Hopefully battery technology can improve, but the tethering is not a technical choice it's a policy choice designed to lock you inside the Apple system.
Oh, come off it!
Do you REALLY think that Apple (or anybody?) could place a CELLULAR ANTENNA (let alone the hardware to drive it) inside that package? Not to mention the battery it would take to maintain communication with the cellular network. You think the battery life is short NOW?...
Not to mention that, to be autonomous from a cellphone (and still have even a large fraction of the features) you would have to figure out how to shoehorn all (or nearly all) of the hardware seen in steps 15 through 17 of this iPhone 6 Teardown. Again, I ask you: Where does that hardware go? What does it use for a battery?
I would want to fly, but I will settle for a fast car, especially if all I got right now is an old beat up car. So if I do have to carry a phone anyway right now, not having to take it out of the bag every time, seems quite preferable. If most of the interfacing with my phone can be done through smaller display conveniently located on my wrist, it would seem like an improvement over my current situation. My phone can then stay in my laptop bag, working as a modem and occasionally come out for some of the richer apps.
Mod Parent up to Infinity (and beyond!).
This is EXACTLY the typical use-case for a "tethered" SmartWatch (and quite frankly, a SmartWatch like the Apple Watch, is perfectly positioned when it IS used in conjunction with a Smartphone).
We are probably a decade away from this product evolving to the point where the "peripheral" becomes the "system". And quite frankly, it may not happen even that soon. But in the meantime, although it SOUNDS terribly effete to whine about having to reach into your pocket to retrieve your phone do most of the things you can do with the Apple Watch, I can tell you that, if you had one on your wrist for a few days (assuming you also had an iPhone), that you would soon wonder why you have put up with doing some stuff on your phone. Remember, your phone doesn't have to be in your pocket. It can be safely tucked away inside your book bag, laptop case, whatever. I don't know about you; but I wear a fair amount of clothes (like T-shirts without pockets) that make it kind of a pain to get to my phone, especially while driving. Being able to tap my wrist to answer a call (or, I assume using Siri, PLACE a call or answer a Text), covers about 80% of what I use my phone for while on-the-go.
It's not that it's THAT onerous to dig around in my pants-pocket to retrieve my phone; but it's damned annoying to do while driving.
The Apple Watch neatly makes that ALL go away.
I will admit that when I first saw the demo of the Apple Watch a few months ago, I was in the "not for me" camp (and I AM a huge Apple fan); but after seeing the Keynote Demo the other day, the use-cases (at least for me) are beginning to accumulate fairly rapidly.
I just can't see spending hundreds of dollars on such a thing when I don't even own a "smart phone" because I rarely leave the house.
Other than the fact that you like to read your own words, what in the hell are you even engaging in this conversation? You are so NOT the target audience for this product that I would be hard-pressed to find a more useless opinion on the matter.
This is like someone in the tropics complaining about a new furnace being introduced, because they "rarely need heat."
But different reasons. Those high end watches are jewelry that happens to be a watch. Their expense is their allure, and wearing an expensive watch is astatus symbol.
So, the $10k version of the Apple Watch is not "expensive" enough to be a status symbol?
That's funny: The Breitling Navitimer is only about $5k on the street. Took about.5 secs of Googling to determine that fact.
Everything is trivial to those who have no done so.
True enough.
But, as an Embedded Developer with nearly 40 years' paid experience, I believe I have a relatively good handle on the complexity of that task; so let's just substitute "relatively straightforward" for "trivial".
I have seen at least one design for a AC power inverter (think "off-the-grid" solar energy) that was supposedly able to take its frequency-cues from snatching a "whiff" of 50/60Hz powerline frequency in the air, even in the relative boonies. I don't know how well it worked; but that's what it purported to do.
That's a low-enough frequency that the electronics in the watch (or your phone, monitor, computer, TV, etc) isn't likely to interfere, and there are multiple ways (well, at least 2) to detect that frequency (RF and Ambient-Light-Sensor). Amplify, Filter and time the zero-crossings to determine 50/60 Hz, and drive a Phase-Locked-Loop, and there you go!
Why is the need for the apple smartphone a problem? Most people carry their phones with them to most places. You can assume a phone is available except for exercise, shower..
And people seem to be completely (or is that conveniently?) forgetting that the Apple Watch has WiFi as well as Bluetooth; so it isn't like you have to have your iPhone in your pocket to be able to use the Apple Watch. If you have a WiFi Router at home and both devices can reach it, then you can use your Apple Watch's non-timekeeping functions. And if you are out-and-about, you probably DO have your phone somewhere within Bluetooth range; so...
