|
|
Post by sponge on Mar 7, 2013 12:00:34 GMT -8
Seeing stories like this and still seeing Apple green for the day reinforce my WAG that we have seen a bottom. I agree. if we close above 430 today I will be very happy. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 12:05:22 GMT -8
I disagree. And I think Apple will launch it Sept. or Oct. this year. Bluetooth in a watch is doable with today's battery technology. Cell radio in a watch with today's technology is not in my opinion. Battery life would be laughably short. So an iWatch that uses the cell modem in the phone with a low power Bluetooth link is likely doable. Using normal technology I agree with Mark that an iWatch would not have 3G connectivity if its the size of a regular watch - instead it would be like a standalone iPod like device that has the ability to share a data connection, notifications etc via Bluetooth. Having said that, the device could have a 3G radio if some of the following is true: - the device is significantly bigger than a standard watch - the device has a expensive, very dense battery - the device has a innovative battery (built into watch strap perhaps?) - the device has a very low power SoC (its not like it will need powerful 3D graphics). - the device has a very low power screen technology (colour e-ink? iGZO?) It's possible we might get 2 versions, the base model with no 3G, and a more expensive larger model with 3G for the normal Apple $130 premium. Whether or not it in fact has 3G, more importantly I think the iWatch may be a pivotal product in the history of personal health products - it could literally save lives by diagnosing conditions that users were not aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 7, 2013 12:44:34 GMT -8
Having said that, the device could have a 3G radio if some of the following is true: - the device is significantly bigger than a standard watch - the device has a expensive, very dense battery - the device has a innovative battery (built into watch strap perhaps?) - the device has a very low power SoC (its not like it will need powerful 3D graphics). - the device has a very low power screen technology (colour e-ink? iGZO?) It's possible we might get 2 versions, the base model with no 3G, and a more expensive larger model with 3G for the normal Apple $130 premium. Whether or not it in fact has 3G, more importantly I think the iWatch may be a pivotal product in the history of personal health products - it could literally save lives by diagnosing conditions that users were not aware of. Many of those items are just not here yet. If higher density batteries were available, we should be seeing them in phones and we are not. Our company does mobile device hardware development, and batteries are not progressing very quickly at all. The thing is, for the first generation device, BT4.0 plus the Phones cell radio could probably create a pretty interesting product. Jamming a cell radio into the watch would probably not offer enough incremental usefulness to justify the compromised run time and all the other issues that would come with trying put the cell modem into the watch. I don't think it is a huge compromise to start, if the watch needs the iPhone's cell radio. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 12:52:35 GMT -8
Having said that, the device could have a 3G radio if some of the following is true: - the device is significantly bigger than a standard watch - the device has a expensive, very dense battery - the device has a innovative battery (built into watch strap perhaps?) - the device has a very low power SoC (its not like it will need powerful 3D graphics). - the device has a very low power screen technology (colour e-ink? iGZO?) It's possible we might get 2 versions, the base model with no 3G, and a more expensive larger model with 3G for the normal Apple $130 premium. Whether or not it in fact has 3G, more importantly I think the iWatch may be a pivotal product in the history of personal health products - it could literally save lives by diagnosing conditions that users were not aware of. Many of those items are just not here yet. If higher density batteries were available, we should be seeing them in phones and we are not. Our company does mobile device hardware development, and batteries are not progressing very quickly at all. The thing is, for the first generation device, BT4.0 plus the Phones cell radio could probably create a pretty interesting product. Jamming a cell radio into the watch would probably not offer enough incremental usefulness to justify the compromised run time and all the other issues that would come with trying put the cell modem into the watch. I don't think it is a huge compromise to start, if the watch needs the iPhone's cell radio. Thanks for the input, always good to hear from people in the actual industry. Question. Does the battery hit from 3G come from it always being on? So it can receive calls etc? What if a 3G radio was used as a data-only connection, and only pinged the network once or twice a minute? |
|
|
|
Post by archibaldtuttle on Mar 7, 2013 12:53:45 GMT -8
Strongest close we've seen in a while.
