4 ms·

Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobod

Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." Both of these are trivially demonstrated false. And I'm sure Google has put thought and effort into Android Wear, but what you dismiss as a "trite speech from Tim Cook" looks to me like a stake in the ground. Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. This informs a whole lot of things about the way the UX works. The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way. Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. As a general rule, everything everyone ever gets enthusiastic about can be safely dismissed as having first appeared in a Nokia product that all 27 Finns who bought it are still fanatical about. Also, it was probably implemented in Lisp.

jbellis 12y ago
I own an Android Wear watch, and the only thing it has in common with Android for phones is the name. "Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch" is a gross misrepresentation.
personZ 12y ago
but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." You've soundly beaten down notions that I certainly didn't state. Nor have I seen everyone else. However the narrative among the Apple camp was that competitors were desperately rushing to deliver vapour, and that their stodgy square mega watches were non-starters. Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. Again, you've firmly argued against something not being discussed. No one ever claimed that Android was first, however Android was quite specifically criticized by Apple (as were, tellingly, larger smartphones, and smaller tablets, and people eat it up). Because it turns out that Apple just says today whatever benefits their contemporary product line, much like just about every other company. And that's fine, but somehow it turns into higher meaning.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Sorry but you keep bringing up dynamic layouts without having a clue why they were introduced. It wasn't to create a "one app, run many" type system that Android has. It was merely to help developers support the different screen sizes within each category (iPhone, iPad). Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience.
  - personZ 12y ago
    Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience. You mean exactly like Android. Pretty remarkable having clueless people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about: I develop in both Android and iOS. But please, inform me.
    - threeseed 12y ago
      No. Android doesn't have controls that behave very differently on tablets versus phones (regardless of screen sizes) e.g. UIActionSheet or only exist on tablets e.g. UIPopoverController. Apple baked into the SDK what it tells developers: iPhones and iPads are different devices that need different UIs. Android doesn't have this clear delineation.
      - smsm42 12y ago
        What would be the point of behaving differently regardless of screen size? The screen size is the difference that causes different behavior between tablet and phone, or at least it should be so. If the screen size is the same, why have different UI?
        threeseed 12y ago
        I can't speak to Apple's intentions but it is what makes iOS fundamentally different to Android. It could be related to product marketing. People buy iPads for fundamentally different use cases than buying a phone (even a large one). Edit: Because I am being downvoted so heavily for this let me be clear. I don't agree with what Apple did only trying to explain it. I would imagine that Apple never expected to be releasing phones and tablets that are so close in physical size to each other.
simplexion 12y ago
"The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way." If you ignore the LG Prada.
- chipotle_coyote 12y ago
  The LG Prada was an impressive piece of hardware and certainly pointed in the same direction, sure, but it was essentially a feature phone -- a smaller, lower-resolution, grayscale display with no Internet capability to speak of. You had to use a virtual phone keyboard for text messaging, even. There was certainly nothing like Safari, for instance, or any of Apple's messaging applications. Actually, I'd say that the best iPhone-before-iPhone was the Danger Hiptop (a/k/a T-Mobile Sidekick). Much more data capability than almost anything else, a reasonably good browser, and even an app store. It'd be interesting to see where that evolutionary line would have been in 2014 if it hadn't been killed by iOS and Android. (And by Microsoft buying Danger and mangling it to hell, of course.)
  - ZeroGravitas 12y ago
    The standard definition of "featurephone" is not having the ability to install apps. Like the original iPhone, which intended you to use web apps apart from those built in. As you say, others had app stores first. If Android had launched without the ability to install apps then some Apple blogs would still be talking about how it was fundemantally not designed for the current smartphone era and would never be as good as the iPhone, as they currently do based on misinterpretation of whether touchscreens were intended to be supported from the start.
    - asmosoinio 12y ago
      > The standard definition of "featurephone" is not having the ability to install apps. I disagree with that definition: For example all cheapest Nokia phones since a long time ago supported (roughly when they got color screens, some even before that) installing J2ME applications. Same for cheap Samsungs and LGs of the same time. And these are definitely not smart phones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3410 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3410 ""Downloadable personal applications via Java technology"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Micro_Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Micro_Edition
chrisbroadfoot 12y ago
> Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch Citation needed. As GP said, the Android Wear team has considered the UX for wearables from the ground up. You're delusional.
- icebraining 12y ago
  I agree with your point, but there's no need for name-calling.
ibrahima 12y ago
> Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. The fact that you believe what Apple says about Google rather than taking the two minutes to actually look at how Android Wear works and see that that statement is completely false shows that the distortion field is in full effect.
- beedogs 12y ago
  I mean, this is the same company that, during the keynote today, repeated the lie that they're the mob that brought us the computer mouse. People just accept Apple's misstatements and half-truths and outright lies as fact now.
  - danellis 12y ago
    Did they actually say that? What's the exact quote? I thought they said something about all their products using innovative interfaces, not that the innovations were theirs. Still, when they were talking about the digital crown, they did make it sound like they were trying to claim they invented the optical rotary encoder.
    - makr 12y ago
      "Macintosh introduced the mouse." from the official liveblog: http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept-event/2cd7d38c-f769-4fc4-918e-5bba170f381c/ http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept-event/2cd7d38c-f769-4fc4...
      - danellis 12y ago
        "Introduced" is a subjective word. The Alto had a mouse, but I don't think it was used outside PARC. It doesn't seem too far from the truth to say that the Macintosh introduced the mouse to the world.
      - orkoden 12y ago
        It was the first PC that was widely available, that shipped with a mouse. There were mice before that of course. But the Macintosh was centered around the use of the mouse.
72deluxe 12y ago
Didn't wxWidgets have dynamic layout before Qt? Also, didn't Gtk 1 rely on sizers too?

