Database Develop

The Eventual Regression Of Technology

Good speaking to you all
Has anyone wondered if all the technology in the world will regress? Of course it is improving a lot now but if you think about it...
When the fossil fuels finish, there will be no energy to make or run high tech devices, no electric cars or fossil-based cars, no power to run TVs or your everday household equipment, etc.
Energy from solar panels and windmills will simply not be able to cope with the electrical demand which is why people will stop using more high tech equipment and eventually regress..
And with the growing technology at the moment things need more power... like the PS3 or updated graphics cards...
quite frankly I think we have screwed ourselves, we will eventually go back to an old lifestyle like the 1960s... only the richest will be able to afford fuel to run their cars, the rest of people will use horses... industrial work will quickly slow down and agricultural farming will rise sharply.
With barely any power (and at the moment no way to safely make enough renewable energy to cope), the prices will soar significantly and people will simply not be able to pay for it.
If technology these days is progressing a lot then why have we still not found a safe renewable source of energy that can be used to replace fossil fuels?
Places like the middle east who posses most of the fuel will probably stop wanting to sell fossil fuels to the America, Britain and other more economically developed countries. They will, as any other country would, want to save it for themselves. This will make the price for each barrel soar significantly
In a couple of decades I predict we are going to reach our peak, after that we will regress.
Has anyone else thought about this? I mean it is a known problem that we are going run out of fossil fuels and so far the whole world in concentrating on saving the planet from carbon emmissions and not whats going to happen to the people!

New energy sources will be used/created. After all, relying on stuff burning is a bit backwards.
But why not use fossil fuels until they run out? What would be the point in leaving it all underground when it has such a valuable use, and is no use left alone?
We already have engines running on non fossil fuels, bio-diesel, soar, alcohol, hydrogen... which will all get cheaper and more efficient.
Infant technologies always cost more, until reliability, economies of scale, popularity, problem solving etc are long past. Compare air travel today to 100 years past, this same example is also good for supposing that we can't even imagine what future technologies will be.
I am not worrying about anything.

Thanks for your reply
Most means of energy being created these days is based on fossil fuels being burned from the start. For example, nuclear powerstations start off with fossil fuels.
The fossil fuels are the quickest way to get energy. You mine it and burn it without having to go through too complicated procedures, and you produce a lot of energy. When this runs out, prices for energy will rocket sky high because it will take longer to produce more energy using other methods. This will then mean that less people will be buying games consoles, computers, etc. Most of the electrical industry will slow down which plays a big part in business as most goods these days are electrical.
Even with new energy methods, it is just not going to be able to cope with the demand.
Now this might sound cruel but I am not worried at all. In fact if anything I want technology to regress because then this would mean that we will learn to control our lives without depending on something, and life will be a lot less stressful. Ever heard someone say 'the good old days?' well it seems that they might be back in the form of a new era.
But who knows, I might just be going through a phase and am wanting to blame something for my stressful life!

prank1 said:
Thanks for your reply
Most means of energy being created these days is based on fossil fuels being burned from the start. For example, nuclear powerstations start off with fossil fuels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Things change, using my previous example, first heavier than air flight 1903, first space flight 1957, first manned space flight 1961 (OK so space flight's not cheap but it goes to show the advance of technology). Another good example would be cars or even better (considering this site and you signature) - Moore's law!
The fossil fuels are the quickest way to get energy. You mine it and burn it without having to go through too complicated procedures, and you produce a lot of energy. When this runs out, prices for energy will rocket sky high because it will take longer to produce more energy using other methods.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And therefore other sources of energy will become more cost effective. When is the average estimate (no one can prove anything here) for when fossil fuels will run out? Because I am confident that solar panels (for example) covering large areas (Sahara) would be very cheap (even allowing for losses during transportation). And when these technologies become a 'must, requirement, necessity' rather than a 'lets pander to the green, tree-hugging, sandal-wearing, it's-good-advertising' stereotype, companies will focus more on them, research will advance quicker, costs will drop sooner, co-operation between them etc, will force them to drop the then cheapest option, and make a new cheapest option. The current advert for the Toyota Prius in the UK is basically saying 'we built it 10 years ago, before it was fashionable!' nothing about it's capabilities. (And why doesn't anyone make a Diesel hybrid? that's a genuine question)
This will then mean that less people will be buying games consoles, computers, etc. Most of the electrical industry will slow down which plays a big part in business as most goods these days are electrical.
Even with new energy methods, it is just not going to be able to cope with the demand.
Now this might sound cruel but I am not worried at all. In fact if anything I want technology to regress because then this would mean that we will learn to control our lives without depending on something, and life will be a lot less stressful. Ever heard someone say 'the good old days?' well it seems that they might be back in the form of a new era.
But who knows, I might just be going through a phase and am wanting to blame something for my stressful life!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

