Apple is not a technology company(medium.com)
medium.com
Apple is not a technology company
https://medium.com/chris-messina/silicon-valley-is-all-wrong-about-the-airpods-8204ede08f0f
76 comments
Glad to know this article is 100% NOT worth the read.
"... remove the Phone from the iPhone"
I read a comment on HN that said AppleTV is what you describe.
The author seems to be ignoring the Mac G3/G4/G5/Pro computers.
Apple is still in the pro audio market, aren't they?
I read a comment on HN that said AppleTV is what you describe.
The author seems to be ignoring the Mac G3/G4/G5/Pro computers.
Apple is still in the pro audio market, aren't they?
>that we don't realize yet we don't really need it ... remove the Phone from the iPhone
Only we use the phone tons of times a day, and there is no replacement with existing carrier services etc.
Only we use the phone tons of times a day, and there is no replacement with existing carrier services etc.
>no replacement with existing carrier services etc.
If you mean the actual data <-> phone connection, then probably correct if you are frequently outside of wifi range. If you mean calling / texting, then I have used a google voice (sms) and skype number (calling) (they are the same number as gv forwards to the skype number for calls) for about 4 years now with no actual phone service. It's great because it works on almost any platform (even windows phone with sms to email forwarding, even though google doesn't support wp) and doesn't tie me to a single device like e.g. whatsapp.
If you mean the actual data <-> phone connection, then probably correct if you are frequently outside of wifi range. If you mean calling / texting, then I have used a google voice (sms) and skype number (calling) (they are the same number as gv forwards to the skype number for calls) for about 4 years now with no actual phone service. It's great because it works on almost any platform (even windows phone with sms to email forwarding, even though google doesn't support wp) and doesn't tie me to a single device like e.g. whatsapp.
I was really excited about some aspects of AirPods, like the IR sensor that could detect whether you had them in, and pause audio accordingly.
Then I saw a photo of what wearing AirPods looks like from the front (http://www.iostipsandtricks.biz/wp-content/uploads/1473/7957...)
Apple will still sell a mountain of them, because Apple is really good at changing peoples' perceptions of what looks bad, to looking good. The Apple watch is a perfect example. Square watches with rubber bands never looked cool. Motorola innovated a round digital face with the Moto360, and Apple responds with a square digital watch, with a rubber band.
Then I saw a photo of what wearing AirPods looks like from the front (http://www.iostipsandtricks.biz/wp-content/uploads/1473/7957...)
Apple will still sell a mountain of them, because Apple is really good at changing peoples' perceptions of what looks bad, to looking good. The Apple watch is a perfect example. Square watches with rubber bands never looked cool. Motorola innovated a round digital face with the Moto360, and Apple responds with a square digital watch, with a rubber band.
If anything it's good you can see them from the front, with no wires someone might otherwise not notice and start talking to you immediately.
The Apple Watch isn't cool.
What if Apple's secret plan is to sell fashion accessories that tie onto them?
>Then I saw a photo of what wearing AirPods looks like from the front
Compared to what? Not wearing in ear headphones at all? Because with all of them you look the same, just with cables dangling too...
Compared to what? Not wearing in ear headphones at all? Because with all of them you look the same, just with cables dangling too...
I made this comment before - the real value of the airpods is the foundational work for VR snd other things that go on your head. Wireless is critical. I have a hololens and DK2 beta, and the difference between untethered and tethered is hYOOOOGE. Airpods are v1.0 that will figure out latency issues, push the limits on bandwidth, push sensor capabilities, explore onboard DSP functions, gather data to feed into machine learning models for head and other behaviors, etc. It is the "scout" that is deployed deep in enemy territory to lay the foundation for the cavalry's entry into what will emerge as one or more multibillion dollar markets (e.g. VR, new interface paradigms, brain computers that plug into the cortex :).
