"Nothing that will convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band to wear one* - until we stick a half-eaten fruit logo on it?
He's also never heard of sunglasses...
Tim Cook reckons that wearable tech is "incredibly interesting", but he doesn't think Google Glass will appeal to everyone. Speaking at the All Things D Digital Conference, Cook hinted at the existence of the rumoured iWatch and dissed the likely popularity of Google's foray into wearable technology. "I'm interested in a …
" If you have to wear glasses to read your email or look things up then you (a) can't look cool in shades and (b) wear your usual glasses."
But you can get shades that match your prescription (as I have, sort of*) - so (b) is covered, though (a) is an arguable point, both with shades, and shades that match your prescription.
* Prescription updated, shades not. Must rectify that at some point!
I really wish people would only wear sunglasses to reduce glare from the sun… Unfortunately, there are far too many who wear sunglasses after dark. One guy I knew even wore two pairs of sunglasses after dark: One on his eyes, and one on his hair, to hold in place his fashionably-ruffled hairdo.
"One guy I knew even wore two pairs of sunglasses after dark: One on his eyes, and one on his hair, to hold in place his fashionably-ruffled hairdo."..Whilst checking is iPhone every 2 seconds, abalancing his iPad whilst updating his facvebook profile on his way back to his 4x4!
WOW he must be really interesting because he's got all the "cool" stuff!
What a c**t!
I sometimes wear two pars of glasses, but only one pair are sunglasses. One does reside on the top of my head, when I do.
In fairness to me though, both are a rather strong prescription, and normally it means I have been going in and out of buildings on a sunny day.
If they want this to catch on, they need to develop a way to apply it to whatever glasses are considered "fashionable" or happen to be my prescription. And maybe get it bright enough to use on a sunny day.
"If you have to wear glasses to read your email or look things up then you (a) can't look cool in shades and (b) wear your usual glasses."
I'm sure they can still look cool, but besides that... people wear watches to tell the time, if you have to use a watch to read emails or look things up then, you'll get a lot of cramp in your arm ;)
Not to mention look like a kid from the 80s who still thinks "digital watches are a pretty neat idea".
"Nothing that will convince a kid that's never worn glasses or a band to wear one*
He's also never heard of sunglasses...
You're obviously less cynical than I am. Because what I thought was: He's obviously never heard of product placement.
If you give celebs enough money, they'll wear anything. Often you just need to give them the product for free. They do seem to love a freebie...
I don't remember Jobs ever saying that a tablet computer was a mobile replacement.
Go back to his original pitch, it was a device between a mobile and a laptop. Some people carry laptops around all the time, they could actually just carry a tablet around if they're mainly using it for online purposes.
I was talking about the iPhone. The clue was the date. The iPad didn't come out until 2010.
When the iPhone launched, most of my friends had very small mobile phones and the trend had broadly been for things to get smaller and smaller. In 2006 my mobile was less than a half the size of my current handset, for example. Then the iPhone comes along - a big slab of glass compared to a lot of other devices around at the time.
"Tim Cook reckons that wearable tech is "incredibly interesting", but he doesn't think Google Glass will appeal to everyone."
What? Like the MEGA FAIL iPhone which has appealed to the lowest common denominator!
Experience shows, be wary of IT types carrying iPhone! You'll have to dig yourself out of the hole they will leave you in. But at least you'll have some nice pretty graphs/reports.
On the subject of that pesky stock price, he said that the fall was "frustrating" for everyone at Apple, but put it down to "cycles" in the market.
LMAO. Since Nov 2012, AAPL and the S&P500 have been moving in entirely the opposite directions. This on top of AAPL having a Beta of 0.9 says the following:
1. Tim Cook is no fool. He knows 'cycles' have nothing to do with AAPL's share price performance.
2. His remarks were 'throw away' lines to non-finance-savvy journos. He knew they would lap it up, and they did.
This doesn't detract from the fact that the company under his leadership is in trouble. Investors have gotten a better return over the last 6-7 months from investing in the S&P500. He really does need to produce one of those 'several game changers' or he'll be out of a job. The company owners won't pay $$$ to a guy when they can do better themselves with a simple passive investment strategy.
Obviously, he was only talking about Apple and not the whole market. A singe stock can have a cycle independent of the wider sector. Most of the price fluctuations have been based on pure sentiment and emotion. I am surprised they are not more volatile, but I guess the bottom line is that they are so incredibly profitable that it balances out the hype and despair.
That's the whole point. Cock was talking about the 'market' being in cycles. AAPL has a Beta of 0.9 while its price performance has not at all tracked the S&P500, ie. it's not following the market cycles. It's on it's own 'cycle' - one that is driving the stock into the ground.
As to price fluctuations being based on 'pure sentiment and emotion' - Do you really think that the big money men (handling billions of funds) drive their investment decisions on 'pure sentiment and emotion'? Do stockbroker analysts all throw fundamentals out of the window and recommend to the firms' clients based on 'hype and despair'. WTF are you talking about?