Plus, I wouldn't put it past Apple to make it so the Watch and Phone could "pair" over WiFi even without being immersed in a common WiFi network, by automagically creating an Ad-hoc network between them.
"Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy"
If you're willing to put that up as a bet, I accept it. Let's take your Apple watch, and remove it from online network sync. I bet within a couple weeks it'll be surprisingly far off. Yeah, generic computer devices tend to have shit clocks in them and are almost entirely reliant on external time sources to remain accurate.
There are a lot more ways that a purely electronic timepiece can keep impressive accuracy over long periods of time. For example, in most developed countries, there is enough examples of power-line frequency to be picked-up everywhere, all the time, and those frequencies are adjusted continuously, precisely so that line-powered clocks will keep time, to have to rely on network time-servers (once set). It would be trivial for the Apple Watch to be able to "tune-in" to those frequencies (almost always either 50.0 or 60.0 Hz) to help with this.
In 10 years time, the Apple Watch will be a non-functioning piece of trash. You will be lucky if an Apple Watch outlasts a Timex. Never mind a Rolex.
If I purchase the $349 model, you'd likely be right. But if I have purchased the $10k model (and assuming that $10k means more to me than $349 to most), you can bet that it would be serviced at regular intervals, and would still be functional for as long as I wanted it to be.
Um. Apple is likely to obsolete that watch as soon as they possibly can, as well as completely drop support for it, and stop manufacturing / providing the custom battery inside, similar to what they have done for every other bit of hardware and software (except iTunes) they've manufactured that's older than my next-to-last tax return plus one or two.
1. That's where third-parties pick up the ball.
2. How does that make Apple different from every other company? For example, try to get parts for a three year old Toshiba TV some time. Apple actually has a much better than average track record, overall, in that regard than most of their competitors.
Small laptop gets smaller, faster, better, and more expensive despite industry-standard hardware used and widely available at lower cost but without the little white light up apple.
There is a LOT of stuff in the new MacBook that ISN'T simply "industry-standard hardware". In fact, pretty much nothing but the CPU and the passives on the PCB is "off the shelf". They had to pull-off some pretty intense engineering to reduce the size of the "motherboard" by 67%. You don't do that by grabbing a reference design.
But let's not let facts get in the way of the hate...
Why would I buy a MacBook over a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro?
You wouldn't (and neither would I); but, you will notice that, in the "Mac" Line, Apple now sells everything from an ultralight notebook (a Surface Pro killer) to a fire-breathing Nubian Dildo (the essentially-ignored Mac Pro), with several steps in-between.
The only reason to bemoan the introduction of the new MacBook would be if either the iPad or the MacBook Air went away.
You'll notice that that didn't happen. Nor is it likely to. This is a new model. I think the price should have been $1k to differentiate it from the MBA; but no doubt there are reasons other than simply greed.
And I think you will find that the reason Apple discontinued the 17" MacBook Pro was that they simply didn't sell enough. The majority of people want a laptop that fits in most backpacks. That ain't the 17" MBP. Personally, I'll bet one of the other reasons was keeping the "warp" down to a reasonable level during machining. But that's just a guess.
How much does the memory, backlit retina display, SSD, etc... draw?
You're pretty much stuck using the no doubt $75 Apple adapter for the near future. Plugging this thing into your existing USB hub is not going to work.
According to the Apple Store, the AC Adapter is $49. Try finding ANY OEM Laptop Adapter for less.
RedHat appears to applaud his goal of taking over linux userspace since if it works they'll effectively own it, and Poettering is a big wheel in maintaining the Fedora and RHEL distributions himself.
But the L. Poettering virus has not been contained to RHEL and Fedora, and therein lies the key to what I was saying about "The train has already left the station" and likely cannot be completely stopped (from moving away from INIT, et al), but MAYBE there is still time to at least throw the switch to put it on the "launchd" track rather than the "systemd" one.
I really like the new Macbook but the lack of a dedicated USB port makes it a non-starter for me, it's a really simple thing and not the sort of thing you would think a company like Apple would consider as a power-user feature.
They did. It's call the MacBook Pro. Same Price. Three times as heavy. More CPU. Better GPU (I think). Many more Ports. That's why I have one instead of wanting this ultraportable.
