Apple Event 9/9/14
Out of context: Reply #362
- Started
- Last post
- 413 Responses
- formed0
Apple at 97.68
I think that sums it up. Kinda a "meh".
Phones look nice, but w/o sapphire are just a modest improvement (nothing revolutionary, nothing bad). 240FPS is what attracts me, but no expandable storage...meh...still waiting for competition to offer this.
iWatch:
Bad:
1. Misses 2014 xmas
2. looks like any Android watch, but with a nice presentation
3. Not gonna be hard for anyone to beat it
4. Ion-X glass? What's that?
5. gold plated? Really?Good:
1. Nice presentation, colors seem thought out (considering it's all renderings, I suppose you'd expect as much)
2. Cant' be too expensive (guess here, given it looks like everything else)
3. Pay (I guess, I wouldn't use this)I am very disappointed there isn't a good fitness oriented one. Changing colors is NOT something that counts, imho, maybe even a cheap ploy (we'd all cry foul if the Moto 360 came with "gold" plating!).
Good opportunity for the Fitbits/Samsungs to jump in and make something us guys that would pay for a fitness band (Samsungs, arguably, is the closest yet).
Anyone hear/see if this thing has to be connected to a iPhone? I think that'd be a deal breaker for many, too (me, anyway).
- yes it does require an iphone and fitbit far nicer than samsungs offerings imhofadein11
- iPhone is essential; which like you breaks the deal for me. I bet it was related to GPS draining battery.ideaist
- #2 and #5 on your "bad" list don't make sense. It's what the public wants. And it's much better than Android watches.Jaline
- How is it "much better"? Does/looks the same.
Gold plated = cheapformed - "isn't a good fitness oriented one"
...that would be the Watch Sportsee_thru - It doesn't do the same things.Jaline