Apple is fantastic about introducing a foundational technology that people puzzle over, and then follow that MVP with a set of killer, well understood features for the mass market that leverage it (touch id followed by apple pay). To summarize:
* v1: Introduce puzzling HW/SW enabling technology disguised as a feature / roadmap swimlane, to work out the kinks, de-risk the technology.
* v2: Introduce clear-as-daylight applications for the mass market that leverage earlier work.
Look at the early days of AirPlay. I recall streaming wireless music to my speakers back in the mid 2000s, and how buggy it was / how much latency there was. Lo and behold, many iterations later, and we have seamless audio and video airplay (ok, almost seamless). What makes me an expert on this stuff? Nothing, other than thinking about it and using it for many hours. This has nothing to do with jewelry.
Apple is fantastic about introducing a foundational technology that people puzzle over, and then follow that MVP with a set of killer, well understood features for the mass market that leverage it (touch id followed by apple pay). To summarize:
* v1: Introduce puzzling HW/SW enabling technology disguised as a feature / roadmap swimlane, to work out the kinks, de-risk the technology.
* v2: Introduce clear-as-daylight applications for the mass market that leverage earlier work.
Look at the early days of AirPlay. I recall streaming wireless music to my speakers back in the mid 2000s, and how buggy it was / how much latency there was. Lo and behold, many iterations later, and we have seamless audio and video airplay (ok, almost seamless). What makes me an expert on this stuff? Nothing, other than thinking about it and using it for many hours. This has nothing to do with jewelry.
Well, that writing style certainly is calculated to make me think that the author is a douche.
As to the substance of the argument: if your basic point is connecting AirPods to the Apple Watch, then man, you're really begging the question. I suppose it's possible that the watch will eventually become a big success, but it just has not yet.
(I was also amused to see the gold Edition watch ad in there -- the gold has been discontinued and the Edition has gotten a 90% price break).
As to the substance of the argument: if your basic point is connecting AirPods to the Apple Watch, then man, you're really begging the question. I suppose it's possible that the watch will eventually become a big success, but it just has not yet.
(I was also amused to see the gold Edition watch ad in there -- the gold has been discontinued and the Edition has gotten a 90% price break).
What is your definition of success? Reasonable estimates put the Watch near 20 million units sold in its first 18 months on the market.
>Well, that writing style certainly is calculated to make me think that the author is a douche.
Funny thing, people name-calling others "a douche" for their writing does the exact same thing to me. Meta, huh?
>I suppose it's possible that the watch will eventually become a big success, but it just has not yet.
Big success compared to what? It already outsold all smart-waches 10 to 1, and is the number #2 watch brand (overall) in the world in sales. And that's in its first iteration, and from a company that never made watches before, and when technology (battery, etc) is still immature for most of things one could add. To contrast, it took several years for the iPod to be that succesful.
If that's failure, I'd like to see what success is like.
Funny thing, people name-calling others "a douche" for their writing does the exact same thing to me. Meta, huh?
>I suppose it's possible that the watch will eventually become a big success, but it just has not yet.
Big success compared to what? It already outsold all smart-waches 10 to 1, and is the number #2 watch brand (overall) in the world in sales. And that's in its first iteration, and from a company that never made watches before, and when technology (battery, etc) is still immature for most of things one could add. To contrast, it took several years for the iPod to be that succesful.
If that's failure, I'd like to see what success is like.
What success looks like for the Apple Watch:
Apple disclosing how many units they have sold.
Apple moving to a 12 month release cycle.
Anyone besides people who were emotionally invested in its success from pre-launch thinking that it's a success.
Apple disclosing how many units they have sold.
Apple moving to a 12 month release cycle.
Anyone besides people who were emotionally invested in its success from pre-launch thinking that it's a success.
>Apple disclosing how many units they have sold.
Apple does that selectively, and doesn't say how units they sell for many products. Including highly succesful ones. Besides, he have estimations, and are all big numbers for a watch, so?
>Apple moving to a 12 month release cycle.
