Reactions to the New MacBook and Apple Watch 450
As the dust settles from Apple's press conference yesterday, there have been a broad variety of reactions around the web. Robinson Meyer at The Atlantic says Apple's $10,000 watch demonstrates the company has lost its soul. "The prices grate. And they grate not because they’re so expensive, but because they’re gratuitously expensive. ... To many commentators, this is unsurprising. It’s good business sense, really. Apple has made its world-devouring profits by ratcheting up profit margins on iPhones. There is no better target for these massive margins than the super-rich. But high margins do not a luxury brand make." Others suspect the high-end watches are targeted more at rich people in China.
As for the less expensive watches, perhaps they're around not so much to become a new major sales category for Apple, but rather to drive more iPhone sales. Meanwhile, the redesigned MacBook may signify a bigger change for the laptop industry than people realize: "We don’t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords." The new MacBook has also fueled speculation that Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
As for the less expensive watches, perhaps they're around not so much to become a new major sales category for Apple, but rather to drive more iPhone sales. Meanwhile, the redesigned MacBook may signify a bigger change for the laptop industry than people realize: "We don’t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords." The new MacBook has also fueled speculation that Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
> Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
What, really? Apple is designing a table that is only ever seen on Hawaii Five-0?
Re:wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
> Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
What, really? Apple is designing a table that is only ever seen on Hawaii Five-0?
The strange and sad thing is, Surface Pro's are becoming more common in corporate environments because they're basically just Windows machines sans KB. So they're actually replacing laptops instead of pretending to replace laptops like Android and Apple Tablets.
No more ports! (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, my inherent dislike of AAPL (and the people who love it) died some time ago. The problem I have with them now is not the fault of the Company - it's the idiots who keep buying this stuff. Seriously, gold colored iPhones, solid gold tchotckes that are designed to be obsolete within 2 years - madness.
Re: (Score:2)
Bluetooth was horribly implemented by most devices and use cases. 8 device limit (although, I've rarely seen anything that supports pairing with more than one), wasn't really usable as a data connection for iPhone since that required jumping through certifications hoops, many Android implementations were broken, and not much that has Bluetooth goes beyond audio.
It could have been cool, but broken software stacks meant that nothing but the most basic profiles worked reliably and making something interesting
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem with wireless is density.
I can't use wireless mice, keyboards, speakers/headphones, wifi bridges, or anything else around here (there's more APs here than I can be bothered count, easily over 200) - the inteference is ridiculous, you literally can't even type of a wireless keyboard around here (CBD area).
If that's the future Apple wants us to have, goodbye.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, if someone will pay $10k for a watch, and I know a lot of people with Rolex's, then why not an Apple watch? I'm sure Rolex is top-notch, but when you pay more than $100 for a watch you're paying for something beyond anything relating to keeping time. I hear all these crazy numbers about accuracy, but there is no practical value for that, you're really just buying a status symbol. So while the Apple watch does in fact do more than keep time, it's more or less irrelevant as you're paying for a label
Re:No more ports! (Score:5, Insightful)
Finally, and this should be obvious to slashdot, helping rich people part with their money is generally good for 99% of all other people.
Nope. The money is being shuffled from moderately rich people to filthy rich people, and the workers are all being paid slave wages while the Apple corporation dodges taxes so they're not paying for wear and tear on our infrastructure. So actually, the world would be better off if Apple died in a fire.
Re: (Score:3)
If it were a real watch (moving parts style), at $10000 they would wear it the rest of their lives and pass it on to an heir.
Why would somebody buy such a cheap watch let alone bequeath it to a loved one? $10k is peanuts for a mechanical watch, let alone a gold one, you wouldn't give one to your gardener.
Compete with Surface (Score:2)
"Apple could be working on a more powerful tablet, something that could compete with Microsoft's Surface Pro line.
Perhaps because Microsoft sells tens of millions of tablets every quarter while nobody even knows Apple's tablets exist. Oh wait...
hey, what time is it? (Score:5, Funny)
another great comic from [chainsawsuit.com].
Jewellery Obsolescence (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, if you are a person who is inclined to blow $10k on a piece of jewellery, you would expect that you "investment" *won't* be obsolete in one year.
But if you can afford $10K on a piece of chrome fluff, maybe you don't care.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think a $10k piece of Jewelry is an investment, unless you plan on melting down the gold when prices are high or it's a collectors, then you are most likely not the type of person that could afford one. The friendly man behind the counter at the pawn shop can help explain the intricacies of jewelry pricing to you, and laugh when you claim "but I paid xxx!!!".
