f



Are smartwatches doomed?

Are smartwatches doomed?
http://www.cultofmac.com/456642/apple-watch-future-smartwatches-doomed/

-- 
The choices we make reveal the true nature of our character
0
Jim_Higgins
12/9/2016 8:46:01 PM
comp.sys.mac.misc 7155 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

7 Replies
236 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 39

In article <o2f53p$26i$1@dont-email.me>, Jim_Higgins
<gordian240@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Are smartwatches doomed?

no
0
nospam
12/9/2016 9:03:52 PM
In article <o2f53p$26i$1@dont-email.me>, Jim_Higgins
<gordian240@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Are smartwatches doomed?
> http://www.cultofmac.com/456642/apple-watch-future-smartwatches-doomed/

"Smart"watches that require you to also have a smartphone to do all the
actual work were doomed from the start - a ridiculously pointless and
over-priced idea.

A true smartwatch that can replace a smartphone for most people's needs
is likely to be a better longer term winner, but the difficulty is
making them easily usable for things like text input (few people
actually want to talk to their wrist!).
0
Your
12/9/2016 9:16:51 PM
In article <101220161016516891%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> "Smart"watches that require you to also have a smartphone to do all the
> actual work were doomed from the start - a ridiculously pointless and
> over-priced idea.

anyone that has a smartwatch knows that a lot of things can be done
*without* a phone.

> A true smartwatch that can replace a smartphone for most people's needs
> is likely to be a better longer term winner, but the difficulty is
> making them easily usable for things like text input (few people
> actually want to talk to their wrist!).

no need, because they serve *different* purposes.
0
nospam
12/9/2016 9:21:23 PM
In article <101220161016516891%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> In article <o2f53p$26i$1@dont-email.me>, Jim_Higgins
> <gordian240@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Are smartwatches doomed?
> > http://www.cultofmac.com/456642/apple-watch-future-smartwatches-doomed/
> 
> "Smart"watches that require you to also have a smartphone to do all the
> actual work were doomed from the start - a ridiculously pointless and
> over-priced idea.
> 
> A true smartwatch that can replace a smartphone for most people's needs
> is likely to be a better longer term winner, but the difficulty is
> making them easily usable for things like text input (few people
> actually want to talk to their wrist!).

Smart Watches can hereby be declared as obsolete! $30 and up:

<http://www.geekbuying.com/category/Watch-Phones-311/1-40-3-3-0-0-grid.ht
ml>
-- 
teleportation kills
0
android
12/10/2016 3:21:42 PM
On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:16:51 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <o2f53p$26i$1@dont-email.me>, Jim_Higgins
><gordian240@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Are smartwatches doomed?
>> http://www.cultofmac.com/456642/apple-watch-future-smartwatches-doomed/
>
>"Smart"watches that require you to also have a smartphone to do all the
>actual work were doomed from the start - a ridiculously pointless and
>over-priced idea.

 What I've been waiting for are smart armlets. Sort of computers
wrapped around the lower arm, complete with loads of buttons and a
dual-laser interference-created virtual screen hovering over the arm.
Loads of room for battery packs and small hardware screens for things
that don't demand much screen real-estate like Skyping and checking
the weather. 
 A smart brace would be very useful and if it should have phone and
wi-fi capabilities it could even replace those bricks.
 Charging from body-heat, motion and the electrical juice in the user
could be advantageous. 

>
>A true smartwatch that can replace a smartphone for most people's needs
>is likely to be a better longer term winner, but the difficulty is
>making them easily usable for things like text input (few people
>actually want to talk to their wrist!).

 It's not the *talking*, that can be done even with the wrist in a
jacket pocket if the microphones and softwares are good enough, it's
the *hearing*. No one wants the entire bus to hear both ends of the
conversation. 
 A phone watch would need some sort of earpiece.
 And a huge improvement in battery.
 Which is one reason why a brace would be better.
                                                  Mand.
0
Mandy
12/11/2016 2:34:32 PM
In article <5hoq4c9mhmacrjh7o18vj2ov5n32avh0c2@4ax.com>, Mandy
Liefbowitz <mandyliefbowitz@the.port.side> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:16:51 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
> wrote:
> >In article <o2f53p$26i$1@dont-email.me>, Jim_Higgins
> ><gordian240@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> 
> >> Are smartwatches doomed?
> >> http://www.cultofmac.com/456642/apple-watch-future-smartwatches-doomed/
> >
> >"Smart"watches that require you to also have a smartphone to do all the
> >actual work were doomed from the start - a ridiculously pointless and
> >over-priced idea.
> 
>  What I've been waiting for are smart armlets. Sort of computers
> wrapped around the lower arm, complete with loads of buttons and a
> dual-laser interference-created virtual screen hovering over the arm.
> Loads of room for battery packs and small hardware screens for things
> that don't demand much screen real-estate like Skyping and checking
> the weather. 
>  A smart brace would be very useful and if it should have phone and
> wi-fi capabilities it could even replace those bricks.
>  Charging from body-heat, motion and the electrical juice in the user
> could be advantageous. 