That doesn't make any sense. A watch is not something people buy every few years, like phones have been since forever (also thanks to subscription contracts people have to pay for phones anyway which subsidize part of the cost).
Not are they like laptops which people change every 4-6 years because new machines are much faster and come with new connections and stuff (SSDs over HDs, thunderbolt, retina displays, etc). Besides people have started updating laptops that much the last 5 years or so, as CPUs hit a plateu that's been good enough for most.
Even when there are some breakthroughs to show for it (like this model's more capable cpu/battery, the waterproofing, etc), people won't just buy another $300 or more smartwatch in 12 months, heck not even in 2-3 years.
This means Apple's best move is to put out new models at the pace when they have enough interesting tech/changes to add. A new release in 12 months wont have that, and even if it had them it would be too fast a cycle for repeat buyers.
>Anyone besides people who were emotionally invested in its success from pre-launch thinking that it's a success.
The markets shows it's a success.
Apple does that selectively, and doesn't say how units they sell for many products. Including highly succesful ones. Besides, he have estimations, and are all big numbers for a watch, so?
>Apple moving to a 12 month release cycle.
That doesn't make any sense. A watch is not something people buy every few years, like phones have been since forever (also thanks to subscription contracts people have to pay for phones anyway which subsidize part of the cost).
Not are they like laptops which people change every 4-6 years because new machines are much faster and come with new connections and stuff (SSDs over HDs, thunderbolt, retina displays, etc). Besides people have started updating laptops that much the last 5 years or so, as CPUs hit a plateu that's been good enough for most.
Even when there are some breakthroughs to show for it (like this model's more capable cpu/battery, the waterproofing, etc), people won't just buy another $300 or more smartwatch in 12 months, heck not even in 2-3 years.
This means Apple's best move is to put out new models at the pace when they have enough interesting tech/changes to add. A new release in 12 months wont have that, and even if it had them it would be too fast a cycle for repeat buyers.
>Anyone besides people who were emotionally invested in its success from pre-launch thinking that it's a success.
The markets shows it's a success.
Yes, Apple is selective with the products they disclose unit sales for: specifically, they tell the ones that are big successes.
As to release cycles: If people won't pay another $300 in 2 years for a watch, no matter how much the internals change, that certainly does put a cap on the consumer enthusiasm for said watch, doesn't it?
As to release cycles: If people won't pay another $300 in 2 years for a watch, no matter how much the internals change, that certainly does put a cap on the consumer enthusiasm for said watch, doesn't it?
>As to release cycles: If people won't pay another $300 in 2 years for a watch, no matter how much the internals change, that certainly does put a cap on the consumer enthusiasm for said watch, doesn't it?
Yeah, like it puts at cap at around 2 years for a phone, of around 5 years for a laptop, etc. Reality tends to put caps on things.
You expected people buying new watches every year? Or do you think Apple expected that?
Yeah, like it puts at cap at around 2 years for a phone, of around 5 years for a laptop, etc. Reality tends to put caps on things.
You expected people buying new watches every year? Or do you think Apple expected that?
You don't have your lifecycle set to the generation length -- phones, as you note, are around 2-3 years, but they have a lifecycle of one year. The fact that the watch has a much worse lifecycle than the phone -- despite being half the cost -- gives valuable insight into Apple's beliefs about how compelling it is.
If the Apple Watch were amazing, and a new generation could be more amazing yet, why wouldn't a substantial number of the owners upgrade in a year?
If the Apple Watch were amazing, and a new generation could be more amazing yet, why wouldn't a substantial number of the owners upgrade in a year?
> Apple doesn’t give a shit about neckbeard hipsters who...
This is always what we hear from Apple advocates trying to justify a bad decision on Apple's part.
"Apple doesn't care about third party apps, they want to control the experience on their iPhone, so no app store"
"Apple doesn't care about multiple resolutions, that's fragmentation"
"Apple doesn't care about market share, they care about revenue"
... ad nauseam.