They lost their soul in 2014 (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah that was a complete step backwards.
It is almost as if they DON'T want the Mac Mini to succeed !
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but it comes at the expense of repairability.
I bought my 2012 Mac Mini with 4GB of memory, then paid OWC $114.99 for 16GB for which Apple wanted $300. (Or maybe it was $400 [apple.com].)
At least OSX Yosemite was a free upgrade.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree about the RAM - that is stupid, however, the reason for the dual core is simple - Intel doesn't make the i7 in the required socket formfactor. The i5s and i7s used in the Mac Mini are the same socket, so it's a single design.
So if Apple wanted to offer the i5 and i7, they had to either design two Mac Mini motherboards, one
Re: (Score:3)
The soldered RAM makes sense because they're using LPDDR3 memory (I think because of the Intel CPU models they're using) and AFAIK there's no LPDDR3 SODIMMs.
But it still pisses me off to have to pay Apple's prices for RAM.
If they at least made the Mac mini smaller, but nope. And when they do make it smaller, I'm pretty sure it will lose a lot of ports too, which means it's Hackintosh or nothing for my next computer.
Apple - the ultimate iHipster (Score:5, Funny)
Back in the day Apple was about bringing computers to the masses, and simplifying them to make them accessible.
Selling a $10K watch just proves Apple only cares about profits now.
Apple has become the ultimate iHipster.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the day Apple was about bringing computers to the masses, and simplifying them to make them accessible. Selling a $10K watch just proves Apple only cares about profits now. Apple has become the ultimate iHipster.
What age was that? As far back as I can remember Macs were aiming for graphics artists, designers, sound artists, movie workstations, every kind of hip, creative industry. The "boring" segment bought PCs. There were nerdier and in many cases better audio players before the iPod, but the white earphones quickly became the telltale sign of a hipster. They've never ever released a cheap product trying to undercut others on price. They did have a runaway success with the iPhone but I think you're giving Jobs mo
Re: (Score:3)
Back in the day Apple was about bringing computers to the masses, and simplifying them to make them accessible.
Back in the old days, Apple din't sell remotely as many computers as they do today. And that's only counting Macs, not iPads or iPhones.
What, yet another thread on this? (Score:2)
Re:What, yet another thread on this? (Score:4, Interesting)
Given the millions of other blogged words on this topic in the past 48hours, Slashdot now needs clickbait too?
(Sigh.) This is cliche, but I can't help myself. If your objection to the 'click bait' was to not only click the link to the content but to interact with it by logging in and posting a comment... you're doing it wrong.
Not a smart watch, a wearable computer (Score:3)
Is the new MacBook for you? (Score:2)
Is the new MacBook for you?
Are you posting on Slashdot?
If yes => NO!!
If no => maybe
The Apple Tax (Score:2)
I had always thought that Apple price gouged on most of its products. This is just an example of trying to optimize the Apple tax.
Out of touch (Score:2)
"We donâ(TM)t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords."
That statement alone should give some clue as to how out of touch Apple are with reality.
I'm reminded of that every time I have to haul around an external optical drive for another enlightened Mac user.
Re: (Score:3)
Rather have a Pebble (Score:2)
I just want a watch that has a cool face layout; if that means it has customizable TFT or e-ink, so be it.
However, a smartwatch that is tied to the manufacturer's phone devices is crippled by definition. Apple, Samsung, Sony, whoever... I don't want any of their smartwatches.
And we all know that when the next iOS comes out, it won't support these first gen iWatches.
A smart watch? (Score:3)
What a visionary innovation for Apple. A wrist watch that talks to your smartphone. It's amazing that no one [wikipedia.org] has thought of it before.
This makes me angry (Score:5, Funny)
Because I don't think anyone should own something that expensive. And for some reason that sparks outrage.
You see, I am the arbiter of utility. I decide what other people should and shouldn't buy, and what they should pay for it.
Because I know more than them. I understand their needs and wants better than they do.
If I can't afford something, nobody else should be able to buy it.
You wish, Apple. (Score:3)
"We don’t need all those other ports, Apple says. We are living in a wireless world now, where we can connect most of our peripherals without cords."
Try calling your ISP about your poor Internet speeds with your wireless-only laptop and see how far you get.
