09-10-2014, 05:45 AM
I have no reason to believe the software is not upgradeable and won't be upgraded.
The Keynote clearly mentioned developers making apps for this watch.
It makes perfect sense that the 'Phone would absolutely be required for the watches many features.
But I hope that, if not now, at some point the watch will be able to do the same functions as the Gen6 nano, without a 'Phone.
Obviously Apple wants to use the watch to sell 'Phones and vice versa. But I'd like just a teeny, tiny bit of autonomy.
Can replace the iPhone?
No.
Not now, maybe down the road. The Watch would be HUGE. Probably ok of you were a hip-hopper.
I love watches. Always have.
My first pricey watch was an Omega Speed Master Professional, the watch that "went to the moon". I've got a few digitals mainly because I needed quickly note times of events and digitally displayed time was easier to remember until I could write it down. But analogs have always been my favorite. For me, it's about the graceful blend of style and substance. That it's possible to make something with so many very small moving parts to work so precisely… It still amazes me after all these years.
I don't begrudge people for preferring the cheapest Casio or Timex (I have a few that aren't quite entry level) but I don't abide the shallow, arrogant idiot who looks at one of my watches and says "I've got a $20 Timex that works just fine!" as though it's the utmost of temerity and consumerism to wear a nice watch.
So it's still a bit of a shock and a lot of disappointment when somebody can't look at a new product, especially in the tech category, and say "Not for me, but nice tech."
There is a major disconnect in dealing with this particular paradigm. The wristwatch has historically been a standalone tool or fashion statement, or a combination of both. It's obsolescence is limited to wear or falling out of fashion. Or changing the number of hours in a night/day cycle.
In this case the Watch is more a peripheral than a wristwatch. It's an extension of the 'Phone, not a replacement. So we have to change our way of thinking to accept that in a few years this could become obsolete (as in non-functional) where a wristwatch would not.
And that's the problem. It is *not* a watch, but a peripheral, like a VCR, DVD player, or external optical drive. Since they didn't have standalone functionality, becoming obsolete is merely a fact of life/tech. It's inevitable. We don't want that, but we accept it.
It's not so easy to accept this in something that hasn't previously been tethered to another device. I'm hoping that at some point, this *can* have some limited functionality without a 'Phone, something like using an old iPhone as an iPod, when replaced by shiny new iron.
As one might guess, I am not dissuaded.
The Keynote clearly mentioned developers making apps for this watch.
It makes perfect sense that the 'Phone would absolutely be required for the watches many features.
But I hope that, if not now, at some point the watch will be able to do the same functions as the Gen6 nano, without a 'Phone.
Obviously Apple wants to use the watch to sell 'Phones and vice versa. But I'd like just a teeny, tiny bit of autonomy.
Can replace the iPhone?
No.
Not now, maybe down the road. The Watch would be HUGE. Probably ok of you were a hip-hopper.
I love watches. Always have.
My first pricey watch was an Omega Speed Master Professional, the watch that "went to the moon". I've got a few digitals mainly because I needed quickly note times of events and digitally displayed time was easier to remember until I could write it down. But analogs have always been my favorite. For me, it's about the graceful blend of style and substance. That it's possible to make something with so many very small moving parts to work so precisely… It still amazes me after all these years.
I don't begrudge people for preferring the cheapest Casio or Timex (I have a few that aren't quite entry level) but I don't abide the shallow, arrogant idiot who looks at one of my watches and says "I've got a $20 Timex that works just fine!" as though it's the utmost of temerity and consumerism to wear a nice watch.
So it's still a bit of a shock and a lot of disappointment when somebody can't look at a new product, especially in the tech category, and say "Not for me, but nice tech."
There is a major disconnect in dealing with this particular paradigm. The wristwatch has historically been a standalone tool or fashion statement, or a combination of both. It's obsolescence is limited to wear or falling out of fashion. Or changing the number of hours in a night/day cycle.
In this case the Watch is more a peripheral than a wristwatch. It's an extension of the 'Phone, not a replacement. So we have to change our way of thinking to accept that in a few years this could become obsolete (as in non-functional) where a wristwatch would not.
And that's the problem. It is *not* a watch, but a peripheral, like a VCR, DVD player, or external optical drive. Since they didn't have standalone functionality, becoming obsolete is merely a fact of life/tech. It's inevitable. We don't want that, but we accept it.
It's not so easy to accept this in something that hasn't previously been tethered to another device. I'm hoping that at some point, this *can* have some limited functionality without a 'Phone, something like using an old iPhone as an iPod, when replaced by shiny new iron.
As one might guess, I am not dissuaded.