So you're saying that adding a headset with a wire really makes it more practical?
No, I'm asking YOU. Anyway, what's so terrible unpractical about holding a 4.7" up to your face, or even a 5.5"? It's a phone. You hold it in your hand like any other phone. It's not a cinderblock.
And then to go on complaining about a headset wire, what the hell? #1, First-world problem much, and #2, a headset wire is a heck of a lot smaller/thinner/lighter than either a 5.5, 4.7 or even 4, 3.5 etc smartphone wouldn't you say? So hence it must be more practical in your book, yes? You don't even need to hold either the headset or the phone in your hands, they are free to do other stuff. So more practical by pretty much every metric. Unless you're gonna do the whole moving-goalposts schtick again and complain about something else, unrelated to the initial complaint...?
At least if you'd said a bluetooth headset, I could see some utility when using it as a portable phone..
Uh, you're holding up BT headsets as a preferable alternative to wired headsets, after your dubious complaint about large phones? BT headsets are bigger, heavier, you (genuinely!) look silly wearing them, they generally don't play music well, especially the monaural versions, they need to be recharged regularly, they can be fiddly to pair and sometimes lose their connection, being cordless thus easily misplaced/lost, and they're much more expensive than a much higher performing wired headset (which the iP includes a fairly decent set of as standard btw.) Them being more expensive sucks especially hard when you misplace your easily misplaced silly-looking BT headset, by the way...
Ehm.. where did I say stupid people?
I thought it was an obvious inferrence from when you said large phones are terribly unpractical, used by (older!) people to browse sites that are non-mobile optimized. However if you say that was not your intent I'll believe you. Do note though that most people buying these large phones aren't 50+ users, or those wanting to browse crappy websites, but rather just anyone in general who want a phone, down to young teens/tweens or whatever they're called these days.
That doesn't make large phones more practical for other use cases imo.
You still haven't explained why they're so unpractical to begin with, it would help me see your POV if you could expand on this a bit.
I was hoping for the medical category because I think it makes a lot more sense for a wrist-sized device
Except that's not what Apple is about. They make things with screens (well, except for the mac mini and apple tv of course *ahem*, either of which hasn't been updated in like three years by now), things that run apps. Hard to have apps on a bracelet that doesn't have a screen.
However, we "know" (or well, apple rumor sites have claimed) that the company's hired people with medical sensor expertise, so we might see blood oximeter, sugar level detector etc in a next generation iwatch. It was obviously deemed unpractical or even impossible to include more than a pulse sensor and the ubiqutous MEMS gyro and accelerometer devices in this model. It does seem very tightly packed with bits even as it is, and power consumption would have been affected too by a bigger sensor suite.
On top of that, it would address a huge target market as opposed to the small market for smart watches (yes, of course this is my own opinion and a prediction at this point, duh).
Not sure what huge market would desire a screen-less medical bracelet rather than a fashion timepiece that can also run apps and display arbitrary information, as well as provide some basic physical fitness data. Fitbits and fuel bands and whatever they're called, they're pretty niche stuff. A more advanced version of these, I dunno, but I think they'd still be niche stuff. A fashion item would automatically reach out towards a larger market share, or that's how I see it anyway...
it's me-too because the others were earlier and I frankly don't see any revolutionary thing that isn't done in the other smartwatches on the market.
It's no different really than when the iphone was introduced. There were plenty other smartphones already (more than there are smart watches). They all did the same stuff on a basic level, but iphone was the first to take a cohesive fresh look at how to accomplish traditional computer tasks on a device which lacked traditional input means. Other phones went the way of physical buttons, or styluses. They replicated traditional GUI elements seen in desktop OSes, which of course were fiddly to manipulate on a touch device. They had a web browser, but it was terrible, and so on. All of that changed with iphone, not necessarily because apple innovated all of it, but they were certainly a catalyst at the very least.
Most young people I know are not wearing a watch and are absolutely not considering starting to wear one again. I doubt a smartwatch would change that trend. We'll see...
Young people are sensitive to what's hot. If iwatch catches on, it might change peoples' opinions. Also, overall trends and fashion change, and high-end timepieces still have an unthreatened place in certain market segments. That's where Apple's aiming at with the steel and gold versions of the watch.
Overall though, price is a factor of course. The iwatch is NOT cheap even in the basic version, and I'm sure the higher tiers are going to cost a lot more. Steel and sapphire, probably another $150 I'm guessing, and for gold, well the sky's the limit... 900-1000+? Would depend on the weight of the casing largely; more gold is more money of course. And unlike phones, you don't have a carrier subsidizing the initial purchase, you have to fork out everything yourself in one go. ...Well, unless you charge it on your credit card and put yourself (deeper) in consumer debt of course, heh. You could even help bankrupt yourself using Apple Pay to ring up your purchase if you buy a new iP6 first!
I'm sure Tim Cook would be thrilled with that.
Don't put words in my mouth that I never used. Thank you.
Sorry, sorry! Didn't mean to offend you, just meant to say I recognized the line of reasoning. Sometimes
something comes along and changes things around. Apple likes to think the Mac was one of those, the iphone certainly was. iWatch might not be, but it could be, and Apple's certainly put an AWFUL lot of thought and work into this device, and they're probably gonna hype and market this thing just as hard to push it into being one of those breakthrough gadgets.
It'll be an interesting market to observe in the next few years. One of my co-workers is as convinced as you are by the future success of smartwatches.
I dunno if it will be a success. It will probably be at least a simmering pot kind of thing where smart watches continue to exist - for a number of years anyway - alongside our other gadgets. I certainly look forward to having a smart watch of my own, because I hate not having a watch to wear, and Casio G-Shock watches which I've traditionally worn aren't fun and cool anymore like they used to be, and there are no other makers of digital watches around anymore either. Or not at least where I live.