Economics - not logic (Score:3)
The value of anything isn't dictated by a formula e.g. (cost to build) + (reasonable margin) + (shipping/sales/etc)
Value, or price, is what someone is prepared to pay for it.
Apple obviously believes, guided by the likes of Angela Ahrendts, that $10k is a good starting price for a limited "edition" watch.
This is Slashdot -"News for nerds" right?
They aren't selling that watch to us, so quit the sniping and moaning.
You could probably make your own 24ct gold watch out of the guts of a $349 entry level for less than an extra $1000.
I'm certain there's foundries firing up right now rubbing heir hands at the prospect of scalping.
As for the laptop.
It's not for us either who are probably more advance IT users than the fashion followers who will love that gold 12" in their handbag or execs wanting the latest desktop bling.
Horses for courses.
I think I was a bit shocked at the optic drive being dropped from the original air but to be fair it was the right move in hindsight.
This is history repeating itself so it shouldn't be as much of a shock.
My only concern with that laptop is the loss of the mag-safe.
Who remembers the broken MB's before mag-safe from folks tripping over them?
We're more or less at the convergence point of laptop & tablet as of yesterday.
Same number of ports and not much in screen size difference.
How fast technology does change...
20th anniversary Mac (Score:3, Insightful)
So unlike Apple? Has everyone forgotten the 20th anniversary Mac? [wikipedia.org] Underpowered at its release, three times the price of a comparable Mac? C'mon people, I'm an unrepentant Apple user and I remember this - Apple making a really expensive version of something they have and selling to the rich is old hat.
What might be interesting with these is the opportunity to use them as trendsetters - Jay-Z wears one for a month, a thousand lesser celebs wear them for the next couple years, then the $500 version hits the streets - with two years of data to improve the user experience and make it more integrated and useful.
The cheapest Apple Watch will do everything (Score:3)
I don't see why people are getting in such a lather about this.
The simple fact is the cheapest Apple Watch is every bit as functional as the most expensive one.
If Apple had given greater function to a watch priced unreachably high to most everyone, I'd be right up there complaining. But I see nothing wrong with making limited versions of anything that is far cooler and costs more... geeks do this all the time with stuff like limited edition boxed sets of movies, special Star Wars figures, etc. A really expensive Apple Watch lives in that same realm of reason - it may not be for you, but if it makes someone happy what is the harm?
iWatch fails at being Jewellery (Score:3)
Lower life forms (Score:4, Insightful)
Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun.
Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-two million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If you need more ports you can buy the USB-C port adapter for only $79 duh
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
More ports is not universally better. If you tried to sell me a laptop that had a full-sized parallel port, for example, I'd say, that's dumb, it's making the laptop way bigger than it needs to be, and I'll never use it.
Apple may have gone too far in that direction (personally I think two USB-C ports and a headphone jack would have been the optimal place), but less ports *can* be better than more ports, depending on the circumstances.
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:5, Insightful)
More ports is not universally better.
Nobody is making THAT claim.
But the ability to plug in a mouse and keyboard, an external display, and a wired network, and still having at least one USB port for an external hard drive or a flash drive or to charge your phone or whatever IS universally better than not being able to do that.
This is why nearly all laptops from all other companies have 2-4 USB ports, a display out, a network jack, and a headphone jack.
Apple may have gone too far in that direction
Apple's always had its head up its ass. From the day it released the original imac and single handedly created a market for usb floppy drives and adb to usb adapters. PCs may have kept PS/2 and floppy drives around longer than anyone needed them, but at not needing a port and having it is far less annoying than needing it an not having it.
I can forgive it somewhat on the macbook air line; that's all about cutting off everything to make it small and light and that's fine. ... but taking away the ethernet port on the pro was idiotic. Sure I can buy an over priced thunderbolt adapter and carry it around everywhere... but I shouldn't have to. A pro laptop should be able to connect to a wired network out of the box. If that makes the unit 1mm thicker so be it... fill the space with battery and/or improve ventilation so it stays cool.
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:4, Insightful)
This is why nearly all laptops from all other companies have 2-4 USB ports, a display out, a network jack, and a headphone jack.
Ugh. I hate those legacy laptops with a hundred different connectors you have to manage every time you sit down to your desk or leave it, with one invariably falling behind the desk so that you have to go fishing. My favorite work environment was with a MacBook Air and a Thunderbolt Display. The display has one cable with two split ends that you plug into the laptop: one for power, and one for combined video / USB / Ethernet / audio. All of the permanent wiring like USB drives, Ethernet, etc. plugs into the monitor which acts like a hub for everything else.
