices).

Most of us are in agreement that people will be lining up like crazy to buy the iWatch regardless of the complaints.

But here is an important "however" statement: the iWatch may be one of the first Apple branded devices to have little if any of Steve Jobs' input on its design and marketing strategy. Tim Cook and other people on his team are going to be increasingly tested. How far will the "halo" of the Apple brand extend to its products into the future?

If there's one area where I will second guess Apple it's in the "core" market that earned Apple its prestige in the first place: making computers and software for creative professionals. Apple has slipped badly in this area. Apple is literally allowing Adobe to turn into a monopoly. I'm pretty worried about that because I'm stuck having to rent Adobe software now. If Adobe doesn't have any proper rivals to keep it honest there is nothing to stop the company from cranking up Creative Cloud subscription rates from $49.99 per month to something like $89.99 per month or $200 per month or whatever they want to charge.

quote: Sam Graham
I also disagree with Bobby's assessment on the single USB-C. I bought a mouse for my MacBook. It was used twice. The glass trackpad was FAR superior. And the new ForceTouch trackpad looks to have a lot of new versatility to it. Aside from charging my MacBook or syncing my devices, I never have anything plugged into it.
Track pads suck when used with graphics programs or other complicated creative software applications. I must at least use a mouse, if not a Wacom graphics tablet, when using my graphics programs. Trying to use a track pad and apply keyboard short cuts at the same time doesn't work very well.

In addition to having a mouse connected I usually have some kind of external hard disc drive around, either for storing files or serving as a 2nd physical "scratch" disc (something that is do-able via a USB 3.0 or eSATA connection, both of which my notebook has).

quote: Mike Blakesley
I'm sure you're right, but the one thing about the Watch that makes it different from every other iProduct is, you have to WEAR it on your arm.
If you're working out at the gym, outdoors jogging or doing some other physical activity you have to have both the iWatch and the iPhone strapped to your arm for the iWatch to work properly. That's just utterly ridiculous.

I might find the iWatch more intriguing if it worked all by itself.

The fact the iWatch is dependent upon an iPhone paired to it makes me wonder how much it can really do on its own. Can it connect to WiFi or 4G by itself or does the iPhone do that for the iWatch? Can you plug headphones into the iWatch or is the iWatch little more than a music remote control for the songs on your iPhone? Does the iWatch have its own built in Dick Tracy camera? The more I look into this product the more questions (and doubts) I have about it.

quote: Mike Blakesley
I go back to my original point that women (and a lot of men too) won't want to wear that big ugly thing due to its looks.
The iWatch does have 42mm and 38mm versions, presumably mens and womens sizes.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-14-2015, 11:44 PM:
 
Well there you go. 38mm is maybe 3x as wide as a typical stylish-looking woman's watch. And from the pictures, I'd say the iWatch is at least twice as thick as a garden-variety watch too.

I may be reading too much into the whole "looks" thing, considering how many young people are perfectly happy going around with multiple hideous tattoos and piercings on their bodies....but, vanity is a big thing with a lot of people and Apple really needs all their fans + a big chunk of the "Joe Citizen" types to buy into this thing to make it work in the long term.

It'll be interesting to "watch" the results, that's for sure.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-14-2015, 11:48 PM:
 
Apple could plaster a chrome plated Apple logo onto an otherwise worthless brick and people would line up to pay $300 for it.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-15-2015, 12:42 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
vanity is a big thing with a lot of people and Apple really needs all their fans + a big chunk of the "Joe Citizen" types to buy into this thing to make it work in the long term.
I don't think it needs all of their fans and a big chunk, I think it needs about 15% of the current iPhone users to buy the watch. From my understanding, the iPhone will push everything to the watch, you will set up the watch and add apps from the watch app on the iPhone, from there the data such as emails, text, and phone calls all happen on the phone and they get pushed to the watch.