bbobeckyj is on the right path. We aren't being forced to find reliable alternatives yet. When more companies convert or explore more efficient ways to create new energies more consumers will use them, creating less of a need to charge significant large prices. (Economies of Scale). Producers will focus on more sales and a lower profit margin to make it more affordable for everyone to convernt. Not to mention government subsidies to help with the conversion process.

prank1 said:
The fossil fuels are the quickest way to get energy. You mine it and burn it without having to go through too complicated procedures, and you produce a lot of energy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I forgot to mention.
Arguably that whole sentence is incorrect!
Take that argument to its logical conclusion and simplified - A wind turbine (t) on your roof vs a Diesel generator (g)
Some things are similar. You have to buy both, prefabricated. You must install both. (t-3 points/g-3points)
Some things are dissimilar. You only have to buy fuel for one (t0/g1). You have to maintain/service one a lot more frequently (t0/g1). You have to (get someone else, and pay them to do so) dig raw fuel out of the ground(t0/g1), transport it(t0/g1), refine it(t0/g1), transport it(t0/g1), store it(t0/g1), burn it (t0/g1)(requiring outside input - you), handle the waste products(t0/g1), pay tax(t0/g1)... and then use the electricity it generates
Not so quick, not uncomplicated
I make that t3/g13 in this admittedly one sided polemic

modern coal powerplants dont work like your avarage bbq grill so it's nowhere that simple
it's made into coal dust and blown at the fire by machinery
and yeah a mill can drive a turbine which is what the gas explosion also drives so it's more simple with wind if you wanna get down and dirty
but agreed that solar power is a bit complex but then as are nuke plants
diesel engines can run on pilfer oil with if one add some filters (may smell a bit of a deepfrier though)
some does it and it runs as long on the liter and is co2 neutral
some farmer here wanted to grow his own fuel but to use what one grew oneself
the here here required him to reg himself as an oil company for it to be legal pretty silly

[Request] Program for motorcycling

Is it possible to make a program for motorcycling, to see your actual bank and save the highest value?
I would pay 15 Euros for such a programm!

mathiaspe said:
Is it possible to make a program for motorcycling, to see your actual bank and save the highest value?
I would pay 15 Euros for such a programm!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
are you talking about recording speed/distance with gps? If so, you can try run.gps at:www.rungps.net.

I think by bank he means how far the bik leans over to one side. I think this would be pretty tricky as you'd probably have to mount the phone in the centre of the bike and then calibrate it, it would probably have to know how high it was off the ground too.

ljames28 said:
I think by bank he means how far the bik leans over to one side. I think this would be pretty tricky as you'd probably have to mount the phone in the centre of the bike and then calibrate it, it would probably have to know how high it was off the ground too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not to mention that centripedal en centrifugal are in balance (hence the bike doesn't fall in or out of the corner) , so the Gsensor would read a center position...