|
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Mar 7, 2013 12:57:57 GMT -8
Strongest close we've seen in a while. Volume... meh |
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 7, 2013 12:58:00 GMT -8
All those tricks of waking and sleeping are already well known and implemented. Even with a data-only connection the device has to continually wake up so that it can receive data. The RF section is the big power hog. Data or voice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 13:03:57 GMT -8
All those tricks of waking and sleeping are already well known and implemented. Even with a data-only connection the device has to continually wake up so that it can receive data. The RF section is the big power hog. Data or voice. Thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2013 13:12:58 GMT -8
Strongest close we've seen in a while. Volume... meh Need to get above $435 before I even wake up... |
|
|
|
Post by ibuyer on Mar 7, 2013 13:14:39 GMT -8
Need to get above $435 before I even wake up... need to stop falliing or else I will pass out  |
|
|
|
Post by macglenn on Mar 7, 2013 13:22:30 GMT -8
Having said that, the device could have a 3G radio if some of the following is true: - the device is significantly bigger than a standard watch - the device has a expensive, very dense battery - the device has a innovative battery (built into watch strap perhaps?) - the device has a very low power SoC (its not like it will need powerful 3D graphics). - the device has a very low power screen technology (colour e-ink? iGZO?) It's possible we might get 2 versions, the base model with no 3G, and a more expensive larger model with 3G for the normal Apple $130 premium. Whether or not it in fact has 3G, more importantly I think the iWatch may be a pivotal product in the history of personal health products - it could literally save lives by diagnosing conditions that users were not aware of. Many of those items are just not here yet. If higher density batteries were available, we should be seeing them in phones and we are not. Our company does mobile device hardware development, and batteries are not progressing very quickly at all. The thing is, for the first generation device, BT4.0 plus the Phones cell radio could probably create a pretty interesting product. Jamming a cell radio into the watch would probably not offer enough incremental usefulness to justify the compromised run time and all the other issues that would come with trying put the cell modem into the watch. I don't think it is a huge compromise to start, if the watch needs the iPhone's cell radio. You will probably not see a cell transmitter in a device that is wrapped that close to the human body for health reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 7, 2013 13:30:36 GMT -8
You will probably not see a cell transmitter in a device that is wrapped that close to the human body for health reasons. Well, the phone already has to pass those tests, so this would be surmountable. In fact I think the standards might be a little more lenient for something that you wear on the wrist. Since the phone is held up to your head, the standards are quite strict. This is SAR testing in case anyone wants to look it up. |
|
|
|
Post by seabiscuit on Mar 7, 2013 13:35:16 GMT -8
I don't think there will be a change in the trend until we have some very positive news - most likely a substantial increase in the dividend. One problem is that I think given the still negative sentiment retail investor who acquired or added to their Apple position at prices above the current price will sell when they get even.
|
|
|
|
Post by macglenn on Mar 7, 2013 13:39:31 GMT -8
You will probably not see a cell transmitter in a device that is wrapped that close to the human body for health reasons. Well, the phone already has to pass those tests, so this would be surmountable. In fact I think the standards might be a little more lenient for something that you wear on the wrist. Since the phone is held up to your head, the standards are quite strict. This is SAR testing in case anyone wants to look it up. A distance of 2cm is all that is required to significantly reduce rf exposure. Phone mfgs place transmitters at the bottom of the devices to create max distance from the ear and cheek and that is limited only during voice calls. Wearing a device (low profile 1cm) in a constant stationary position will be a problem. |
|
|
|
Post by appledoc on Mar 7, 2013 13:40:29 GMT -8
Strongest close we've seen in a while. Weak volume, lower low, lower high. The only thing good about today was that it was green. We haven't even closed above the daily SMA10 in three weeks if you can believe that. Weekly SMA100 is still 50+ points away. |
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 7, 2013 13:47:41 GMT -8
Absolute friggin' minimum, higher low and a higher high than 432. Of course, events can happen at any time, but I don't think any major surprises are due tomorrow.