Based on the new screen sizes, I highly doubt the next iPhone will do the sales of the current phone. The new watch has one of the best margins on all of their products. The watch, Apple Pay, and the new lap tops will make up from some of the inevitable decline in iPhone sales for the next few releases.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-15-2015, 04:13 PM:
 
quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
I don't think it needs all of their fans and a big chunk, I think it needs about 15% of the current iPhone users to buy the watch.
I guess I shouldn't have generalized with "all of their fans." What I meant was that since there are so many people don't wear watches (or won't wear this because they'll think it's bad-looking), they need to score outside of their core fanbase to make this a lasting success.

quote: Terry Lynn-Stevens
Based on the new screen sizes, I highly doubt the next iPhone will do the sales of the current phone.
If it doesn't sell as well, I think the biggest reason will be more along the lines of "I don't need another freaking phone yet." I've had my original smartphone, an iPhone 4S, ever since they came out and have no need to trade it in because it still works fine and I've been able to keep from breaking the screen. Would I like to get the bigger newer screen? Sure but I'll wait till this one tanks.

I expect a large chunk of Apple's core business is the "Holycrap I must have the new thing RIGHT NOW" crowd, many of which are teens who must have the newest thing to stay with the crowd. (How they convince their parents to buy them new phones every 6 months is something I'll never understand.)

I guess if Apple really wants to kickstart the phone business they might have to work on shortening their battery recharge life. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-15-2015, 11:47 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
What I meant was that since there are so many people don't wear watches (or won't wear this because they'll think it's bad-looking), they need to score outside of their core fanbase to make this a lasting success.
I don't think there is going to be a lot of Android converts wanting the watch, first you have to get the iPhone and then buy the watch, that is a very big transaction price that just won't happen. A potential customer is going to have to walk out of the store with both.

I wonder what is going to happen to the gym rat or the runner who has an Apple Watch and wants to listen to music? They will still need to bring along their iPhone
 
Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-16-2015, 09:47 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Track pads suck when used with graphics programs or other complicated creative software applications. I must at least use a mouse, if not a Wacom graphics tablet, when using my graphics programs. Trying to use a track pad and apply keyboard short cuts at the same time doesn't work very well.
Yes. But you would never ever ever use this particular machine for that purpose. It doesn't have the processor power for that. It's simply not designed for such applications.

For what it IS designed for, I don't see a problem.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-16-2015, 01:45 PM:
 
quote: Sam Graham
Yes. But you would never ever ever use this particular machine for that purpose. It doesn't have the processor power for that. It's simply not designed for such applications.

For what it IS designed for, I don't see a problem.
Sam, you have to be kidding? There is a very little reason to buy this Apple Macbook. Even the Apple faithful are having a hard time trying to understand how backwards this product is.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-16-2015, 03:12 PM:
 
quote: Sam Graham
Yes. But you would never ever ever use this particular machine for that purpose. It doesn't have the processor power for that. It's simply not designed for such applications.
The new MacBook almost has the power to run creative applications. It needs at least some graphics performance to drive the 2304 X 1440 resolution 12" display. Obviously the notebook gets hurt by using an integrated graphics chip (Intel HD Graphics 5300) rather than a dedicated graphics board, such as the nVidia GeForce GT 750M in the 15" MacBook Pro.

If the new MacBook is all about portability combined with basic computing use, why not just get an iPad? There are some creative things I can do on an iPad that can't be done on the new MacBook, such as using some of Adobe's mobile applications that come with Creative Cloud. Adobe's Draw and Line applications can sync between Photoshop & Illustrator via the cloud. Adobe's Ink & Slide tools allow precision drawing and drafting on the iPad.

The new MacBook is interesting from a design and engineering perspective. It is impressive how they were able to make the computer so thin, yet make improvements to the keyboard and trackpad. Unfortunately the single USB-C port (and the need for various kinds of cable adapters) doesn't make it practical for "desktop replacement" use. So I would end up looking for some of those new design improvements to appear in other notebooks like the MacBook Pro.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2015, 01:03 AM:
 
Bad sign for the Watch: it's now the subject of late night tv jokes.

quote:
Seth Meyers: If you've been waiting for an Apple product you can accidentally destroy while washing your hands, have I got good news for you!