I'd stake money that the next iteration will combine all of that into a single USB C cable. Get to work, unpack my laptop, plug in a single reversible jack, and sit down to all my wired accessories? Yes please.
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, its so much better having to rummage around in a bag for 2 minutes so I can plug in some headphones with a bog standard 3.5mm jack is soooooo much better... And woe betide you if you forget that adapter.
I do expect a minimum number of connectors in a laptop. At least 3 USB (keyboard, mouse and storage device), network (Ethernet), display out (HDMI is standard these days) and audio out (3.5 mm) are that minimum. So 7 connectors, none of which are legacy or even uncommon.
My idea of laptop hell is having to get an additional US$80 adapter just to plug in a device that plugs in fine to every other laptop in existence.
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the medium of any available wired connection produces a slower and less reliable connection than a wireless one, I will always want a wired connection.
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:5, Informative)
The typical .11g wireless, the sort found in the vast majority of offices can, under ideal circumstances and at close range, without interference and with only one device connected, just about reach half the capacity of a 100mbit ethernet connection. Or about 5% that of gig-eth.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not when it compromises the size, battery-life and/or weight it's not. Especially for people that don't need any of those things.
As I said, its forgiven for the macbook air. Its a ridiculous direction with the macbook pro.
The Mouse and keyboard requirement is particular misguided. Not only is there a trackpad and keyboard built in, they are obvious candidates for Bluetooth.
I know scads of people who prefer to use a full size keyboard with a proper number pad etc at their desks. And the number of that prefer a mouse to the trackpad is legion.
And bluetooth is great. But it costs several times what a wired connection does, and if both are sitting on your desk, the wires aren't really a problem. So not having to pay more for a device you have to re-charge/replace batteries; and don't have
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:5, Insightful)
My 3 year old MBP has one. Never been used. All it does is catch dust.
Ok. That's you.
WiFi is not the bottleneck, so why would I tie myself to a wire?
Wifi isn't always available. I typically configure wifi access points and other network gear using wired connections; because wired is working long before wireless is even turned on and configured.
I've been in hotel rooms that don't have wifi, but have wired as recently as last year.
I've been in client sites that don't have wifi but have wired as recently as this year.
Other times its absolutely the bottleneck:
I've needed to transfer 10s of GB of data between client and server in both home and office environments and waiting 20x as long for wifi to do it would be ridiculous.
I've used my laptop on occasion as an impromptu ISO storage to get citrix xen virtual machines installed ... glad i had gigabit for that too.
WiFi is not the bottleneck, so why would I tie myself to a wire?
If its available, and not a bottleneck, you wouldn't. But if you find you do need it... what then? You've got it. It added a nickel to the price of your laptop.
How can you be for Apple to make another nickel of profit (because its not like they pass that savings on to you)? What do you get in return for that? You get to carry an adapter around with you everywhere just in case. You get to shell out an absurd amount of money for said adapter. And murphy's law dictates that you probably won't have it with you when you need it anyway... wasting your time and money to source another one.
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:5, Informative)
for hd video, wifi is NO SUBSTITUTE for wired enet.
try an mkv file; oftentimes it takes 2 or even 3 minutes before vlc (on win7 ultimate) begins to play, and that is with the very latest media bridge of ac to ac wireless (2 asus routers). this is as good as wireless gets for consumers and yet I have a several minute wait time.
why? I think the protocol sucks and there is a lot of seeking or indexing on some mkv's and with wifi latency, small packets take forever (when there are lots of them needed). plug into wired enet and the video plays almost instantly.
do a backup over the net? not likely! yes, I can. but its painful.
wireless also is quite insecure. a lot of people think its ok. many of us don't trust it.
so, anyone saying 'wired is dead for end stations' knows nothing about the vast number of use-cases where wifi falls flat on its arse.
(and try running nfs over wifi. good luck with that!)
Re: (Score:3)
for hd video, wifi is NO SUBSTITUTE for wired enet.
This.
/. I'm not going to notice, if it drops whilst streaming a HD video, chances are I'll notice (even buffering the video wont help too much).
And it's not necessarily the speed (bit rate) but the inherent instability and susceptibility to interference that really makes it unstable. If my wireless connection drops momentarily whilst I'm browsing
If you want to send video over a network you use wires. If you're really serious or going long distances, you go straight to fibre.