AAPL at 435+ Friday would be interesting. But I'm hardly expecting it.
|
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Mar 7, 2013 13:48:56 GMT -8
Strongest close we've seen in a while. Weak volume, lower low, lower high. The only thing good about today was that it was green. We haven't even closed above the daily SMA10 in three weeks if you can believe that. Weekly SMA100 is still 50+ points away. I don't follow charts, but 483 is my first big target we must overcome. Funny how that matches the 100 moving day average.  Great close. Now we must conquer 435 and close above last weeks close. |
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 7, 2013 13:58:29 GMT -8
A distance of 2cm is all that is required to significantly reduce rf exposure. Phone mfgs place transmitters at the bottom of the devices to create max distance from the ear and cheek and that is limited only during voice calls. True but irrelevant, because SAR testing does not allow that freedom. The test forces the phone to be placed right at the head. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rateNote the following: So bottom line - the phone is tested as if it was strapped to your head. Since it passes, then something that straps to your wrist can be made to pass too. |
|
|
|
Post by artman1033 on Mar 7, 2013 14:30:40 GMT -8
RON JOHNSON in court VS Macy's as interpreted by ADage |
|
mark
fire starter 
Posts: 1,649
|
Post by mark on Mar 7, 2013 15:14:21 GMT -8
You think Apple will launch what exactly in Sep/Oct this year? A standalone iWatch or an accessory iWatch? It will function as a standalone but will have far more value as an extension to the iPhone for notifications, alerts, incoming calls, calendar items, etc. I may be pushing the timeframe but when Apple pulled the form factor of the 2011 iPod Nano, I knew it was likely a feint, a calculated move to throw off expectations of an iWatch. They should be able to pull this off with Bluetooth 4.0. How will it function standalone with just BT 4.0? It will need WiFi to have any stand-alone connectivity. Perhaps WiFi is possible, but the battery/size will be just at the limit. Some cameras have built-in WiFi nowadays, but they just use the WiFi sporadically to update photos. And people don't expect camera batteries to last for hours at a time under constant use. In any case, any possible iWatch will be very interesting - someday. I'm not sure what you mean by the statement referring to the 2011 iPod nano. Can you explain further? |
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,649
|
Post by mark on Mar 7, 2013 15:19:37 GMT -8
Having said that, the device could have a 3G radio if some of the following is true: - the device is significantly bigger than a standard watch - the device has a expensive, very dense battery - the device has a innovative battery (built into watch strap perhaps?) - the device has a very low power SoC (its not like it will need powerful 3D graphics). - the device has a very low power screen technology (colour e-ink? iGZO?) It's possible we might get 2 versions, the base model with no 3G, and a more expensive larger model with 3G for the normal Apple $130 premium. Whether or not it in fact has 3G, more importantly I think the iWatch may be a pivotal product in the history of personal health products - it could literally save lives by diagnosing conditions that users were not aware of. Many of those items are just not here yet. If higher density batteries were available, we should be seeing them in phones and we are not. Our company does mobile device hardware development, and batteries are not progressing very quickly at all. The thing is, for the first generation device, BT4.0 plus the Phones cell radio could probably create a pretty interesting product. Jamming a cell radio into the watch would probably not offer enough incremental usefulness to justify the compromised run time and all the other issues that would come with trying put the cell modem into the watch. I don't think it is a huge compromise to start, if the watch needs the iPhone's cell radio. This is completely true. The BIGGEST complaint regarding all smartphones is the short battery life. It's also my biggest complaint. I have to charge mine every night AND every afternoon. I want a smartphone that will last a week, or at least for 2-3 days at a time. |
|
|
|
Post by rickag on Mar 7, 2013 15:19:49 GMT -8
RON JOHNSON in court VS Macy's as interpreted by ADageThat's just sad. |
|
|
|
Post by sponge on Mar 7, 2013 15:57:00 GMT -8
Take your iPhone and try to imagine it wrapped around your wrist.
Plenty of room for battery in the belt or strap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lstream on Mar 7, 2013 17:21:13 GMT -8
Take your iPhone and try to imagine it wrapped around your wrist. Plenty of room for battery in the belt or strap. LOL. Thanks - appreciate the comic relief after a long day. |
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Mar 7, 2013 17:33:17 GMT -8
In fairness, I _have_ seen specialized straps/holders for iPhones for the forearm. Kinda like the NFL QB cheat sheets. Hey, for those working out/on-the-go...
But the iWatch should wear, well, more like a normal watch, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauls on Mar 7, 2013 18:14:26 GMT -8
I can't imagine a cellular radio in a watch form factor, for the simple reason that very few would be willing to add yet another wireless bill to what they already have. I also imagine that IF an iOS watch form factor is coming, it will very much be a complement to an iPhone or iPad, and in no way pose a threat of cannibalization to those devices. Perhaps it might be a miniaturized iPod touch, optimized for strapping on a wrist or elsewhere.....