Apple Watch, you're great for all those times I've looked at my phone and said "This is nice, but I wish it was harder to see and operate!"

Hey let me check my Watch, oh! Time to look like a douchebag!

 
Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 03-20-2015, 11:24 AM:
 
I seem to recall David Letterman using an iPad as a drink tray.

Stuff like this is like being a celebrity: The only thing worse than having bad things said about you is having nothing said about you.

Awareness is the key with publicity. Getting someone that is watched by lots of people to mention the product is good, even if they are poking fun at it.

Unless they come out and say: "I've tried it, I wanted to like it, but after a week, I've come to the conclusion that it's complete unmitigated crap" -- it's still a win.

That said, I haven't seen anything up to this point that makes me want to buy one. It will be interesting to see what its impact will be once released and people actually start using it.

9-12 months from now, there will have been enough people that have tried it that we'll know if it is a tremendous success, or just a high-profile lackluster product.

Minor shortcomings can be handled by a Gen-2 release. Major shortcomings/lack of appeal will result in its non-renewal in the product cycle or outright cancellation. Apple has shown incredible patience with some of its products that didn't take the world by storm in iPod/iPhone/iPad fashion. Just look at how long the Apple TV has stuck around, essentially unchanged. It's just now getting some traction with some new deals and a lowered price.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2015, 11:57 AM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
Bad sign for the Watch: it's now the subject of late night tv jokes.
Meanwhile this morning Good Morning America was running what amounted to a commercial passing as a news story. No disclaimer about ABC being owned by Disney, a company that occupies a seat on Apple's board. The piece was about product testing for the Apple watch. They went to some secret gymnasium/testing facility in a non-descript building in an industrial park. Somebody claimed it was one of the world's most advanced fitness testing facilities. A couple dozen people were doing yoga and running on treadmills while hooked up to oxygen hoses. When the story finished one of the anchors said her daughter couldn't wait til the iWatch goes on sale.

One very amusing thing in the puff piece about the iWatch product testing: a bunch of the computers and computer monitors in the gym were Dell-branded hardware.

quote: Scott Jentsch
That said, I haven't seen anything up to this point that makes me want to buy one. It will be interesting to see what its impact will be once released and people actually start using it.
One of the key problems is cost. The iWatch by itself starts out at a price $100 higher than the best Fitbit model. And then you must have an iPhone 5 or iPhone 6 model to pair with it.

That brings me to the big question of just what the hell has been going on with mobile phone pricing. Just this morning I saw a Sears e-mail ad showing pricing for various Apple mobile products. With sales tax included an unlocked iPhone 6 costs over $700 and an iPhone 6 Plus costs over $1000 -and that's just for the basic models; you'll add hundreds more if you want lots of memory capacity. These things cost considerably more than a well configured iPad.

Meanwhile AT&T, Verizon, Sprint & T-Mobile all seem to be quietly phasing out their subsidized phone sales. Remember the notion of paying $199 plus about $100 for other odds, ends, added fees, etc. to get the latest, greatest phone on your carrier? That doesn't seem to be available anymore. Now they all want you to pay the usual $100 or more for your smartphone plan, plus add another $20 or $30 on top of that for 2 years to get a new phone.

Mobile phones have some great technology inside, but there's no way any of them are worth $700 to $1000. That's as much as a well equipped entry level notebook computer.

Is the general public just really stupid about math and budgeting or has much of the public just gone insane? This kind of pricing makes me all the more determined to hold onto my aging HTC Android phone. I don't need a new phone that bad, much less blow another $350 on top of the giant upgrade prices just to have a new gizmo on my wrist.

quote: Scott Jentsch
Minor shortcomings can be handled by a Gen-2 release. Major shortcomings/lack of appeal will result in its non-renewal in the product cycle or outright cancellation. Apple has shown incredible patience with some of its products that didn't take the world by storm in iPod/iPhone/iPad fashion. Just look at how long the Apple TV has stuck around, essentially unchanged. It's just now getting some traction with some new deals and a lowered price.
The first iPad was really the Apple Newton way back in the early 1990s. That product didn't do too well, but then again Steve Jobs wasn't in the picture at Apple during that time.