This is always what we hear from Apple advocates trying to justify a bad decision on Apple's part.
"Apple doesn't care about third party apps, they want to control the experience on their iPhone, so no app store"
"Apple doesn't care about multiple resolutions, that's fragmentation"
"Apple doesn't care about market share, they care about revenue"
... ad nauseam.
Yeah, it's called having a focus.
Remember this "opinionated software" thing?
Plus, it works for them, made them the biggest company on the planet while they were NOT following the armchair quarterbacks, so?
Remember this "opinionated software" thing?
Plus, it works for them, made them the biggest company on the planet while they were NOT following the armchair quarterbacks, so?
Apple's AirPods will probably suck, audio wise, but there's a chance they're sturdy as hell. I know because I've used Apple's otherwise useless EarPods to listen to spoken word content and to fall asleep with for years.
The only thing that break on the EarPods are the cables, and if you're not like making knots intentionally, you can wake up in the morning tangled in them for more than a year before they start to break.
So, yeah, I like the eur 500 worth of other headphones I own at the moment too. Sure, it's weird I'll need to use some goddamned dingus to attach them to my next phone.
But fuck me if we're still stuck with current wired tech for audiophile gear in 2030. It's not like I want to use shitty headphones out and about. I do because I don't want to fuck up the cables, etc. And wireless headphones still suck, universally.
We live in the future now for goodness' sakes and Bluetooth audio is only marginally less useless than it was ten years ago.
So yeah, if you've got any sense of pride over where wearable tech should be taking us, please, roll over and beg that this infusion of Apple's proprietary shitty cans into the marketplace will raise adoption of voice control and increase development of less shitty hardware to make music and user interface appear in our fucking ears with no wires.
I don't own any Apple stock so I don't really give shit, except I prefer to buy tech somehow designed to fit together. If Apple crashes and burns because they're trying to make wearable computers in your ears a thing, so be it.
The only thing that break on the EarPods are the cables, and if you're not like making knots intentionally, you can wake up in the morning tangled in them for more than a year before they start to break.
So, yeah, I like the eur 500 worth of other headphones I own at the moment too. Sure, it's weird I'll need to use some goddamned dingus to attach them to my next phone.
But fuck me if we're still stuck with current wired tech for audiophile gear in 2030. It's not like I want to use shitty headphones out and about. I do because I don't want to fuck up the cables, etc. And wireless headphones still suck, universally.
We live in the future now for goodness' sakes and Bluetooth audio is only marginally less useless than it was ten years ago.
So yeah, if you've got any sense of pride over where wearable tech should be taking us, please, roll over and beg that this infusion of Apple's proprietary shitty cans into the marketplace will raise adoption of voice control and increase development of less shitty hardware to make music and user interface appear in our fucking ears with no wires.
I don't own any Apple stock so I don't really give shit, except I prefer to buy tech somehow designed to fit together. If Apple crashes and burns because they're trying to make wearable computers in your ears a thing, so be it.
I'm skeptical for a few reasons:
* AirPods don't look all that great, even if they are familiar in design
* AirPods are expensive
* Siri isn't useful enough yet
* Talking to Siri in public still feels weird
* Talking to Siri in a shared office environment feels even weirder
* AirPods don't look all that great, even if they are familiar in design
* AirPods are expensive
* Siri isn't useful enough yet
* Talking to Siri in public still feels weird
* Talking to Siri in a shared office environment feels even weirder
> Talking to Siri in public still feels weird
Even when it's normal, like when my daughter used to have an imaginary friend, talking to your imaginary friend is weird.
Even when it's normal, like when my daughter used to have an imaginary friend, talking to your imaginary friend is weird.
Yeah... the utility offered needs to be super compelling to outweigh the weirdness factor.
I think that's partially the genius of something like Alexa (and eventually Google Home). You're in your own space so you're more likely to feel comfortable blurting out questions and commands.