And I agree with others that technically, at least in terms of battery life, we should expect simpler rather than complex.
Frankly, after reading much of the conjecture about what might be coming in a so-called iWatch, it doesn't seem like a terribly compelling product, at least in terms of mainstream adoption. For sporting pursuits, sure. But everyday use....I feel that most would just stick to their smartphone for anything a smaller form factor might offer. Even a +/- 4" screen is quite a compromise for accessing data and content, albeit a compromise that has changed the world.
As for bendable batteries or screens, I do believe these are years away, especially in a tough and durable form factor suitable for wearing on millions of wrists. Whatever it is, it will be well-designed and very durable, imo, which rules out a lot of what is possible on paper.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Mar 7, 2013 18:25:21 GMT -8
I know most here are traders and not long term investors. But if you bought 5 years ago all you lost was paper profits from 2011. Fast-forward 5 years and we will be happy campers. This is a storm like many others and it will pass. Too many folks are judging Apple and management based on the stock price instead of results. If the results were the same but the stock was at $800 no one would complain about a lack of bigger or cheaper phone. Few would care about Samsung. All this will pass and we must be patient. Most people own the stock for financial reasons... In other words, to make money. Your strategy of buying and leveraging to buy more as the price went up was a disaster waiting to happen. And it is and has happened. You have substantially underperformed a simple and less risky buy and hold investment. Astounding... |
|
|
|
Post by bud777 on Mar 7, 2013 18:55:35 GMT -8
I know most here are traders and not long term investors. But if you bought 5 years ago all you lost was paper profits from 2011. Fast-forward 5 years and we will be happy campers. This is a storm like many others and it will pass. Too many folks are judging Apple and management based on the stock price instead of results. If the results were the same but the stock was at $800 no one would complain about a lack of bigger or cheaper phone. Few would care about Samsung. All this will pass and we must be patient. Most people own the stock for financial reasons... In other words, to make money. Your strategy of buying and leveraging to buy more as the price went up was a disaster waiting to happen. And it is and has happened. You have substantially underperformed a simple and less risky buy and hold investment. Astounding... Jeffi, I am trying hard and I cannot anything constructive about your post. It just feels like you are rubbing salt in the wound. Why take time to do that? I mean, couldn't you have just said something like "Leveraging certainly does have advantages when you get it right, but everyone should be aware of the risks and choose what they can live with. I hope your patience pays off". See how easy that is? |
|
Ted
fire starter
Posts: 893 
|
Post by Ted on Mar 7, 2013 19:14:18 GMT -8
Most people own the stock for financial reasons... In other words, to make money. Your strategy of buying and leveraging to buy more as the price went up was a disaster waiting to happen. And it is and has happened. You have substantially underperformed a simple and less risky buy and hold investment. Astounding... Jeffi, I am trying hard and I cannot anything constructive about your post. It just feels like you are rubbing salt in the wound. Why take time to do that? I mean, couldn't you have just said something like "Leveraging certainly does have advantages when you get it right, but everyone should be aware of the risks and choose what they can live with. I hope your patience pays off". See how easy that is? I gotta agree here, Jeffi. What's your point except to pick on el Spongo? Just cause he's bullish, makes a lot of "aggressive" predictions and told us about his investment approach does not make him open game for abuse. Let's try hard to move past this type of pointless post. ...Astounding...  |
|
|
|
Post by jeffi on Mar 7, 2013 19:14:56 GMT -8
Most people own the stock for financial reasons... In other words, to make money. Your strategy of buying and leveraging to buy more as the price went up was a disaster waiting to happen. And it is and has happened. You have substantially underperformed a simple and less risky buy and hold investment. Astounding... Jeffi, I am trying hard and I cannot anything constructive about your post. It just feels like you are rubbing salt in the wound. Why take time to do that? I mean, couldn't you have just said something like "Leveraging certainly does have advantages when you get it right, but everyone should be aware of the risks and choose what they can live with. I hope your patience pays off". See how easy that is? No, sorry. I do not see it that way. I view his financial comments to be dangerous to everyone. He is probably a very nice person. I also lost a fortune in Apple. Salting ones wounds has nothing to do with it. |
|
