3 ms·
That all sounds reasonable. But I have to believe it's completely wrong. Because it's the same sort of "reasonable" that says every level of technology is pre
by jannotti 12y ago
That all sounds reasonable. But I have to believe it's completely wrong. Because it's the same sort of "reasonable" that says every level of technology is pretty much all you need. That is finally (decades later) pretty much true of desktop computers (but not displays). And it's getting there for laptops (excepting their displays and batteries). It's still years away for phones. And to think that the very first generation of of Apple watch is somehow going to get everything right to last for even one decade? I think that's preposterous.
The only way I can see them getting around this is by saying that for, say $500, we'll be able to take your watch in and swap out its guts entirely. It feels like that has to be true. (Yet, it also seems "chincy" to talk about popping things in and out. I guess we'll see.)
- ssharp 12y agoI could just be completely off their target markets, but I just can't fathom why someone would spend $1,000 on a watch every two years. With phones, the case for upgrading every two or three years can be reasonably built. How much tech are they really going to add to a tag-along device that will require more hardware? If the technology is going to change that quickly, I think those speculating of some sort of update process have to be correct.