But it would be pretty cool.
Lets try to get a bigger lean angle than Nicky Hayden.
Grtz H5N1_NL (aka mrZX7R)

If i were you I wouldnt be relying on the gsensor in a phone to stop you from crashing your bike. Using it as a water level or a lightsaber for fun makes sense, but using it to actually decide how far you lean your bike sounds a somewhat dangerous. I as a software writer wouldn't write anything like this knowing it could put people in danger

Wouldn't mind seeing an app that could measure the G forces when going around corners like some of those expensive sports cars can and could save the biggest G.
On screen you would have a big display showing the live G force with a smaller one next to it showing the biggest G at the time, could be a fun app.

Is there a Doctor in the house?! (radiation)

I've never been one to buy into the cancer causing aspect of mobile phones, but after recently seeing the City of San Francisco pass a law requiring cell phones show there radiation output it got me thinking .
How much radiation does the N1 put out? How is that in comparison to other phones? Do smart phones put out higher amounts of radiation?
My biggest concern, and what got me thinking was the fact that until 6 mos. or so ago, I only had the phone near my head on the occasional phone call (duh).
But now I have a Nexus dock that I use as my alarm/bedside clock. This thing sits near my head 7-8 hrs every single night running bluetooth, etc.
Is there legitimate reason for concern?
I realize this should prolly go in the overall General thread, but I'm never up there and I'm mostly curious about the N1's radiation while using the desktop dock.

grb said:
I've never been one to buy into the cancer causing aspect of mobile phones, but after recently seeing the City of San Francisco pass a law requiring cell phones show there radiation output it got me thinking .
How much radiation does the N1 put out? How is that in comparison to other phones? Do smart phones put out higher amounts of radiation?
My biggest concern, and what got me thinking was the fact that until 6 mos. or so ago, I only had the phone near my head on the occasional phone call (duh).
But now I have a Nexus dock that I use as my alarm/bedside clock. This thing sits near my head 7-8 hrs every single night running bluetooth, etc.
Is there legitimate reason for concern?
I realize this should prolly go in the overall General thread, but I'm never up there and I'm mostly curious about the N1's radiation while using the desktop dock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you're so worried. Move to a cave dude. Do you know how many "wireless" signals and radio transmissions there are in a city?
23548723958723985729837652983572 to be precise.
Why don't you get a Geiger Counter if you're that paranoid?

wait, every phone goes thru FCC testing and given a SAR's rating, and this info is available for every phone on the market. the nexus was rather low at around 0.7 if i remember. what is this radiation thing that san francisco is asking for? i thought it would be the same thing.

for more info on radiation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_phone_radiation_and_health
list of highest radiation phones:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6602_7-5020357-1.html
FCC says SAR is 0.37 head / 0.74 Body W/Kg for 1gram on GSM.
international standards use 2grams which would make it max at 1.39. The US max is 1.6
geiger meter isnt going to help -_-

what is this radiation thing that san francisco is asking for?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/16/us/16cell.html
It's just simply a law that will require all retailers to display the amount of radiation each phone emits.
If you're so worried. Move to a cave dude. Do you know how many "wireless" signals and radio transmissions there are in a city?
23548723958723985729837652983572 to be precise.
Why don't you get a Geiger Counter if you're that paranoid?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Easy Tiger, I'm not paranoid, just asking a question that I'm sure others have more knowledge about than I do.
And thanks to flybyme's helpful cnet link I found this piece of information:
If you're concerned about limiting your SAR exposure, you can take a few easy steps beyond purchasing a handset with a low SAR. You can text instead placing a voice call, use a speakerphone whenever possible, and carry your phone at least one inch from your body. Some researchers also caution against using your phone in areas with poor coverage since phones emit more radiation when searching for a signal. Children, which have smaller and thinner skulls, should limit cell phone use, and all users, children and adults, should not sleep with an active phone next to their bedside or under their pillow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

plus, dont mobile phones emit the msot radiation when you're in a call?otherwise, when its standby all its doing is jus in the bath of EM waves that we all are in...

