What sort of standard?
"the Taptic Engine, has reportedly been manufactured to such a ow standard by one of the two suppliers"
So instead of giving you a gentle tap, it notifies you of incoming messages with a Chinese burn.
Apple scrapped a whole batch of Apple Watches after finding a fault with the wristjob's vibrating Taptic Engine, say reports. According to the Wall Street Journal, "people familiar with the matter" have said that after mass production began in February, "reliability testing revealed that some Taptic Engines supplied by AAC …
If you're not going to make an amusing pun out of a typo like Simon did, there is a simple button underneath the page to report errors and corrections, which are always gratefully and warmly accepted by el reg staff in my experience, and you won't attract so many downvotes for being a smarmy know-it-all.
"I do love the "you're holding it wrong" jokes which inevitably appear in the comments on every single one of these articles. They're so hilariously original and up-to-date."
Yeah.. Good aren’t they. But.. If you miss a meme, you've blown it.
Not as amusing of course, as the aspiring to be sarcastic, condescending, whiny remarks about how old the joke is that they were engineered to elicit from uptight fanboys.
Sappy and nonsensical though the heartbeat sharing apps may be aren't they also rendered stupidly nonsensical by comms latency. Surely unless the latency is exactly equal to the gap between beats the one thing that is certain is that the pulse you feel NEVER coincides with your loved ones heartbeat.
Looking at the rate at which new versions of Bluetooth and new wireless protocols are introduced, that sounds about right. Then there's battery life - two years ago 50 hours was considered very good for a mobile phone, now the best ones run 4 days.
Mechanical watches have been good enough for all normal purposes for perhaps 70 years. That possibly explains why some of them can be so expensive. But a product that is likely to underperform by a factor of 2 on at least one significant feature in a couple of years is surely not going to be in widespread use in 10 years time.
Looks like Apple didn't send a batch of free watches to The Reg or iFixit. That would explain the weird arguments like "not offering an upgrade program". What was the last watch you bought that comes with a way to "upgrade" it? Or which smartphone, even (other than upgrading the software)?
And sure, if you can't upgrade it, it must be "obsolete" in 10 years. "Unlike most watches", of course. Who makes that stuff up? Any digital watch technology is outdated after 10 years (oh, and mechanical watch technology too, btw.) Would you call a chronograph built 20 years ago "obsolete" and toss it into the trash? Because you can't "upgrade" it? OTOH, Apple's watch is more closely related to a smartphone than to a watch, and of course you can (hardware-)upgrade smartphones. Right?
Reg, your Apple-bashing is funny up to a certain point, but at some point it's enough already.
it will be obsolete for various reasons:
1) the built in battery will fail - unlike proper watches that use kinetic power or replaceable batteries thsi will mean a dead product - Apples current battery failure timescale means this is < 6 years
2) the features wont all be there in the first release....and , based on Apples previous history, next year a new Apple Watch will come out with more memory/storage and the next IOS will require that extra memory/storage - so like the first iPads you'll be stuck with old (and probably insecure/vulnerable) software - thats obsolescence built in
3) other components will fail - the screen, the Taptic interface etc - warranty will cover this for 2 or 3 years depending if Apple are obeying European laws that month.
basically The Register giving it 10 years was a VERY generous offering
your comments regarding chronographs etc is pointless...you dont upgrade them. they do their functions, tell time, do split time, world time, lunar events etc for life. therefore the only way they could become obsolete is if people no longer even used watches..... and I can tell you this...at 23:20 my watch will still be working. your Apple Watch will be dead due to poor battery life and your iPhone6 will also be dead due to its battery lifetime problem. *I* can still tell the time with my watch - and since I'm not using loads of juice syncing between phone and watch, the chances are that my phone (galaxy S4 with crap battery life) might have some battery left so I can actually call the cab to get us home.
- sometimes I wonder if we're actually going BACKWARDS with technology :/
The sealed battery will be replaceable, just like the sealed iPhone batteries are replaceable. Maybe not the 3 minutes it takes to do an iPhone one, but a cottage industry will pop up to do it for you.
If the watch can still perform the functions that it had when you purchased it, then it is not obsolete.
My car is not obsolete because it can't park itself, but my neighbour's car can.
It's true, though, that LCD watch obsolescence is pointless, as proven by casio f-91w-1xy.
Upgrades are irrelevant. The user will need to replace them someday, just like any other $300-$500 consumer good. No one thinks their smartphone will not be obsolete in a decade, no matter how many cores or megapixels it has today.
The interesting question is what about the gold Watch that costs $10K and beyond? I wouldn't be at all surprised if part of the deal for buying one is that you get very cheap (maybe even free?) swaps to the latest on a regular basis. Maybe they can swap out the guts (in case you have custom engraving done, etc.) but more likely they require trading the old one (to recover the gold) and give you a new one. If someone pays $10K for something that has $150 worth of electronics and $2000 (or whatever) worth of gold, they can afford to keep replacing that $150 of electronics for a lot of years and still have made great money on it.
Though people who would spend that kind of money might not be too concerned about getting their money's worth - customers for the gold Watch who might drop more money in a nightclub in a single night, and more money in a single bet at a casino may not be too concerned about buying a new one every year for the full $10K+
"If someone pays $10K for something that has $150 worth of electronics and $2000 (or whatever) worth of gold"
The Apple gold watches supposedly have other, higher quality materials than just gold so it's not just the metal parts that were replaced with shiny yellow.
The amount of gold in iWatch is reported to be about 30 grams, so the gold (18 karats) is worth about $850. Ten years ago it was worth $225, and only four years ago the it was worth $1350 when gold hit the peak.
More than that, it requires an iOS device to work. You won't still be using your iPhone 6 in a decade. And I suspect that when the iPhone 8 comes out with iOs 10 or whatever,. it will have dropped support for the first gen Watch, to force the cultists to upgrade anyway.
I am no Apple fan but... this talk of non up-gradability is just silly since no similar product is.
It is perfectly feasible for Apple to offer and upgraded replacement watch for a nominal sum at some point in the future to its loyal fans.
Bugger, I've just been pooped on by a flying pig
They pulled the shop launch at the last minute.
Sounded like a slow sales Plan B to me.
They are selling well on ebay, as required by Apple to help create 'artificial' demand.
I think it was the NYT who also highlighted what looked the plan.
This, likely Apple leaked semi truth may be part of that plan.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019