Regarding AppleTV, at first I thought the $30 price break from $99 to $69 and its capability to run the new HBO Now streaming service was a big deal. Unfortunately for AppleTV the HBO Now exclusive deal is only for 3 months. HBO Now will likely roll out to Android, Chromecast, FireTV, Roku, XBox, PS3/4 and various Smart TV platforms afterward. AppleTV is aging seriously. Apple will have to update it if they want it to survive. Roku has gone through at least a couple product generations since AppleTV was launched. Roku3 is a very good set top box.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-20-2015, 12:36 PM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Is the general public just really stupid about math and budgeting or has much of the public just gone insane?
The general public is just confused about what phones cost. You can't blame them though -- they've been hammered all these years with all these "free" and discount deals, in which the phone company pays most of the cost of the phone to the dealer, so the customer has no idea what phones really cost.

We used to sell cellphones at the store here and I used to tell people "Now, you're getting that phone free, but WE PAID over $250 for that phone and if you break it, it will cost you around $300 to replace it, so treat it nice!" and they would be all confused and still think the phone was only worth $50.

About the late night jokes thing....it's the very last line in Seth's comments that tells the tale. Most people don't want to wear something that makes them look like a douchebag, and when TV hosts start talking about something in that light, it's not long before that attitude prevails in the public eye, especially if the hosts keep hammering at it. Happens to politicians all the time.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2015, 01:23 PM:
 
Remember Zima? That wine cooler or whatever it was lite alcoholic drink? I think David Letterman played a big role in killing it, referring to it as "that Zima crap" repeatedly on his show in the 1990s.

quote: Mike Blakesley
The general public is just confused about what phones cost. You can't blame them though -- they've been hammered all these years with all these "free" and discount deals, in which the phone company pays most of the cost of the phone to the dealer, so the customer has no idea what phones really cost.
But most customers had the understanding the steep $100 monthly fee they were paying for their phone plan was in part paying for that phone. If they were eligible to upgrade to a new phone they would pay $99 or $199 and have to renew their 2 year contract.

Now it seems the phone company still wants just as much money for that monthly plan. Yet the customer has to pay for a new phone in addition to his high monthly rate, either buying the phone outright for several hundred bucks or financing it at around $30 per month for two years.

Just what the hell service are these mobile phone companies providing anyway? It sure doesn't appear to be service worth $100 or more per month. They're not going to help customers move up to newer better phone models. They're playing all kinds of games with data bandwidth. Unlimited plans are very rare, even at carriers like Sprint which heavily marketed that kind of thing years ago. Yet they make all these speed claims over who has the fastest 4G or whatever. Who gives a rat's ass how fast you can stream movies or whatever over 4G if it's going to tear through a monthly bandwidth allowance in a matter of minutes!?
[Mad]

BTW, I'm still using Sprint for my mobile carrier only because of the grandfathered unlimited data plan.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-20-2015, 01:54 PM:
 
When I upgraded to a "smart" phone a few years ago, I was already a Straight Talk customer and happy with their $30/month plan. I did a price compare between Straight Talk, where I would have needed to purchase my just released iPhone 5 vs Verizon contract plan for the same phone. I decided to upgrade my Straight Talk plan to unlimited phone/text/data (throttled after 3GB/month). The cost of purchasing my iPhone outright plus the $45 month unlimited plan still saved me over $900 over the cost of the similar 2 year Verizon plan. On top of that, Straight Talk iPhones here in northern NJ run on Verizon's network, so I get all the benefits and little of the cost. Straight Talk also allows you to bring your own previously owned phone to their network, both GMS and CDMA, so had I already owned a phone, it would have been even more savings by not having to buy a new phone.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-20-2015, 02:20 PM:
 
I've looked into Straight Talk, but have been hesitant about making the switch from Sprint. The problem is complaints about service quality, at least around here.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 03-20-2015, 03:28 PM:
 
Straight Talk's customer service sucks, even on those rare occasions that you can understand what they saying (thick accents).

