Posted on 04/10/2015 10:21:50 PM PDT by Swordmaker
Remember when Apple used to claim that they were anti-Big Brother?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtvjbmoDx-I
My current watch says it’s waterproof to 20 meters...that’s what I wish the Apple watch had.
Maybe the power connector and sensors wouldn’t work. It’s probably the port, though.
See ya’,
Ed
Did you listen to the Tech Guy radio show today? There were people on there talking about the specific benefits of an apple or other phone connected watch. Again, they are for busy, hardworking people (even moms) who don’t have octopus arms. One man was going on about how he could leave his phone charging and still get new business calls and info. I really don’t think it matters who the head of apple sleeps with. Jobs was a piece o work but he headed a company whose products have made the world better (and worse as all tech has the potential to be used for evil).
If the naysayers don’t care about these products, stay off the threads.
No comment on the current crop. . . but in the past a few have asked to be added. They eventually bought Apple products and are no longer Apple hate Brigade members. . . and are among those who comment they were once Apple haters and just didn't get it.
This current crop seems to have gone beyond asshattery to have their heads so far up their behinds they will need an abdominal fenestration so they can see where they are heading. I am not obligated to retain such buffoons in the list.
Some "cult" when the purchasing public has bought over 1.2 billion iOS devices. . . and almost 500 million of those are capable of working with the Apple Watch sold just in the last two and a half years. 75 million in just the last quarter of 2014!
Sounds like they under priced them. Seriously. If it only took 10 mins to sell out.
Keep in mind also that the batteries on the Apple Watch can be changes out for new tech batteries when they come out.
There certainly is an agenda when a "reviewer" culls only the negative remarks from other reviewers' glowing reviews and then claims the negative characterizes the product.
You will find somewhere the "Water Resistance" rating. . . This is a Federal Trade Commission requirement. Is it still "waterproof" at the bottom of the Mindinao Deep? I sincerely doubt it. It may be, but it will state "water resistant to 32,000 feet" Some watch maker got sued by the Feds for claiming waterproof without having tested every possible condition. There is a published standard.
OK, I searched Rolex's site. Rolex's are certified "Water Resistant" to 100 meters water pressure. They call that "waterproof" in advertising. . . but not on their watches.
"STRINGENT WATERPROOFNESS TESTING
Defying the elementsAll Oyster Perpetual models are equipped with the Oyster case, providing the movement with optimal protection against water, dust and shocks. Before being shipped, every Oyster watch is immersed in water and subjected to a pressure 10 percent greater than that found at the depth to which it is guaranteed – 25 percent more in the case of divers’ watches. This means that every Rolex Oyster is not just capable of resisting at least 100 metres of water pressure. It has actually done so.
Second Tuesday of next week. . .
Seriously, a Google search? You have to be kidding.
The fact is that the reviews of the people who actually USED the Apple Watch had a positive tenor to glowing rave. The ones who did not vary from completely negative from DroidBots to neutral to glowing. . . but the reviewers who actually had hands on experience are the ones referred to in this article. Your obfuscation is just more FUD.
And what value are the "reader comments" you tout as if they had some import, commenting about a product none of the commenters have ANYTHING experiential to say about a product none of them have even seen or touched, much less used. It is the ignorant talking to the ignorant about a review penned by someone just as ignorant.
That's a strong possibility. As an economist, that's my take as well. . . but on the other hand, we cannot make that judgement too quickly. What we have here is the eagerness of the first adopters. Can the product sustain such higher than world market prices of $10k - $17k? The $20k price being paid are those prices plus Chinese government value added levies for products sold in China. Imagine the arbitrage that will be going on when $10K plus sales tax can get you $20K in China merely for sneaking one across China's border.
“Seriously, a Google search?
google search for:
apple watch reviews OR ratings
certainly provides anyone on FR who cares WAY more objective information than your slavish, trollish devotion to all things apple
Yeah, that was said somewhat tongue in cheek, given the $20k price tag. (and the OMG coming from some folks at the price tag itself)
I don' t think I'm in danger of being in their target audience for those models.
Personally, I'm amazed there is a market for those models at all. Not surprised, just amazed.
2001: Apple will fail in their MP3 player. History is not on their side. Diamond failed. Archos failed. Sony failed. All MP3 players failed.
2007: Apple will fail in their smartphone. Palm failed. HP failed. Kyocera failed. Nokia failed. All smartphones failed.
2010: Apple will fail in their tablet. IBM failed. Microsoft failed. Nokia failed. HP failed. Intel failed. All tablets failed.
Do you mean the same objectivity of the Main Stream Media presents about Obama. . . and the information from people who have no information to impart? That's what got Obama elected in the first place, the votes of uninformed people like you think can make cogent remarks on something they have never seen or used. They are not qualified to have an opinion of any value. . . all you will find is a worthless echo chamber.
If you want to provide something of VALUE to this thread, find a negative review from a reviewer who actually spent a week using the Apple Watch and has an informed opinion, not one made up out of innuendo and rumor. That is what this thread is all about. . . and you choose to prove the thesis that these negativity aggregators are like you, reviewing the reviews with an agenda of negativity.
All you anti-Apple Hate brigade are similar. You don't use what you spew ignorant comments about and you don't know the people on whom you spray your insulting spittle.
Are you really this ignorant of current events that you think there can be ratings of an unreleased product that only a few reviewers have had a few days experience with? If you think there are already "ratings" from some hypothetical rating agency you are truly delusional.
Nothing is “Waterproof” just ask anybody that has ever served aboard a Submarine. That’s why Subs have a Test Depth, they have only been tested to that depth, below that they have a “crush depth”.
You ever watch the scene in Down Periscope where the guy in the engine room runs a string sideways across the sub. As the Sub dives the string begins to sag, the deeper they go, the greater the sag. Eventually the water pressure will crush it, like a tin can.
I suppose at some point, the practical difference between whether the word “waterproof” is on the watch and differences between “waterproof vs. waterproofness testing “ is not as important as does Rolex stand behind their watches.
You would think that if a Rolex shows signs of a leak, Rolex is going to repair it at no charge. Rolex has built their reputation over many years; I can’t imagine they would want to damage their brand by not standing behind their watch.
A waterproof/ruggedized one might be useful for people working in harsh environments(like emergency workers), both to send alerts to workers, AND to send emergency alerts back when a worker's heart rate (or other biometric measures) goes out of normal range, indicating the person may be in trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.