I think that's partially the genius of something like Alexa (and eventually Google Home). You're in your own space so you're more likely to feel comfortable blurting out questions and commands.
How is it any different to talking on the phone?
In the early nineties only yuppies had cellphones, and people laughed at people talking on the phone on the street, bus etc.
Now it's completely normal.
In the early nineties only yuppies had cellphones, and people laughed at people talking on the phone on the street, bus etc.
Now it's completely normal.
Except for us with oddly shaped ears, where ear buds have always been the bane of our existence. They won't stay in my ear, no matter what. Call me a neckbeard hipster all you want, I still like over-the-ear headphones, and Apple's "revolution" can suck it.
The poor fit is terrible for sound quality, no matter your ear shape, to boot.
Earbuds always fall out of my left ear (but stay in my right). But I've read people who tried them already saying that they fit better than previous earbuds they've tried, which is a good sign. I'm guess I'll still have a problem, but I'm hopeful that maybe Apple's actually solved it.
In any case, you can still use over-the-ear headphones. I believe Apple said that Beats would be selling headphones with the same W1 chip that AirPods use. Or you could just use any of the existing bluetooth headphones.
In any case, you can still use over-the-ear headphones. I believe Apple said that Beats would be selling headphones with the same W1 chip that AirPods use. Or you could just use any of the existing bluetooth headphones.
I don't understand why people are getting so upset about other people getting upset about a feature being removed. "No, you're wrong, it's good for you to not have this thing you wanted."
I don't understand why people are getting upset at all! If you don't like it, don't buy it.
One argument I haven't seen much of is how these new wireless technologies make things less future proof. In 200 years I can splice some copper wire to a pair of headphones and maybe make them work. Good luck trying to get some goofball wireless standard to work let alone some proprietary one.
[deleted]
5 hours of listening time on the AirPods…
Honestly, until we have week-ish long battery life and background radiation charging, I'm not ready to ditch all my wires.
the only reason i got a pebble instead of a moto 360 is because my pebble's battery lasts a week.
I went from an original Kickstarter Pebble, to a Samsung Gear 2, to a Moto 360, back to the Pebble Time Steel. It really does seem like Pebble provides a better product all around. It was a fun trip, I guess.
> What Apple has done is produce something that isn’t a technology product, but is, rather, a fashion object
Is there a general consensus that they look fashionable? I was surprised how they look almost exactly like the old headphones with the wire cut off instead of having an entirely new design.
I think bluetooth headphones in general are great personally. Not having wires getting caught in things is ideal, there's no wire getting itself into knots, I find pairing easy and when some headsets have 20+ hours of battery the battery life really isn't an issue. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about myself.
Is there a general consensus that they look fashionable? I was surprised how they look almost exactly like the old headphones with the wire cut off instead of having an entirely new design.
I think bluetooth headphones in general are great personally. Not having wires getting caught in things is ideal, there's no wire getting itself into knots, I find pairing easy and when some headsets have 20+ hours of battery the battery life really isn't an issue. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about myself.
Apple turned white earbuds into a fashion accessory back with the iPod.
> Apple turned white earbuds into a fashion accessory back with the iPod.
Fair point, I remember how obvious it was iPods were getting popular when you saw lots of people in public wearing white cored earphones for the first time.
Fair point, I remember how obvious it was iPods were getting popular when you saw lots of people in public wearing white cored earphones for the first time.
Not really. Having an iPod was fashionable and the white earbuds just let you show off your iPod. Samsung has white earbuds, you don't see many people wearing those.
Others have commented on the tone of the article. Sure, they're right. Doesn't matter.
Sometimes the value of an article or observation is how it flips your view of the world around.
Apple is a fashion brand that makes jewelry that connects to the internet
Huh. I've never seen or heard it expressed so well before. I've read comments about "integrated ecosystem" and all kinds of other babble.
But that, right there? Fashion company? That's the money quote.