Did you not read the study that stated phone radiation actuality reduces the chances of developing Alzheimer's?
http://arstechnica.com/science/news...tion-may-show-reduced-alzheimers-symptoms.ars
Look there's even a picture of the N1 there. Look on PubMed or something for a definitive study.

Antiskunk said:
Did you not read the study that stated phone radiation actuality reduces the chances of developing Alzheimer's?
http://arstechnica.com/science/news...tion-may-show-reduced-alzheimers-symptoms.ars
Look there's even a picture of the N1 there. Look on PubMed or something for a definitive study.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, and the fact that using a handphone also makes you smarter compared to those who don't use one.

Test Proves I-Phone 4 Reception Issue Is No "Illusion"

http://shopping.yahoo.com/articles/...why-consumer-reports-cant-recommend-iphone-4/

I hate to defend the iphone but....
Most phones have similiar issues. Even on the nexus we all love. I lose 3G/cell signal all the time when I cover the lower half of my phone. This is something common on all nexus unless you have 100% awesome signal.
I think this is why this has not been discussed on this part of the forum
1) This is supposed to be about the Nexus One, not the iphone
2) All of us N1 owners know the N1 also has radio problems.
That being said, I'll still say the nexus is the overall best phone there is.

jz9833 said:
I hate to defend the iphone but....
Most phones have similiar issues. Even on the nexus we all love. I lose 3G/cell signal all the time when I cover the lower half of my phone. This is something common on all nexus unless you have 100% awesome signal.
I think this is why this has not been discussed on this part of the forum
1) This is supposed to be about the Nexus One, not the iphone
2) All of us N1 owners know the N1 also has radio problems.
That being said, I'll still say the nexus is the overall best phone there is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with everything you said, including the last part about the overall superiority of the N1.

table: -75dBm
hand in front of me: -85dBm
next to my ear: -79dBm
That's my N1
But the news is for iPhone not for Nexus so not relevant dor this part of the forum (or any else i guess)

I dont know why people keep saying "this is common among all phones"
No its NOT.
1. You are never in direct contact with the actual antenna on other phones.
2. It usually takes a full grip to replicate this on other phones. Even then loss is not as significant as you are still merely muffling a signal not physically shorting the antenna process.
The iphone merely needs the gap bridged for it to dramatically lose signal to the point of dropping calls almost instantaneously.
The issues the N1 had were getting and maintaining a fix on 3G signals. A far cry from dropping endless calls because you were holding it wrong.

xManMythLegend said:
The issues the N1 had were getting and maintaining a fix on 3G signals. A far cry from dropping endless calls because you were holding it wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, there are plenty of reports of a dramatic drop in signal strength when you cover the back of the N1 with your hand. Not exactly the same thing as iPhone 4, but still a signal issue caused by antenna placement, so definitely in the same ballpark.

bigmout said:
No, there are plenty of reports of a dramatic drop in signal strength when you cover the back of the N1 with your hand. Not exactly the same thing as iPhone 4, but still a signal issue caused by antenna placement, so definitely in the same ballpark.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, it's not even close to the same issue. On the N1, you can muffle the antenna a bit; on the iphone 4, you can actually electrically short it out.

MaximReapage said:
Again, it's not even close to the same issue. On the N1, you can muffle the antenna a bit; on the iphone 4, you can actually electrically short it out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This smacks of rationalization to me. People report dropped calls as a result of how they hold the phone. Whether it's because the antenna is "muffled" on the N1 or "shorts" on the iPhone, the result is the same from the user's perspective. In fact, the iPhone issue is arguably less of a problem because you can solve it with a case. I love my Nexus One, but I don't think we do ourselves any favors as consumers by rationalizing the phone's shortcomings.