On the other hand, their service tends to work without any problems here in New Jersey.

Around here, Straight Talk primarily uses Verizon's network if you have a CDMA phone, and either ATT or T-Mobil's network if you have a GMS phone (depending upon home coverage area).

Most of Straight Talks phones these days are GMS, apparently ATT & T-Mobil are giving them a better bulk price. iPhones (among a few others) are CDMA because when Straight Talk first started supporting the iPhone, the other network providers were insufficient to support Straight Talk's unlimited data plans.
 
Posted by Terry Lynn-Stevens (Member # 7349) on 03-22-2015, 11:14 AM:
 
quote: Scott Jentsch
9-12 months from now, there will have been enough people that have tried it that we'll know if it is a tremendous success, or just a high-profile lackluster product.
I think a major flop in on the cards for the Apple watch. Generation 2 and 3 are not going to be able to fix things or perceptions that the watch is pretty much useless. I still don't see how Apple is going to overcome the pairing it with an iPhone problem..
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-13-2015, 12:28 AM:
 
quote: Bobby Henderson
Is the general public just really stupid about math and budgeting or has much of the public just gone insane?
On "The Price Is Right" recently they had a couple of iPhones for one of the one-bid prizes. When they give away phones on that show, they ALWAYS include a calling/data plan in the price, but nobody ever seems to know how much that actually costs. The contestants will all guess $500, $700 or whatever, and the "actual retail price" is usually somewhere around $1300 per phone. People really don't pay attention to what they're paying for their phones and their other "home entertainment" options.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-09-2015, 02:04 AM:
 
Well.... looks like the iWatch is less than a stellar seller for Apple. How many Film-Techers have one?

"Apple Watch sales fall by 90% since launch"
 
Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 11-16-2016, 12:01 AM:
 

It has been 495 days since the last post.


 
Posted by James Mays (Member # 9228) on 11-16-2016, 12:01 AM:
 
I've read and heard lot of feedback on Apple Watches and so far good reviews at all. But for recommendation on outdoor watches or sport watches, I can say Garmin is the best. Just leaving my 2 cents.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2016, 12:41 PM:
 
The Apple Watch is now on its 2nd generation. The new one runs faster, has stand-alone GPS, Siri voice command support and is now water proof (apparently even in salt water). But there's still no camera for Dick Tracy style functions and no 3G/4G. You still have to pair it with a late model iPhone. I think this phone is really only going to appeal to customers who have bought heavily into the Apple product ecosystem. If you don't already own a recent iPhone buying an Apple Watch is going to be a really expensive prospect. The watch by itself is $400. They do have a "Nike" version, but I'm not sure what's so "Nike" about black band with some lime green holes in it.

Samsung has their new Gear S3 watch. It has some unique features and can run independently via LTE or connect via Bluetooth or WiFi. But the freaking thing costs $499! Jeez!

Fitbit still dominates the "wearables" market. I think it all has to do with price. In the last 18 months Apple's share of the "wearables" market has declined to 7% while Fitbit has 25% of the market. It seems to be a lot easier for customers to blow $50 to $100 for a basic fitness tracking watch.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-16-2016, 03:04 PM:
 
I read somewhere that Apple is going to post their first annual sales decline in many years this year. People are just tired of replacing their expensive devices every year.

My best friend's wife has a Samsung smartwatch... she was all raving about it when she first got it (last year for Christmas) but I can't remember the last time I actually saw her wearing it.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2016, 04:38 PM:
 
quote: Mike Blakesley
I read somewhere that Apple is going to post their first annual sales decline in many years this year. People are just tired of replacing their expensive devices every year.
Yeah, there's the problem of diminishing returns on each iPhone release. Declining sales figures on smart phones is an industry-wide problem that affects more companies than just Apple. The Apple Watch hasn't been as big a hit as Apple expected. The iPad Pro costs too much; at that price and size footprint why not just buy a full blown notebook computer? Apple has been taking its personal computer customer base very much for granted.