Remember how YC tends to invest in teams, not ideas, people, not tech? Tech is fast, tech is cheap, tech is transitory. (Sure fashion is transitory, too - but people are always buying the next one.)
Apple and a few other "tech" companies just use - and in some cases build - incredibly advanced tech. Viewing them from the perspective of the engineer or MBA means one sees a narrow slice of who they are.
But viewed as a fashion brand, Apple is a whole other thing. Those are the terms on which it should be evaluated.
(I offer no evaluation. My head is still spinning from the perspective jolt.)
Sometimes the value of an article or observation is how it flips your view of the world around.
Apple is a fashion brand that makes jewelry that connects to the internet
Huh. I've never seen or heard it expressed so well before. I've read comments about "integrated ecosystem" and all kinds of other babble.
But that, right there? Fashion company? That's the money quote.
Remember how YC tends to invest in teams, not ideas, people, not tech? Tech is fast, tech is cheap, tech is transitory. (Sure fashion is transitory, too - but people are always buying the next one.)
Apple and a few other "tech" companies just use - and in some cases build - incredibly advanced tech. Viewing them from the perspective of the engineer or MBA means one sees a narrow slice of who they are.
But viewed as a fashion brand, Apple is a whole other thing. Those are the terms on which it should be evaluated.
(I offer no evaluation. My head is still spinning from the perspective jolt.)
I don't mind a downvote, I really don't, but I'd prefer a counterargument.
If you disagree, say why. Engage.
(It's why I dislike downvoting: Driveby disengagement with negative consequences.)
If you disagree, say why. Engage.
(It's why I dislike downvoting: Driveby disengagement with negative consequences.)
Sort of reminds me of the UI from the movie Her. Fully integrated handheld and ear piece
We changed the baity title ("Silicon Valley" is pretty close to universally counting as linkbait in titles now, and the rest was over the edge) to a subtitle that appears to summarize the author's argument.
This is the part that made it make sense to me:
https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1200/1*N9h4FVkyYoZ...
[Image of person wearing earbugs; text "Wireless headphones. Finally untangled."]
Tangled headphone cords aren't sexy and never will be. Removing them altogether is the logical next move.
I just wish the replacement was better than Bluetooth.
https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1200/1*N9h4FVkyYoZ...
[Image of person wearing earbugs; text "Wireless headphones. Finally untangled."]
Tangled headphone cords aren't sexy and never will be. Removing them altogether is the logical next move.
I just wish the replacement was better than Bluetooth.
I'll take tangled headphones over eminently losable $150 headphones.
Why are bluetooth earbuds more lose-able than wired earbuds? I have several pairs of wired earbuds that came with my phones over the years, and I only know where 1 pair is (coiled up in a drawer on my desk).
Unless the earbuds are permanently plugged in to your device, it's just as easy to lose them as it is to lose wireless earbuds.
Unless you're trying to argue that they'd fall out and you wouldn't notice until you've already lost it? Because that seems unlikely. How often have you had an earbud fall out without you noticing? That's never happened to me. I mean, they do fall out, but it's pretty hard to not notice when that happens.
Unless the earbuds are permanently plugged in to your device, it's just as easy to lose them as it is to lose wireless earbuds.
Unless you're trying to argue that they'd fall out and you wouldn't notice until you've already lost it? Because that seems unlikely. How often have you had an earbud fall out without you noticing? That's never happened to me. I mean, they do fall out, but it's pretty hard to not notice when that happens.
So, you notice when they fall out (anecdotally, this happens to me all the time with the current generation of Apple headphones) - how will this help when you're walking down a sidewalk and they get crushed under someone else's feet? Or fall down a drain? Under your seat in your car?
Headphones are one case where a wire is eminently helpful to have.
Headphones are one case where a wire is eminently helpful to have.
They are small, and there are two of them.
Yes, it's easy to notice when they fall out. But they stay attached when they fall out, versus falling onto the floor/road/platform/etc.