jbellis 12y ago

I own an Android Wear watch, and the only thing it has in common with Android for phones is the name. "Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch" is a gross misrepresentation.

personZ 12y ago

but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." You've soundly beaten down notions that I certainly didn't state. Nor have I seen everyone else. However the narrative among the Apple camp was that competitors were desperately rushing to deliver vapour, and that their stodgy square mega watches were non-starters. Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. Again, you've firmly argued against something not being discussed. No one ever claimed that Android was first, however Android was quite specifically criticized by Apple (as were, tellingly, larger smartphones, and smaller tablets, and people eat it up). Because it turns out that Apple just says today whatever benefits their contemporary product line, much like just about every other company. And that's fine, but somehow it turns into higher meaning.

threeseed 12y ago
Sorry but you keep bringing up dynamic layouts without having a clue why they were introduced. It wasn't to create a "one app, run many" type system that Android has. It was merely to help developers support the different screen sizes within each category (iPhone, iPad). Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience.
- personZ 12y ago
  Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience. You mean exactly like Android. Pretty remarkable having clueless people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about: I develop in both Android and iOS. But please, inform me.
  - threeseed 12y ago
    No. Android doesn't have controls that behave very differently on tablets versus phones (regardless of screen sizes) e.g. UIActionSheet or only exist on tablets e.g. UIPopoverController. Apple baked into the SDK what it tells developers: iPhones and iPads are different devices that need different UIs. Android doesn't have this clear delineation.
    - smsm42 12y ago
      What would be the point of behaving differently regardless of screen size? The screen size is the difference that causes different behavior between tablet and phone, or at least it should be so. If the screen size is the same, why have different UI?
      - threeseed 12y ago
        I can't speak to Apple's intentions but it is what makes iOS fundamentally different to Android. It could be related to product marketing. People buy iPads for fundamentally different use cases than buying a phone (even a large one). Edit: Because I am being downvoted so heavily for this let me be clear. I don't agree with what Apple did only trying to explain it. I would imagine that Apple never expected to be releasing phones and tablets that are so close in physical size to each other.

simplexion 12y ago

"The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way." If you ignore the LG Prada.

chipotle_coyote 12y ago
The LG Prada was an impressive piece of hardware and certainly pointed in the same direction, sure, but it was essentially a feature phone -- a smaller, lower-resolution, grayscale display with no Internet capability to speak of. You had to use a virtual phone keyboard for text messaging, even. There was certainly nothing like Safari, for instance, or any of Apple's messaging applications. Actually, I'd say that the best iPhone-before-iPhone was the Danger Hiptop (a/k/a T-Mobile Sidekick). Much more data capability than almost anything else, a reasonably good browser, and even an app store. It'd be interesting to see where that evolutionary line would have been in 2014 if it hadn't been killed by iOS and Android. (And by Microsoft buying Danger and mangling it to hell, of course.)
- ZeroGravitas 12y ago
  The standard definition of "featurephone" is not having the ability to install apps. Like the original iPhone, which intended you to use web apps apart from those built in. As you say, others had app stores first. If Android had launched without the ability to install apps then some Apple blogs would still be talking about how it was fundemantally not designed for the current smartphone era and would never be as good as the iPhone, as they currently do based on misinterpretation of whether touchscreens were intended to be supported from the start.
  - asmosoinio 12y ago
    > The standard definition of "featurephone" is not having the ability to install apps. I disagree with that definition: For example all cheapest Nokia phones since a long time ago supported (roughly when they got color screens, some even before that) installing J2ME applications. Same for cheap Samsungs and LGs of the same time. And these are definitely not smart phones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3410 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_3410 ""Downloadable personal applications via Java technology"" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Micro_Edition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Java_Platform,_Micro_Edition

chrisbroadfoot 12y ago

> Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch Citation needed. As GP said, the Android Wear team has considered the UX for wearables from the ground up. You're delusional.

icebraining 12y ago
I agree with your point, but there's no need for name-calling.

ibrahima 12y ago

> Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. The fact that you believe what Apple says about Google rather than taking the two minutes to actually look at how Android Wear works and see that that statement is completely false shows that the distortion field is in full effect.

beedogs 12y ago
I mean, this is the same company that, during the keynote today, repeated the lie that they're the mob that brought us the computer mouse. People just accept Apple's misstatements and half-truths and outright lies as fact now.
- danellis 12y ago
  Did they actually say that? What's the exact quote? I thought they said something about all their products using innovative interfaces, not that the innovations were theirs. Still, when they were talking about the digital crown, they did make it sound like they were trying to claim they invented the optical rotary encoder.
  - makr 12y ago
    "Macintosh introduced the mouse." from the official liveblog: http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept-event/2cd7d38c-f769-4fc4-918e-5bba170f381c/ http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept-event/2cd7d38c-f769-4fc4...
    - danellis 12y ago
      "Introduced" is a subjective word. The Alto had a mouse, but I don't think it was used outside PARC. It doesn't seem too far from the truth to say that the Macintosh introduced the mouse to the world.
    - orkoden 12y ago
      It was the first PC that was widely available, that shipped with a mouse. There were mice before that of course. But the Macintosh was centered around the use of the mouse.

72deluxe 12y ago

Didn't wxWidgets have dynamic layout before Qt? Also, didn't Gtk 1 rely on sizers too?