'they are so incredibly profitable'... that their share price has tanked while the overall market has moved onwards and upwards.
That type of 'armchair' stock analysis has no place in reality and is the same sort of shyte you get from Tarot Cards, Chartists and Palmistry.
ARMCHAIR ANALYST MEGA FAIL
Two words: Facebook flotation.
Of course the "big money men" aren't driven by pure sentiment and emotion. They are driven by the desire to make money...by manipulating share prices on the very edge of legality, and that means up as well as down.
Consumer product sales are driven by, among other things, sentiment and emotion. So manipulating them affects share prices. And the way the money people get rich is by making shares go up and down, and creaming off profits either way.
We don't know why the Apple price goes up and down so much but I suspect that, if we did, we would be very angry with some men in hedge funds and banks.
I have a few watches and clocks around(I like time tracking) but frankly unless I have some specific reason for it I won't wear a watch with me and haven't worn one in years.
I have all the time in the world for what I usually need to do and don't need to be tied down to when something and some such needs to be done.
Smartphones took the place of digital watches as the "wow" thing to show your mates.
In the 80s having a watch that played James Bond or something was something to be amazed by. The number of alarms your watch had was how it was judged. The first speaking watch was a bit "wow" for about 5 minutes :)
"The people in their twenties that I know (admittedly a fairly small sample) never wear watches. If you want to know the time, look at your phone."
Oh so tragic! Just wait those "friends" will be wearing a watch if Apple designs and definately not makes one.
Then the tune will change again. As you age you will realise just how weak people really are!
You obviously don't understand how coolness works. Ubiquity is not coolness. If everyone had a Ferrari would they be cool? of course not, so even Ferrari have decided to cut production to maintain exclusivity,
For something to be cool they're often less obtainable, often due to higher price.
"Nothing looks stupider; these getups are the modern-day equivalent of the slide-rule scabbard or the calculator pouch on the belt, marking the user as belonging to a class that is at once above and far below human society."
Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash, 1992
but not as far below as (alleged) tech gurus who channel 1990s SciFi !
Famously Jobs was very dismissive of computer games, but I think everyone was surprised by the rise of casual gaming on phones and tablets. Putting casual games on the TV via AppleTV is one thing, but I doubt they will go further when even the established brands have such a tortuous time when it comes to actually making big money off games consoles.
"Famously Jobs was very dismissive of computer games, but I think everyone was surprised by the rise of casual gaming on phones and tablets."
What! Are you saying Jobs couldn't see into the future?
Watch out the isheeple will flame you!
How could it not be seen from space? How long have handheld game consoles been around? Forever!
I love Apple's 'innovation'...fucking iWatch. A totally stupid, unimaginative idea that smacks of them trying to squeeze every last bit of money out of their brand...
...and that will probably sell hundreds of millions of units. Seriously, what next? Just take some everyday portable item and stick a computer in it. iBelt, iShoes, iNecklace, blah, blah.
iBelt !!! There is A LOT of real estate in a belt. Not the first time that a belt has been used as a
device or to carry stuff. We could all end up walking wifi hotspots or maybe worse.
Why have apple maps when your belt could "nudge" you into the direction you need to go.
If it was good enough for batman to have his belt loaded with apps, then Apple would be simply following the trend of reproducing what comics predicted 50 years ago.
Given that your typical iPhone owner has the thing permanently glued to their palms, what will happen if both iPhone and iWatch beep at the same time? Turning their arms to view the watch means they can't gaze lovingly at the phone... but... it beeped.. and it's Apple.. must look... must look at phone....
A&E departments are going to be inundated with RSI cases... or maybe iPhone owners wrists are exceptionally flexible and strong after all those years of "admiring" Apple kit?
In other Apple crystal ball news, a 7" tablet is "dead on arrival" and X86/X64 processors are fundamentally inferior to PowerPC processors. Everything they happen to be doing at the moment is the way of the future. Bold prediction time: Apple will keep pretending that the small screen on the iPhone 5 is an intentional and advantageous feature based on the length of the human thumb rather than the liability and poor design decision it is. This until the iPhone 6, which will have a market-competitive >=4.5 inch screen.
The problem with the iPhone 5 screen is not the surface area but the aspect ratio. It is surprising how much more usable the screen is on the BlackBerry Q10 - which is wider but considerably shorter.
Google themselves have argued that from an ergonomic point of view 4.3 inches is about right. Sticking to the aspect ratio of widescreen video might seem clever but probably has a fairly short shelf life as tablets get very cheap and DLNA gets common.
Glasses can still be cool but nobody's worn a watch in 20 years, they just look at their phone. So how do you think that's going to work out for you?
What will an iWatch be able to do anyways? Tell time, do math, skip and play songs, tell the weather? Guess what, there's a device in my pocket that does the same and more. It's called a smart phone and guess what, it's still cooler than a watch.
