I'm a nerd, and I'm sorry to be crude but NERD ALERT. A smart watch today starts at Geeky and works, laboring and awkwardly, towards generally acceptable.
If you think a smart watch by any manufacturer, at this early point, is everything but geeky you gotta get out of the office.
"all of us go a little mad: whether from great personal success, or just an all-night drive, we are the sole survivors of a world no one else has ever seen." - John le Carre
Why is this "hacking"? Using this word in lieu of more suitable words like innovating, variating, changing, or adapting (for starters) devalues the word's meaning and makes light of English's amazingly diverse buffet of vocabulary and rather expansive etymological roots.
Well color me schooled. Still, I've always had the impression from interviews (just an impression mind you), that it was a dream of his to have a working tablet, but the tech wasn't there. He was thinking about it is the sense I got, but I could be off.
I don't want to stir up bad blood, I'm just making a point so don't kill me =).
Almost every one of those devices has at least 5 buttons (up, down, left, right center). That's not simple at all. One button is simple. The touch screen on the iphone takes those away so only one is needed. It's the reason the iphone got so dominant--it worked.
It's the reason Jobs realized his foray into tableting in the 90s (with development starting in 1987, the first being released in 1993!), the Newton, sucked. He killed it when he realized it wasn't working. The tech wasn't there, when it was, he moved.
I know people hate apple, but they need to look at this objectively. this wasn't apples first rodeo--they helped write the book on the PDA market. They're also not suing palm or Visor or HP. Those companies didn't reiterate. Apple did.
If you wanna hate, hate being judged by a jury of your peers (you probably shouldn't do that), or our current patent system. And drink some tea or something.
question for the founders I'm really curious about because you probably get asked it a lot (and it probably has a great answer): why would I use this over CL?
She should have mentioned his name as source material. I don't think royalties or anything were in order, but his name should've been there as a matter of courtesy.
I was calling the comment above me catty, which it was. I'm not trolling, but trying to convey that sharp sarcasam doesn't really ad much to a conversation. If people want to downvote me instead of the sarcasm, that's cool (I just don't necessarily understand it).
An old reporter adage: news is something someone doesn't want to hear.
In that regard, I don't think reddit is really news in a hardcore sense. It has cool shit, fun articles, hilarious threads, party facts for days. But news? News, and obviously this is a big generalization, is inherently uncomfortable to read.
Reddit is a feature factory, not a newsfeed. You can learn a lot from it, but I'll politely disagree about the usage of news--not that your opinion is wrong, mine's just different.