But, as far as providing for those who want/need extra ports while NOT on-the-go, Apple hasthatcovered.
So, it looks like Apple has in mind that you use the little USB-C to USB dongle when on-the-go (yes, you will have to unplug from power temporarily), and use one of the "docks" when in a more stationary application.
And I am sure that there will be a USB dongle that also lets you charge very soon now, probably by the time the MacBook is actually available.
Surely it's purpose is to be functional. It certainly seems a bit strange to require you unplug your laptop - even if it has excellent battery life - in order to use a USB stick.
Regardless of 'the cloud', students make plenty of use of USB sticks. And in four years time, nearing the completion of your undergrad degree, that battery life might not be so hot. Maybe the power brick will have a USB hub?
1. You won't be plugging a garden-variety USB stick into THAT connector, anyway; so that implies some sort of dongle, adapter, or hub.
2. Who sits at their laptop with a USB stick hanging out the side for HOURS on end? That isn't even even safe!
But, where would they put them? Laptops have finally gotten thin enough that the peripheral connectors are becoming the limiting factor. I am relatively sure that they first just wanted to stick a TB connector on it; but TB probably doesn't have a provision for passing Power INTO a "host" (guessing), and they couldn't afford the room for BOTH a TB and a mag-safe connector.
I'm not saying I like it, either; but Engineering is ALWAYS about Constraints and Compromises. Always.
Slashdot Mirror
steps 15 through 17...
Correction: I meant steps 15 through 18
Even worse!
Hopefully battery technology can improve, but the tethering is not a technical choice it's a policy choice designed to lock you inside the Apple system.
Oh, come off it!
Do you REALLY think that Apple (or anybody?) could place a CELLULAR ANTENNA (let alone the hardware to drive it) inside that package? Not to mention the battery it would take to maintain communication with the cellular network. You think the battery life is short NOW?...
Not to mention that, to be autonomous from a cellphone (and still have even a large fraction of the features) you would have to figure out how to shoehorn all (or nearly all) of the hardware seen in steps 15 through 17 of this iPhone 6 Teardown. Again, I ask you: Where does that hardware go? What does it use for a battery?
Think before you bleat out such idiocy, fucktard.
If Apple replaces the battery, is it not possible for them to harvest information that the watch has retained without the user knowing about it?
Paranoid much?
Just how much "information" do you think that a watch can store and still have room for an OS and Apps?
Will an Apple Watch slide in your asshole as smoothly as an iPhone does? That's what most Macfags are interested in.
No, for that, you'll want the Mac Pro.
I would want to fly, but I will settle for a fast car, especially if all I got right now is an old beat up car. So if I do have to carry a phone anyway right now, not having to take it out of the bag every time, seems quite preferable. If most of the interfacing with my phone can be done through smaller display conveniently located on my wrist, it would seem like an improvement over my current situation. My phone can then stay in my laptop bag, working as a modem and occasionally come out for some of the richer apps.
Mod Parent up to Infinity (and beyond!).
This is EXACTLY the typical use-case for a "tethered" SmartWatch (and quite frankly, a SmartWatch like the Apple Watch, is perfectly positioned when it IS used in conjunction with a Smartphone).
We are probably a decade away from this product evolving to the point where the "peripheral" becomes the "system". And quite frankly, it may not happen even that soon. But in the meantime, although it SOUNDS terribly effete to whine about having to reach into your pocket to retrieve your phone do most of the things you can do with the Apple Watch, I can tell you that, if you had one on your wrist for a few days (assuming you also had an iPhone), that you would soon wonder why you have put up with doing some stuff on your phone. Remember, your phone doesn't have to be in your pocket. It can be safely tucked away inside your book bag, laptop case, whatever. I don't know about you; but I wear a fair amount of clothes (like T-shirts without pockets) that make it kind of a pain to get to my phone, especially while driving. Being able to tap my wrist to answer a call (or, I assume using Siri, PLACE a call or answer a Text), covers about 80% of what I use my phone for while on-the-go.
It's not that it's THAT onerous to dig around in my pants-pocket to retrieve my phone; but it's damned annoying to do while driving.
The Apple Watch neatly makes that ALL go away.
I will admit that when I first saw the demo of the Apple Watch a few months ago, I was in the "not for me" camp (and I AM a huge Apple fan); but after seeing the Keynote Demo the other day, the use-cases (at least for me) are beginning to accumulate fairly rapidly.
I just can't see spending hundreds of dollars on such a thing when I don't even own a "smart phone" because I rarely leave the house.
Other than the fact that you like to read your own words, what in the hell are you even engaging in this conversation? You are so NOT the target audience for this product that I would be hard-pressed to find a more useless opinion on the matter.
This is like someone in the tropics complaining about a new furnace being introduced, because they "rarely need heat."
But different reasons. Those high end watches are jewelry that happens to be a watch. Their expense is their allure, and wearing an expensive watch is astatus symbol.
So, the $10k version of the Apple Watch is not "expensive" enough to be a status symbol?
.5 secs of Googling to determine that fact.
That's funny: The Breitling Navitimer is only about $5k on the street. Took about
Next meme?
Everything is trivial to those who have no done so.
True enough.
But, as an Embedded Developer with nearly 40 years' paid experience, I believe I have a relatively good handle on the complexity of that task; so let's just substitute "relatively straightforward" for "trivial".
I have seen at least one design for a AC power inverter (think "off-the-grid" solar energy) that was supposedly able to take its frequency-cues from snatching a "whiff" of 50/60Hz powerline frequency in the air, even in the relative boonies. I don't know how well it worked; but that's what it purported to do.
That's a low-enough frequency that the electronics in the watch (or your phone, monitor, computer, TV, etc) isn't likely to interfere, and there are multiple ways (well, at least 2) to detect that frequency (RF and Ambient-Light-Sensor). Amplify, Filter and time the zero-crossings to determine 50/60 Hz, and drive a Phase-Locked-Loop, and there you go!
Now what?
So it's 1/4th iron? Wait, no, that couldn't be it. That'd be way harder than just twice as hard as standard gold. Gold is really soft.
No. Apple figured out a way to "alloy" (wrong term for this, since it isn't a metal-metal admixture) Ceramic with the Gold.
A solid gold casing would be too soft to be practical.
That's why it's slightly alloyed, like most, if not all, jewelry items.
Why is the need for the apple smartphone a problem? Most people carry their phones with them to most places. You can assume a phone is available except for exercise, shower..
And people seem to be completely (or is that conveniently?) forgetting that the Apple Watch has WiFi as well as Bluetooth; so it isn't like you have to have your iPhone in your pocket to be able to use the Apple Watch. If you have a WiFi Router at home and both devices can reach it, then you can use your Apple Watch's non-timekeeping functions. And if you are out-and-about, you probably DO have your phone somewhere within Bluetooth range; so...
Plus, I wouldn't put it past Apple to make it so the Watch and Phone could "pair" over WiFi even without being immersed in a common WiFi network, by automagically creating an Ad-hoc network between them.
"Apple Watch will still tell time, exactly like the Rolex, except with much greater accuracy"
If you're willing to put that up as a bet, I accept it. Let's take your Apple watch, and remove it from online network sync. I bet within a couple weeks it'll be surprisingly far off. Yeah, generic computer devices tend to have shit clocks in them and are almost entirely reliant on external time sources to remain accurate.
There are a lot more ways that a purely electronic timepiece can keep impressive accuracy over long periods of time. For example, in most developed countries, there is enough examples of power-line frequency to be picked-up everywhere, all the time, and those frequencies are adjusted continuously, precisely so that line-powered clocks will keep time, to have to rely on network time-servers (once set). It would be trivial for the Apple Watch to be able to "tune-in" to those frequencies (almost always either 50.0 or 60.0 Hz) to help with this.
In 10 years time, the Apple Watch will be a non-functioning piece of trash. You will be lucky if an Apple Watch outlasts a Timex. Never mind a Rolex.
If I purchase the $349 model, you'd likely be right. But if I have purchased the $10k model (and assuming that $10k means more to me than $349 to most), you can bet that it would be serviced at regular intervals, and would still be functional for as long as I wanted it to be.
Um. Apple is likely to obsolete that watch as soon as they possibly can, as well as completely drop support for it, and stop manufacturing / providing the custom battery inside, similar to what they have done for every other bit of hardware and software (except iTunes) they've manufactured that's older than my next-to-last tax return plus one or two.
1. That's where third-parties pick up the ball.
2. How does that make Apple different from every other company? For example, try to get parts for a three year old Toshiba TV some time. Apple actually has a much better than average track record, overall, in that regard than most of their competitors.
...but will you even be able to buy a replacement battery for it in 100 years? I doubt you can get a replacement battery for a 20 year old laptop now.
Actually, you can.
And by 100 years, you'll be able to retrofit a cold fusion battery replacement into that laptop or Apple Watch.
Small laptop gets smaller, faster, better, and more expensive despite industry-standard hardware used and widely available at lower cost but without the little white light up apple.
There is a LOT of stuff in the new MacBook that ISN'T simply "industry-standard hardware". In fact, pretty much nothing but the CPU and the passives on the PCB is "off the shelf". They had to pull-off some pretty intense engineering to reduce the size of the "motherboard" by 67%. You don't do that by grabbing a reference design.
But let's not let facts get in the way of the hate...
Who wants to deal with a hub when they can just get a system that does what they want in the first place?
Because it runs Windows?
Why would I buy a MacBook over a MacBook Air or a MacBook Pro?
You wouldn't (and neither would I); but, you will notice that, in the "Mac" Line, Apple now sells everything from an ultralight notebook (a Surface Pro killer) to a fire-breathing Nubian Dildo (the essentially-ignored Mac Pro), with several steps in-between.
The only reason to bemoan the introduction of the new MacBook would be if either the iPad or the MacBook Air went away.
You'll notice that that didn't happen. Nor is it likely to. This is a new model. I think the price should have been $1k to differentiate it from the MBA; but no doubt there are reasons other than simply greed.
And I think you will find that the reason Apple discontinued the 17" MacBook Pro was that they simply didn't sell enough. The majority of people want a laptop that fits in most backpacks. That ain't the 17" MBP. Personally, I'll bet one of the other reasons was keeping the "warp" down to a reasonable level during machining. But that's just a guess.
This laptop runs off 5W, USB3 can provide 100W, something tells me this is a non-issue.
Yeah, Apple's USB-C AC Adapter is only 29W; so you're probably right.
How much does the memory, backlit retina display, SSD, etc... draw? You're pretty much stuck using the no doubt $75 Apple adapter for the near future. Plugging this thing into your existing USB hub is not going to work.
According to the Apple Store, the AC Adapter is $49. Try finding ANY OEM Laptop Adapter for less.
Powered hub and $80 breakout adapter to use the hub.
$20, not $80.
RedHat appears to applaud his goal of taking over linux userspace since if it works they'll effectively own it, and Poettering is a big wheel in maintaining the Fedora and RHEL distributions himself.
But the L. Poettering virus has not been contained to RHEL and Fedora, and therein lies the key to what I was saying about "The train has already left the station" and likely cannot be completely stopped (from moving away from INIT, et al), but MAYBE there is still time to at least throw the switch to put it on the "launchd" track rather than the "systemd" one.
I really like the new Macbook but the lack of a dedicated USB port makes it a non-starter for me, it's a really simple thing and not the sort of thing you would think a company like Apple would consider as a power-user feature.
They did. It's call the MacBook Pro. Same Price. Three times as heavy. More CPU. Better GPU (I think). Many more Ports. That's why I have one instead of wanting this ultraportable.
But, as far as providing for those who want/need extra ports while NOT on-the-go, Apple has that covered.
So, it looks like Apple has in mind that you use the little USB-C to USB dongle when on-the-go (yes, you will have to unplug from power temporarily), and use one of the "docks" when in a more stationary application.
And I am sure that there will be a USB dongle that also lets you charge very soon now, probably by the time the MacBook is actually available.
Surely it's purpose is to be functional. It certainly seems a bit strange to require you unplug your laptop - even if it has excellent battery life - in order to use a USB stick.
Regardless of 'the cloud', students make plenty of use of USB sticks. And in four years time, nearing the completion of your undergrad degree, that battery life might not be so hot. Maybe the power brick will have a USB hub?
1. You won't be plugging a garden-variety USB stick into THAT connector, anyway; so that implies some sort of dongle, adapter, or hub.
2. Who sits at their laptop with a USB stick hanging out the side for HOURS on end? That isn't even even safe!
for that cost it should have more ports
But, where would they put them? Laptops have finally gotten thin enough that the peripheral connectors are becoming the limiting factor. I am relatively sure that they first just wanted to stick a TB connector on it; but TB probably doesn't have a provision for passing Power INTO a "host" (guessing), and they couldn't afford the room for BOTH a TB and a mag-safe connector.
I'm not saying I like it, either; but Engineering is ALWAYS about Constraints and Compromises. Always.