Re: (Score:3)
Why not require an P-52 Mustang engine on it too
Mainly because there was no P-52 Mustang.
Mind, a Rolls Royce Merlin equipped laptop would sound glorious. I'd buy one, if I could carry it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I really like the almost-no-ports Macbook Air. I also really see the utility of what you describe, since I'd like exactly such a thing as well. (We have something close.) The portable ton-of-ports-in-a-box laptop as a tech tool is very useful. But really, those are two very different products. It's completely true that Apple just doesn't make the latter product.
Re: (Score:2)
and some devices do NOT work with usb/serial.
timing critical old things have problems with that. usb/serial also does not really put out true rs232 levels. many don't have full modem control or handshaking in hardware. many have buffering issues (almost all except ftdi; but those of us who were awake during' ftdi-gate' won't be using ftdi anymore if we can help it)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:5, Informative)
USB-C is electrically doing DisplayPort for video (a USB-C to HDMI adapter is sending out DisplayPort and converting it to HDMI). The 1080p limitation comes from the adapter using HDMI 1.x, not any limitation in the notebook or connector itself. Technically USB-C is capable of carrying anything DisplayPort 1.3 supports, which is something like two 4K monitors at 60Hz or even an 8K monitor at 30Hz.
That said, there is probably some maximum resolution supported by the laptop, but I've no idea what it would be. Probably not 1080p.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:4, Informative)
USB-C to DisplayPort adapters will be very cheap, because they're almost entirely passive. USB-C supports video by just giving a variable number of pins over to electrical displayport. The only active electronics is for the sideband channels.
Expect Monoprice to be selling one on the cheap soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Bigger issue: You can't drive an external display and charge at the same time. Eventually you'll run out of power and have to unplug your monitor to recharge.
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:4, Informative)
Bigger issue: You can't drive an external display and charge at the same time. Eventually you'll run out of power and have to unplug your monitor to recharge.
Why not? Apple's HDMI adapter [apple.com] has another USB-C jack that lets you charge the laptop.
This adapter should have been in the box instead of as an $80 addon, IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, having less ports enabled a smaller laptop, increasing portability. It's up to the individual user's needs to determine if that trade-off is worth it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Meanwhile, to be portable for meetings, you need to bundle in your bag additional adapters (eg. plugging into a projector). A slightly thicker laptop with no dongles will actually be more portable.
Re: (Score:2)
Plugging into a projector is always going to require adapters unless you've got a full-sized HDMI or VGA port, and that's not ideal for portability either.
We normally use wireless projection anyhow, and only resort to HDMI when we need high framerates (like for video playback).
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, to be portable for meetings, you need to bundle in your bag additional adapters (eg. plugging into a projector). A slightly thicker laptop with no dongles will actually be more portable.
Yup.
It amazes me how people splooge themselves over how thin and light their laptop is, yet end up carrying it, the power brick, a mouse, a USB to ethernet adapter, a mini dsplayport to something sane adapter, etc. in an overstuffed travel bag. Whereas a larger, cheaper laptop gets you a bigger screen, a larger trackpad (fuck all trackpads, though), a real ethernet port, real video outputs, and a larger battery, meaning you don't need anything but the laptop for a presentation, or the laptop and the charger for a full day of work.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it'll definitely speed the adoption of USB-C, which (when combined with USB 3.1 and DisplayPort alternate mode) is a pretty exciting standard. I think that the change being referred to is reducing ports in favour of wireless connectivity and a smaller number of multi-function ports, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it's not necessarily *better*, but more ports might not be needed by Apple's customers.
If it were me, I'd study the way *my* customers used the ports and figure out how many the needed. That may be different for Mac users than PC. For example I have a nice mechanical USB keyboard and mouse, but perhaps most Mac users prefer Apple's wireless keyboard and trackpad, which are quite good.
It also makes a difference how capable and versatile the port is, and this guy appears this one is both. The truth is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't see why having a thinner, lighter, laptop with a usable monitor and keyboard would be appealing, then it isn't made for you. I know plenty of business travelers who would love an ultra-thin laptop with an all-day battery. They don't care about having a hundred different ports, only how much crap they have to lug from client to client.