I think Apple's fixation on making computers smaller, thinner and more limited in features is finally starting to backfire. Not everyone "wears" their computer as digital jewelry on the way to the coffee shop or hair salon. Rival workstation companies are not trying at all to emulate the miniature design of the Mac Pro "tower." Critics are beating up on the company for the ports and features they removed from the latest Mac Book Pro. Hopefully rival computer companies will take note of this and, for once, not try to copy it. Personal computer sales are kind of in the toilet across the board. But selling a notebook with limited features, very few ports and little expansion/upgrade potential is not a great way to generate sales.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 11-16-2016, 09:01 PM:
 
I suppose part of the problem with desktops is, they're lasting too long, plus the hard drives on them are getting big enough that lack of space isn't really a problem anymore, unless you're a Joe Redifer type with a ton of graphics, video etc. onboard. Used to be I would replace my computer (or add a drive to it) when it filled up, but I haven't had to do that lately.

I find it WAY easier to do actual work on a desktop rather than an iPad or a notebook.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-16-2016, 10:59 PM:
 
Desktops are best for work. No question about that. You get a lot more bang for the buck, better options for performance, expansion, upgrades, etc. You can hook up multiple monitors. I use a notebook at home because after 8 hours of sitting at a computer desk I don't want to sit in my 2nd bedroom with my leg chained to another computer desk. I can at least watch TV or go somewhere away from home when I'm using a notebook.

Desktop computers are indeed lasting longer. Even the notebooks are lasting a long time. My current notebook is 5 years old and still running just fine. My girlfriend's Toshiba notebook is 8 years old. She's only now thinking about buying a new notebook because her AC adapter is worn out and she can't find a working replacement. I'm hoping the power connection on the computer isn't somehow damaged.

I think computer companies like Dell are playing games with how you can configure these things. There is a wide gap between cheap, entry level garbage and a system that's going to have productive computing power. If you want a certain amount of RAM, a Blu-ray burner, etc. they push you into a high end category very fast. Regarding Dell specifically, their notebook line now kind of sucks. It's not nearly as good as it was a few years ago. If you want a really powerful notebook you have to buy a high end model from their workstation line up on the business side of their web site or get into the Alienware product line up. And even in those parts of their site you'll have a hard time getting a notebook with a built-in optical disc drive.

They're all basically copying Apple, even if the idea is bad. HTC has a new Android phone that has no headphone jack. They had to copy the latest iPhone's moves. The latest Mac notebooks have little if any user service-able parts. Everything is glued or soldered into the machine. It won't be long before all the Windows-based notebooks follow suit with that stupidity.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-17-2016, 09:22 AM:
 
As if I didn't write enough crap in the last post I had another point to make about the current crop of computers being sold: solid state hard drives. I think the primary motivation for computer companies putting solid state drives into more systems is all about making the product lighter and thinner (and more costly/profitable).

Even though SSDs are significantly faster than traditional hard disc drives, I don't think performance is the driving concern. Computer companies market SSDs as being far more reliable, durable and long lasting than traditional hard discs, but SSDs have their own drawbacks. They cost a lot more per gigabyte. Some of the "ultra portable" notebooks out there have ridiculously low disc capacities, like 64GB or 128GB. After the OS eats up its huge chunk of that space and you install the applications you want to run you'll have very little room for anything else. I wouldn't buy a modern computer with anything less than 500GB for the internal boot drive. And I usually keep all my files stored on external drives.
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-17-2016, 12:57 PM:
 
On my main desktop computer I have a SSD for the boot and system drive and a regular hard drive for my /home and /var directories. I think that's a good compromise.