And be able to deflect bullets (so you can pretend to be Wonder Woman)
and able to shoot out long strands of strong sticky webs (so you can
pretend to be Spider Man), and wrist shoot lasers, and ...    ;-)



> >A true smartwatch that can replace a smartphone for most people's needs
> >is likely to be a better longer term winner, but the difficulty is
> >making them easily usable for things like text input (few people
> >actually want to talk to their wrist!).
> 
>  It's not the *talking*, that can be done even with the wrist in a
> jacket pocket if the microphones and softwares are good enough, it's
> the *hearing*. No one wants the entire bus to hear both ends of the
> conversation. 
>  A phone watch would need some sort of earpiece.
>  And a huge improvement in battery.
>  Which is one reason why a brace would be better.

There was some news recently about a new Li-ion battery that could
potentially make an iPhone work for a week and recharges very quickly.
0
Your
12/11/2016 9:18:52 PM
On Mon, 12 Dec 2016 10:18:52 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:

>In article <5hoq4c9mhmacrjh7o18vj2ov5n32avh0c2@4ax.com>, Mandy
>Liefbowitz <mandyliefbowitz@the.port.side> wrote:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2016 10:16:51 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
>> wrote:
>> >In article <o2f53p$26i$1@dont-email.me>, Jim_Higgins
>> ><gordian240@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> Are smartwatches doomed?
>> >> http://www.cultofmac.com/456642/apple-watch-future-smartwatches-doomed/
>> >
>> >"Smart"watches that require you to also have a smartphone to do all the
>> >actual work were doomed from the start - a ridiculously pointless and
>> >over-priced idea.
>> 
>>  What I've been waiting for are smart armlets. Sort of computers
>> wrapped around the lower arm, complete with loads of buttons and a
>> dual-laser interference-created virtual screen hovering over the arm.
>> Loads of room for battery packs and small hardware screens for things
>> that don't demand much screen real-estate like Skyping and checking
>> the weather. 
>>  A smart brace would be very useful and if it should have phone and
>> wi-fi capabilities it could even replace those bricks.
>>  Charging from body-heat, motion and the electrical juice in the user
>> could be advantageous. 
>
>And be able to deflect bullets (so you can pretend to be Wonder Woman)
>and able to shoot out long strands of strong sticky webs (so you can
>pretend to be Spider Man), and wrist shoot lasers, and ...    ;-)

 I have no desire to deflect bullets. I have no intentions of ever
being in a situation where people are shooting them in my direction.
So far as I'm aware, no one dislikes me that much.
 I'm open to being corrected on this.
 
 Shooting long strands of sticky webs sounds ever so cool. It would
make fetching that coin that has dropped behind the couch a little
easier.
 I'm not sure how it would affect the battery drain but with 3-d
printing it shouldn't be much of a technological feat.

 Using interfering, non-optical lasers to create a display in mid-air
would be relatively cheap on power usage. Using those lasers as
offensive weaponry or cutting torches would demand very large, dense
batteries. 
 "Phasers" may be forever impossible merely because storing the juice
to power them may be beyond the limits of Physics. 
 It's a pity. We could do loads of cool things if we could find a
really dense energy storage medium. 

 What I want is perfectly feasible and would be relatively cheap and
easy to manufacture. It is basically a laptop bent into a bracelet. No
great technological feat. 
 It would be *easier* than a smart-watch.  

>
>
>
>> >A true smartwatch that can replace a smartphone for most people's needs
>> >is likely to be a better longer term winner, but the difficulty is
>> >making them easily usable for things like text input (few people
>> >actually want to talk to their wrist!).
>> 
>>  It's not the *talking*, that can be done even with the wrist in a
>> jacket pocket if the microphones and softwares are good enough, it's
>> the *hearing*. No one wants the entire bus to hear both ends of the
>> conversation. 
>>  A phone watch would need some sort of earpiece.
>>  And a huge improvement in battery.
>>  Which is one reason why a brace would be better.
>
>There was some news recently about a new Li-ion battery that could
>potentially make an iPhone work for a week and recharges very quickly.

 And which makes a terrific bomb and a truly *marvelous* incendiary
device, no doubt?
                  Mand. 
 
0
Mandy
12/12/2016 6:22:14 AM
Reply: