• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Mobile Phones
Apple Watch
<<
<
5 of 51
>>
>
paulbrock
22-02-2013
bit more info on Apple's new product:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...2/apple-iwatch
clonmult
22-02-2013
Originally Posted by Step666:
“Sony don't have anything like the integration of hardware and software that Apple have.

I have the original LiveView and the problem was nothing to do with integration, it was entirely down to implementation - it was a flawed, half-arsed product like so many other mobile products Sony (Ericsson) have released in the past few years.”

I've got the original SE smartwatch, the MBW-150 (its quite a good looking watch). Its only failing is that it has an older OLED display, which were known to fade, and it has indeed faded a lot. Integration works well, music player controls, message reading, incoming call alerts, etc.

I'm not sure what this "integration" has gained Apple, their products aren't obviously better in any way than anything available running Android or WP.

Google tend to be hands off and maybe give gentle guidance. Apple like to have complete control over their products. Which way you go is personal preference.
clonmult
22-02-2013
Originally Posted by paulbrock:
“bit more info on Apple's new product:
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/...2/apple-iwatch”

Interesting article, but then most of the "smartwatches" have been way more than just a watch.

Does anyone remember the MS SPOT range? They were intriguing devices, time, weather, news, traffic alerts. That was 9 years back.

Fossil released the wrist PDA 10 years back running the Palm OS.

Fossil/SE released the MBW-100 in 2006 (way too shiny), the MBW-150 was released a year later and refined the design into a conventional looking watch that could also answer calls, read text messages, control your music player.

Watches are bracelets that can tell the time. Smartwatches are bracelets that can tell the time and perform a variety of other functions. What Apple has patented does (so far) just appear to be another smartwatch. Typical Apple patent, they'll be after the wheel next ....
alanwarwic
22-02-2013
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“Google tend to be hands off and maybe give gentle guidance.”

Not sure about that.

Most of their software products like maps, latitude, now and gmail speak for themselves.
There is, as yet, little compelling as a general alternative
tdenson
23-02-2013
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“I'm not sure what this "integration" has gained Apple, their products aren't obviously better in any way than anything available running Android or WP.”

Their integration enables them to achieve the same with less horsepower. This results in lower battery requirements giving (typically) slimmer and lighter products.
alanwarwic
23-02-2013
Originally Posted by tdenson:
“This results in lower battery requirements”

Well I always wondered if the lack of multi-tasking and tiny screen was to deal with the inadequacies of the battery.

Integration almost feels likes it is becoming the a buzz word for 'cant do very much'.
kidspud
23-02-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Well I always wondered if the lack of multi-tasking was to deal with the inadequacies of the battery.”

I didn't think it lacked multitasking, it is just restricted to certain apps. Although I don't know who decides these restrictions.
clonmult
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by tdenson:
“Their integration enables them to achieve the same with less horsepower. This results in lower battery requirements giving (typically) slimmer and lighter products.”

Slimmer lighter devices from Apple are a result of a mildly anal attention to detail on hardware. Software/hardware integration is nothing to do with it.
psionic
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I didn't think it lacked multitasking, it is just restricted to certain apps. Although I don't know who decides these restrictions.”

It doesn't lack multitasking, but apps have to be specifically designed to multitask and respond to requests using Apple's methods. However it's slightly less flexible then Android's multitasking. But even on Android, apps still have to designed to cooperate with the OS to get appropriate priorities and respond to requests/calls or they get suspended after a few minutes and their memory relinquished. This is essential on all tablets/phones and other battery powered devices, or battery life would suffer greatly and RAM requirements would be much higher.

Anyway on something like a watch, battery life is going to be a significant issue. People are just not accustomed to having to charge them regularly, unlike phones. So trade-offs may have to be made on screen quality and functionality etc.
alanwarwic
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I didn't think it lacked multitasking, it is just restricted to certain apps. Although I don't know who decides these restrictions.”

I'm sure most of us know who decides those restrictions.

All devices multi task to an extent otherwise the phone would never ring when we are checking email etc.
Designated essential background apps do not make for true multi-tasking.

I read somewhere that Apple is working on making IOS cope with 4 processors so maybe things will evolve when they achieve the fundamental change in 'own SOC design'.

I'm think they choose that simpler variation of the older Cortex A9 with the optional add-on divide added due to design delays, maybe even from Samsung. The Nexus 10 is first to have those next gen ARM chips using the Cortex A15.

Maybe the watch will use an A5 or even a proprietary design by a contractor.
kidspud
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“I'm sure most of us know who decides those restrictions.

All devices multi task to an extent otherwise the phone would never ring when we are checking email etc.
Designated essential background apps do not make for true multi-tasking.

I read somewhere that Apple is working on making IOS cope with 4 processors so maybe things will evolve when they achieve the fundamental change in 'own SOC design'.

I'm think they choose that simpler variation of the older Cortex A9 with the optional add-on divide added due to design delays, maybe even from Samsung. The Nexus 10 is first to have those next gen ARM chips using the Cortex A15.

Maybe the watch will use an A5 or even a proprietary design by a contractor.”

So who makes these restrictions then? There are third party apps that multitask so it cannot just be apple. Maybe one of the app developers on here can shed some light.
alanwarwic
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“...Maybe one of the app developers on here can shed some light.”

and Apple also tell you how their own definition.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4211
"Multitasking doesn't slow down the performance of the foreground app"


No slowdown, how does that work then?
?
kidspud
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“and Apple also tell you how their own definition.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4211
"Multitasking doesn't slow down the performance of the foreground app"


No slowdown, how does that work then?
?
”

I don't know, but it wasn't really relevant to my question. You implied that iOS doesn't do multitasking, but I know (for example) that BBC iplayer continues to download even when you are not in the app so that would mean it is being allowed to multitask. I don't know the rules iOS apply but some apps are obviously being allowed to run.
IslandNiles
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I don't know, but it wasn't really relevant to my question. You implied that iOS doesn't do multitasking, but I know (for example) that BBC iplayer continues to download even when you are not in the app so that would mean it is being allowed to multitask. I don't know the rules iOS apply but some apps are obviously being allowed to run.”

Yeah, I was going to mention iPlayer as an example. There must be some restrictions though. For example, if you leave Dropbox to upload in the background, after a while it will notify you that the phone has paused the upload. You then have to go back into the app for it to resume.
tdenson
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“Slimmer lighter devices from Apple are a result of a mildly anal attention to detail on hardware. Software/hardware integration is nothing to do with it.”

You obviously don\'t understand O/S development if you think that.
It stands to reason that being in control of both hardware and software enables the developers to 1. cut corners and 2. create corners, where necessary e.g. the existence of API calls in the SDK which are "Apple only".

Incidentally, this is why Apple are loathe to publish technical specs i.e. because they achieve more with less but get slated for their apparently underpowered hardware specs in the technical press and forums like this.
tdenson
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“and Apple also tell you how their own definition.

http://support.apple.com/kb/ht4211
"Multitasking doesn't slow down the performance of the foreground app"


No slowdown, how does that work then?
?
”

Background tasks only run when the foreground task is stalled and doesn't need the CPU - hence no slowdown of foreground task. This is how all multitasking schemes work (with a bit of variation of the algorithm on giving priorities to various tasks as required).
tdenson
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by IslandNiles:
“Yeah, I was going to mention iPlayer as an example. There must be some restrictions though. For example, if you leave Dropbox to upload in the background, after a while it will notify you that the phone has paused the upload. You then have to go back into the app for it to resume.”

Yes, the Apple philosophy is to try and reduce inadvertent draining of battery by controlling what you can and can't do under certain conditions. This tends to result in a more draconian imposition of multi tasking rules - you pays your money and takes your choice, personally I rather like the Apple approach.
alanwarwic
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“I don't know, but it wasn't really relevant to my question. You implied that iOS doesn't do multitasking”

Yes it was.

It is made very difficult to discuss sensibly considering Apple is using the word quite differently.
Stiggles
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by tdenson:
“Yes, the Apple philosophy is to try and reduce inadvertent draining of battery by controlling what you can and can't do under certain conditions. This tends to result in a more draconian imposition of multi tasking rules - you pays your money and takes your choice, personally I rather like the Apple approach.”

I dont. My S3 and this N4 outlasted my 4S and my dads iphone 5. So cant be working well can it?
kidspud
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Yes it was.

It is made very difficult to discuss sensibly considering Apple is using the word quite differently.”

It isn't difficult to discuss if you move beyond the first page of a google search.

There are many more pages in the developers library which goes into detail of how the apps work, how they can run in the background and what they can do. It is an interesting read and confirms my observations that apps can indeed multitask. So I'm happy I have my answer now.
whoever,hey
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by alanwarwic:
“Not sure about that.

Most of their software products like maps, latitude, now and gmail speak for themselves.
There is, as yet, little compelling as a general alternative”

But you dont have to use any of them, and alternatives can all be setup as default actions.
alanwarwic
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by kidspud:
“confirms my observations that apps can indeed multitask. So I'm happy I have my answer now.”

Good for you, though one would think you already had.

.
tdenson
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by Stiggles:
“I dont. My S3 and this N4 outlasted my 4S and my dads iphone 5. So cant be working well can it?”

Depends who you speak to. Some people say their S3 lasts 5 minutes. You are probably more savvy when it comes to knowing how to manage battery life. The Apple philosophy is they'll do it for you - which I know is what you don't like about Apple, and sometimes nor do I. Also worth pointing out the 2100ma vs 1440ma, so hardly apples with apples.
Stiggles
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by tdenson:
“Depends who you speak to. Some people say their S3 lasts 5 minutes. You are probably more savvy when it comes to knowing how to manage battery life. The Apple philosophy is they'll do it for you - which I know is what you don't like about Apple, and sometimes nor do I. Also worth pointing out the 2100ma vs 1440ma, so hardly apples with apples.”

5 mins? lol

I don't ever manage my battery and I use it till it dies. It still lasts longer than my iphone did.
whoever,hey
24-02-2013
Originally Posted by tdenson:
“Depends who you speak to. Some people say their S3 lasts 5 minutes. You are probably more savvy when it comes to knowing how to manage battery life. The Apple philosophy is they'll do it for you - which I know is what you don't like about Apple, and sometimes nor do I. Also worth pointing out the 2100ma vs 1440ma, so hardly apples with apples.”

When i got my S3 i decided i wanted to push the battery as far as possible so i started researching it and the battery life started getting shorter and shorter until i carried on researching and finding out that the default settings were pretty much the same as my iphone or only marginally better. So i'd say its on a par.

You can tweak Android to your hearts content but you can make it worse too, such installing all these battery saving apps and disabling options based on your cell mast!
<<
<
5 of 51
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map