My web and mail server, on the other hand, just has a SSD in it since it doesn't have to contain a huge amount of data. It has only one moving part (one fan on top) and runs almost completely silently. And it uses less power than it would otherwise.

I'm going to be setting up another web and mail server for someone else shortly (as soon as I get around to it) and will put a SSD into that too.

SSD's are great in their place, but aren't what you want for big-data applications.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-17-2016, 01:49 PM:
 
SSD's also have their own limited life span. You get only so many write cycles in one before it goes bad. Some computer industry articles I've read about SSD's brag about getting 5 or 6 years of life from them. But it's not difficult at all to get 6 years of life from a decently equipped computer these days. There's no guarantee you'll get 5 or more years of use from a SSD. And there may be little warning at all when it suddenly goes bad. Out of nowhere the drive may just immediately stop working. With traditional hard discs there are usually some obvious warning signs a drive is about to go bad, which gives a good chance to move any critical data off that drive and onto a new one.

One other thing that worries me with SSD's is the form factor. Some can be removed and replaced with a new unit if the drive's size and connection is a clearly defined standard. Other manufacturers will literally glue their own proprietary SSD into the computer or even solder the bank of SSD chips into the motherboard. Again, we can thank Apple for some of this bullshit. When the SSD fails out of nowhere the computer either has to be shipped off to repair (for much $$$) or the computer just becomes a door stop.
 
Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-17-2016, 06:53 PM:
 
As mentioned above, desktop computers haven't improved much of late. I am still using a desktop that I built in late 2011. I looked into upgrading it, but, ultimately, I would be spending $1k+ for (maybe) a 20% performance improvement, which I really don't need, anyway. I will probably wait another year or two before replacing it. Graphics cards have improved, but few non-gamers will notice or appreciate the difference.

The same is true for laptops--performance hasn't improved much in the last few years. They _have_ become smaller and lighter, but, for most of us, they got "good enough" in the small-and-light department a decade ago.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-17-2016, 09:17 PM:
 
My theory is computing companies have become more fixated on their stock price and trying to sell stock to investors. Selling computers to customers has become secondary. So they're playing it safe, not taking many chances to try to keep their balance sheets looking consistently good. They don't want to make any big moves that could put their stock prices on a roller coaster ride.

That strategy just seems really stupid from a big picture sense. The only way they can get customers excited at all about buying a new computer is by offering a very heavy discount or appearing to offer one. Even at a deep discount I just can't get excited about a computer that only has a screen, keyboard, a limited amount of ram, limited capacity hard disc, limited number of ports and not even a freaking optical disc drive. I laugh at the idea of spending $1500, $2500 or even $3000 for some crap like that.

Technology advances and improvements in performance are now happening at a very incremental rate. It's as if the computing companies are trying to milk out as much as they can from one product generation before moving on to the next. You don't hear anyone talking about Moore's Law anymore. I think Intel screwed a lot of computing companies with the naming of its CPUs. It's confusing as hell. My 5 year old notebook has a Core i7 quad core CPU. Brand new high end notebooks have Core i7 quad core CPUs. You can only tell the difference between the two in fine print. Nothing is clear. 3rd generation, 6th generation, yadda yadda yadda, etc. makes no damned sense to average consumers.

What computing companies have done is just encourage customers to hold on to whatever computer they have, no matter how old or slow it might be, until that existing computer breaks and cannot be repaired. 20 years ago lots of people wanted to upgrade their computers to the latest and greatest models they could afford. They were excited about it then. That's not the case anymore.
 
Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 11-17-2016, 11:54 PM:
 
In a lot of cases, computers are fast enough for what people want them for. And if you're just checking Facebook or looking at pictures of the grandkids, you don't even need a computer any more.

For over twenty years I upgraded my computer at least once every two years, and always got a lot more grunt than I had before. Today my main desktop computer is something that I purchased in 2011 and the only thing I've done to it is to add the SSD drive. The only reason that I bought this one at the time was because my old one died, and I have zero interest in getting another new one until this one dies.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2