I wear a watch. It is a tastefully sized, lovingly hand crafted mechanical work of art that contains as many, if not more, parts than a mobile phone. It is the epitome of Human engineering whereas an electronic device/smartwidget is a soulless thing assembled by machines and incapable of functioning without a massive infrastructure. I say watches are cool.
That being said I agree with the iWatch bit. I don't know what it will be able to offer me and is almost guaranteed to be enormous and gaudy.
I actually wear a watch, and though it is cool and slightly expensive, I do use it a lot to check the time. In comparison to getting my phone out of my pocket, checking my watch is much faster.
Though paying attention to a difference of a few seconds might indicate that I am slightly obsessional-compulsive about time. I even maintain it synchronized to the second. Then again, I live in a place where trains and buses run on time.
The article didn't quote all of what he said, but that's not surprising in a Reg article designed to get views and promote a healthy fanboy flamewar. If you google it you can find better written articles that include more of what he said.
Here's what he said of watches: "I think for something to work here, you first have to convince people it's so incredible that they want to wear it." He's not assuming that if Apple introduced a watch people are going to buy it. They're going to have to have a reason to do so. Assuming Apple releases it, it will be up to the market to decide whether it meets the "incredible" standard or not.
I think he'd agree that if glasses provided an "incredible" experience you could get people to wear them too. The point was that the bar to get people to wear a watch, which is pretty unobtrusive as far as wearable tech goes, is a bit lower than the bar to get people to wear glasses, which is about as obtrusive at it gets, short of an implant. I think that would be a reasonable way to look at it, given that most adults wore watches a few decades ago, but most people only wear glasses when necessary (prescription, or sun)
The privacy concerns of Google Glasses may prove to be a big roadblock to them, something which wouldn't affect a watch (I'm assuming a watch would not have a camera)
As we all remember the tablet being a rip off from 2001 a space odyssey movie. The glass was shown first in Lara Croft .Remember that movie right ? the glass is on her left eye side . That's where it came from . So ripping off 2001 by Apple is ok . .mighty fine and cool , but Google ripping off Lara Croft before they do is so uncool . Ahhh ..They should have seen the movie earlier .. I'm sure Apple employees will be sifting the old films for tech ideas for the next few months to find their own " new cool ideas ". What a load of crap .
That for a tech site, so many people can't see past the prototype/first version status of GG.
Next version (and I spent all of 5s thinking about this)..
faster, smaller, less obtrusive, better battery life. Connects to your phone which as a remote display as necessary.
faster small, less obtrusive, better battery life, clips on your prescription glasses.
As above, but display is contract lens based (not sure how they would do that, but hey, it's the future)
Implanted, powered off body heat.
Come on people, think ahead a bit!
'An iPod? good luck with that you fucking muppets' 'iPhone? dumbPhone more like, they'll be lucky to sell a dozen' 'WTF It's just a big iPhone with a retarded name, netbooks are the future'
'A fucking watch? what a lame ass last century idea'
Only a matter of time for the comments about how after a good start Apple are now losing smartwatch marketshare and anyway the next rumoured iProduct is a stupid idea that no one in their right mind would want.
Sent from my iSofa
Google Glass is a dumb concept. Before you downvote me, let me explain.
Look at the vast number of people who need glasses, yet wear contact lenses, or went for corrective surgery. They don't want to wear glasses.
Now look at Google Glass. For the concept to work you need to wear it all the time (admittedly someone will find full time applications though). If people already don't want to wear corrective lens glasses - why are they going to want to wear Google Glass?
Wearing sunglasses is not a valid argument either because most people don't wear them all the time. They are worn for a short period for comfort. Google Glass is only any good if it stays on your nose all the time.
Saw a TED talk given by Sergey Brin, "Why Google Glass"
What a pile of useless crap delivered by a boring presenter... Really pulls the TED standards to a never seen low.
Arguments given for using Google Glass(es):
1) so that I don't have to look down to check my phone every 3 minutes.
If you are really that addicted that you can't leave your effin brick alone for half an hour see a shrink!
2) to be able to record every moment at any time for others to see- and for that usually missing most of it myself the first time...
3) to do "social networking" while doing things that keep my hand busy (like acrobatics). See point 1
No thanks. "Glass" might be a great tool for people who's natural abilities are restructed due to an accident or defect.
But if I ever get so deranged that i want to use them while in full health I hope thzy come with a "lobotomize" function.
didn't Apple say that 7" tablets would never work? When everyone else proves they can, Apple make one.
Didn't Apple say styluses don't work, cue Samsung Note series and volume sales.
Just because they got it right on some things, doesn't mean they are ALWAYS right.
The ipod is dead, Apple products like the iPhone and iPad have ceased to be "cool", everyone's granny has them now. Apple Mac - a BIG "so-what?" in everything but looks - it's like going back to Windows 95 crossed with GEM.
Apple's big new hope is a watch? Ha ha ha. Sinclair must be pissing himself laughing. Just make an electric car Apple and be done with it.....
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022