If you want a full featured desktop replacement, get a Macbook Pro (or any other laptop on the market). This is for people who want a full featured ultra-portable
Re:Enlighten me please (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember when Apple made "Computers For The Rest Of Us" instead of luxury products for the wealthy?
Re: (Score:2)
When discussing paying $10,000 for a watch who's brand-name does not end in "olex", invoking Aesop's fables might be a bit presumptive.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's the point of a Rolex? They're absolutely obsolete, unless you're going for some strange fashion statement involving sporadic announcements of "it's a Rolex". If you are rich, then it'll be impressive as a pair of blue jeans for the rest of us. But, if you want a modern smart watch that you can dress up with, where the Rolex used to go, then you're choices are limited to exactly one. There's an absolute gaping void in the market that they're putting *something* into. What's the problem with that? Why
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
Not sure, I'd never spend 10k for any jewelry. (Even supposing I had the money in the first place.) But at least a Rolex will hold it's value consistently, versus any kind of gadget (minus a few very rare collector type bits.)
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
The Swiss watch will still perform its function in 10 years time. It will still perform its function in 100 years time.
Can you say that about the Apple Watch?
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Funny)
In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy. The other functions, the ones Rolex could never even imagine, are the ones that will be obsolete.
But by ten years or twenty years from now, the Apple Watch will have a ridiculously high collector value when sold to a museum.
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
In ten years and in 100 years, Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy.
Assuming it's battery lasts that long.
Re: The moan of sour grapes (Score:3)
You really think no one wants or uses hundred year old Rolex watches?
here's just one example. [ebay.com]
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
In 10 years time, the Apple Watch will be a non-functioning piece of trash. You will be lucky if an Apple Watch outlasts a Timex. Never mind a Rolex.
Re: (Score:3)
In ten+ years the Rolex will still run as well as when you bought it where the Apple Watch battery will be dead with no replacement part available. If they don't make the software unusable beforehand.
Re: (Score:3)
The cost to service a Rolex every 5 years, and yes they need oil, is about the same as the as the price of an Apple Watch.
Re: (Score:2)
For me, Swiss watches represent the pinnacle of hand crafted micro engineering. I also own a quartz watch that keeps better time and runs for years on a single battery for a micro-fraction of the cost (and requires no expensive servicing). So what? I find it refreshing to use an entirely mechanical device with amazing latent complexity. It serves a single purpose simply and elegantly yet almost perfectly.
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point of a Rolex? They're absolutely obsolete, unless you're going for some strange fashion statement involving sporadic announcements of "it's a Rolex". If you are rich, then it'll be impressive as a pair of blue jeans for the rest of us. But, if you want a modern smart watch that you can dress up with, where the Rolex used to go, then you're choices are limited to exactly one. There's an absolute gaping void in the market that they're putting *something* into. What's the problem with that? Why does that involve a "soul"?
Since the Swiss watch industry abandoned quartz technology they have convinced the world over the last 3 decades that the apex of watch technology is mechanical. Which is bullshit 'cause mechanical watches even those in the several thousand dollar category let alone those that cost tens, hundreds of thousands of dollars are less precise in timekeeping than a thermo-compensated quartz watch (like those made by Seiko or Citizen) and lets' not even go into those watches that synchronize with an atomic watch. People buying Swiss watches are not buying them for the fact they're watches, they buy them because it's a status symbol completely disconnected from its primary function. That's why you hear people talking about mechanical souls, 'cause it's the only "rational" way in which you can friggin' jutsify spending thousands of dollars on a non-gold watch that keeps time in a mediocre fashion and less precise than middle of the road watches from the seventies and eighties. Power of marketing. Apple is not the first with its Reality Distortion Field. The Swiss watching industry got there decades before the Cupertino Corp.
Improvement in watch technology comes from 3 sources : Seiko and Citizen in their high end watches (not the 200-300 dollar variety). They innovate in electronics and mechanics. The only other brand (Swiss) that has innovated is Omega with an new escapement mechanism in over 300 years. That tells you just how retarded the Swiss watch industry really is.
The Apple watch has 3 demerits :
- one it requires a friggin apple smartphone to function.
- mediocre battery life.
- the gold variant is for all intents and purposes a disposable jewelry item. Not the message that Apple should be communicating to the eventual buyers.