As someone who wears a hearing aid, I can see how it might be nice if Apple made wearing earpieces more fashionable. (Not that I've had any problems, but I can imagine younger people with hearing loss caring about this.)
But that doesn't mean they will succeed. Sometimes an Apple product turns out to be a flop. Despite their best efforts, it's not as cool as they wanted it to be.
But that doesn't mean they will succeed. Sometimes an Apple product turns out to be a flop. Despite their best efforts, it's not as cool as they wanted it to be.
This article says what I've been thinking/trying to explain to people about this.
Before the iPhone, the only people who had/wanted smart phones were "uncool" business people[1].
And I think its the case with bluetooth headsets right now.
[1] - this may or may not have been the case, but it was definitely the general perception at the time.
Before the iPhone, the only people who had/wanted smart phones were "uncool" business people[1].
And I think its the case with bluetooth headsets right now.
[1] - this may or may not have been the case, but it was definitely the general perception at the time.
"Before the iPhone, the only people who had/wanted smart phones were "uncool" business people[1]."
I think this is demonstrably untrue. Blackberry's were popular with regular people as well. BBM was huge amongst non techies, at least outside the US.
The problem was they were too expensive. Which is why Blackberry released the Pearl in 2006 which was entirely a consumer product.
I think this is demonstrably untrue. Blackberry's were popular with regular people as well. BBM was huge amongst non techies, at least outside the US.
The problem was they were too expensive. Which is why Blackberry released the Pearl in 2006 which was entirely a consumer product.
People didn't want smartphones because they weren't particularly useful, and data was extremely pricey. Blackberry changed that and others followed.
Bluetooth headsets stopped being cool a became ago, just saying.
> the airpods drip with sex appeal
That's like, your opinion man.
Some people need trinkets to get laid, others don't ;-)
That's like, your opinion man.
Some people need trinkets to get laid, others don't ;-)
Made me laugh hard after a long time, yet informative..
Any other articles like this?
Idk... I felt that it kind of took an extremely long time to get to the point. But that might just be me being critical about long, redundant sentences like this post is...
[deleted]
It's the new iDweeb. Whether Apple can make this a fashion statement remains to be seen. The iWatch didn't really get traction.
iWatch wasn't dweeby-fashion-victim enough.
There's no such thing as an iWatch. And the Apple Watch certainly did get traction; it's second only to Rolex in worldwide sales!
In a super, super, super diverse field. That's like saying my grocery store is #2 in worldwide sales (this is reductio ad absurdum, but you get my drift)
I dunno, if a brand new supermarket chain launched, and within a year they became the #2 supermarket chain in worldwide sales, that would actually be very impressive.
It basically just came down to space on the phone AND they waited just like us for how many years for the "industry" to make Bluetooth not SUCK?! The industry failed and Apple moved on by making it not suck.
Enjoy your corded headphones.
Enjoy your corded headphones.
>Enjoy your corded headphones
I will, thanks
Sent from my Galaxy S7 Edge
I will, thanks
Sent from my Galaxy S7 Edge
Sadly, in the view of most "It didn't happen until Apple made it happen" rings true to most people.
I was looking at wireless headphones before the iPhone 7 announcement and found some good ones (Samsung Gear IconX and Bragi Dash).
Unfortunately they are not the cool kids.
I was looking at wireless headphones before the iPhone 7 announcement and found some good ones (Samsung Gear IconX and Bragi Dash).
Unfortunately they are not the cool kids.
Hear hear, these silly Airpods are a small revolution. Bluetooth headphones that don't suck make quite a difference.
Is that stance from a reductio ad absurdum contest? Like nobody ever use with great success an humble audio cable for non expensive audio stuff in the real world outside the silicon valley?
My modest proposal : if you really want to remove an more than often annoying 150-years old technology that we don't realize yet we don't really need it
... remove the Phone from the iPhone