Fix the first 2 and you have a contender to the middle range swiss watches. The precision battle is already won, unless the swiss want to go back to XXst century technology instead of 3 century old mechanical gears and swiss escapement mechanisms.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know about you, but if I had to pay $10,000 to save my hand, I would. Or $40,000 for that matter.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Rolex, Piaget, Cartier, Breitling, Panerai, Hublot, Armand Nicolet, Audemars, Tag Heuer, Zenith, IWC, Jaeger LeCoultre, Ulysse Nardin, Salvatore Ferragamo, Corum, Patek Phillipe, Omega, Blancpain, Gerard Perregaux, and Montblanc all sell watches that cost more than $20,000 according to Amazon -- the most expensive one is over $75,000 -- no that is not a typo.
Clearly, plenty of people spend a LOT of money on high-end watches. However, that does not mean they are a mass-market item: they are status symbols
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks Captain Autism. Is you're ability to completely and udderly ignore the point in loo of some miner mispelling or grammer misstake a learned skill, or something you were bourne with?
You must be a real hit at parties.
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:5, Funny)
"you're" "udderly" "loo" "miner" "grammer" "misstake" "bourne" Fuck me, I think I'm about to have an aneurism...
Re:The moan of sour grapes (Score:4, Insightful)
To me, if Apple wants to price a watch at $10,000 because it is gold colored while there is an offering with the same exact functionality for a few C-notes, that's just fine. Let people who want to spend that much for a watch help finance Apple's R&D so "the rest of us" can get new and cool things. Same if Apple decided to buy Vertu and make diamond-encrusted iPhone 7s. If people want them, so much the better.
iPhones are not that expensive either relatively. I still remember when one of HTC's phones ran $1200, and that was with a two year contract.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that what you think is gonna happen with that money?
Too Soft (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not like that stopped Apple before.
Re:Too Soft (Score:5, Funny)
A solid gold casing would be too soft to be practical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Too Soft (Score:4, Funny)
18-karat gold is not solid gold. A watch made out of 18-karat gold is not solid gold.
Well a it's solid 18 carat gold watch (at least the casing is). And reportedly it's more 'solid' than 24 carat (or even finer) gold.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all the people I've met with Macbooks have been musicians
Almost all the people I meet have MacBooks. And most of the people I meet are creatives (mostly not music) and developers. And most of those are Macbook Pros. I assume the Macbook Airs (and now the Macbook) are more for consumers and business types that need to edit documents and use the internet.
Re:Profit Margins on the Apple Watch Edition (Score:5, Informative)
Whatever you're smoking, I want some. Gold spot price is currently a bit below $1,200. Are you suggesting there's nearly 7 ounces of gold in these watches???
Oh, and spot price is for 24-karat gold, each ounce of which makes 1-1/3rd an ounce of 18-karat gold. So... does one of these watches weigh 10 ounces?
Re:Profit Margins on the Apple Watch Edition (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, and spot price is for 24-karat gold, each ounce of which makes 1-1/3rd an ounce of 18-karat gold. So... does one of these watches weigh 10 ounces?
Even better, the speculation is that Apple's gold watch is only technically 18-karat.
Why technically? Because the definition for 18-karat is that gold must make up 75% of the alloy's mass.
Apple patented a... not-alloy... that uses ceramic instead of metal. [uspto.gov] (PDF)
Since ceramic is significantly lighter by volume, Apple can use less gold and still meet the 75% gold-by-mass standard.
TLDR: Not all gold is created equal.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.businessinsider.com... [businessinsider.com]
FFS (Score:4, Insightful)
The new laptop:
They tossed a port they really needed to keep: ethernet. To get (a slower, less capable, CPU-eating version of) it back, you must re-dongle the USB port (and you'd better hope you have some kind of mega-wire-spider so you can feed it power at the same time... and connect your USB stuff... and connect an external HDMI monitor...)
Then they failed to make wireless the thing they really needed to make wireless: charging. And why is this so needful? Because they REMOVED one of the best features of macbooks, the magsafe power cord, so now, instead of your macbook reliably staying on the table when you or your kid or your dog trips over the power cord, it's now considerably more likely to hit the floor instead. Also, of course, wireless charging is awesome, and wired charging is... not.
Apparently, this thing was designed by the same clever folks who made the new Mac Pro into a rats-nest generator, took away the expandable memory option for the mini, and broke both the hosts file LAN functionality. Bravo. Braaaaaavo. They are doing an excellent job of keeping me looking out for earlier model used Mac Pros. It appears that they feel they have enough money.
I agree that Apple has successfully identified something I clearly don't need: the new macbook.