Ummm...how is this related to Nexus One general?

jz9833 said:
I hate to defend the iphone but....
Most phones have similiar issues. Even on the nexus we all love. I lose 3G/cell signal all the time when I cover the lower half of my phone. This is something common on all nexus unless you have 100% awesome signal.
I think this is why this has not been discussed on this part of the forum
1) This is supposed to be about the Nexus One, not the iphone
2) All of us N1 owners know the N1 also has radio problems.
That being said, I'll still say the nexus is the overall best phone there is.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The issue with the iPhone isn't that it has signal attenuation when held normally. All phones do indeed have that problem. The issue is the amount of attenuation. The iPhone 4 loses about 20 decibels of signal when held normally, the N1 loses 5-10 decibels, which doesn't mean that the iPhone loses 4 times as much signal. Decibels are an exponential metric, 10db loss is a tenfold increase/decrease, 20db is a hundredfold increase/decrease. If you use the "death grip" on the iPhone, you might see a 30db loss, yeah that's 1000x. That's why a lot of people didn't even realize that phones did this until now, the iPhone is particularly bad at this phenomenon.

There's a workaround to avoid losing signal when talking, and it's applicable with ALL phone with antenna at the bottom:
Just hold the phone top part when talking and keep hand off the bottom, but it's not possible when doing internet or messaging, or email.
When holding the phone for messaging, try to spread out fingers.

Sounds like Apple is trying to start a new FAD LoL...hope it doesn't catch on!

mingkee said:
There's a workaround to avoid losing signal when talking, and it's applicable with ALL phone with antenna at the bottom:
Just hold the phone top part when talking and keep hand off the bottom, but it's not possible when doing internet or messaging, or email.
When holding the phone for messaging, try to spread out fingers.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
which is ridiculous and something a consumer shouldnt have to do. Its very annoying to not be able to hold my phone how it naturally feels to while watching/listening to anything streaming.
its really not that hard to fix this, just make a vertical antenna that way you address the heath hazard of an antenna next to your ear, and still not sacrifice much signal.

Wow, another feature that Apple will try to pass off as being first. HTC was the first to have dropped signal, dammit!!
(Tongue in cheek, guys. I realize the seriousness of the iP4's reception woes is much worse than the N1's.)

ATnTdude said:
The issue with the iPhone isn't that it has signal attenuation when held normally. All phones do indeed have that problem. The issue is the amount of attenuation. The iPhone 4 loses about 20 decibels of signal when held normally, the N1 loses 5-10 decibels, which doesn't mean that the iPhone loses 4 times as much signal. Decibels are an exponential metric, 10db loss is a tenfold increase/decrease, 20db is a hundredfold increase/decrease. If you use the "death grip" on the iPhone, you might see a 30db loss, yeah that's 1000x. That's why a lot of people didn't even realize that phones did this until now, the iPhone is particularly bad at this phenomenon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There are reports of a 20dBm loss in signal strength from the way you hold the Nexus One:
If you go to Settings -> About Phone -> Status you will see a display for "Signal strength". When my phone is sitting on the desk, the signal stays consistent. However, the second I touch my phone, the signal drops up to as much as -20 dBm. I am able to replicate this test every single time, whether the signal is incredibly strong or weak.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Google's "solution" was basically the same as Apple's -- i.e., hold the phone differently.

Weird, my Nexus One is just fine...........................
WRONG FORUM. Who cares.

Thread moved to OT.

what i specifically want to know is WHY is the nexus' antenna so sensitive compared to other phones. all my nokia phones would lose signal too when covering the antenna, but it seems like nokia and other phones use a moving average to calculate signal strength, over a period of the last 10 secconds or so. so that when the signal is blocked, it takes a few seconds to even start to drop. but the nexus almost seems to give dBm in real time, with no moving average at all. cause the dBm can drop intantly when blocking the antenna.
this is why i try to say that HTC just uses different bars, but the signal reception is no worse than other phones. it just shows in real time.
anyway i was at ATT store yesterday, and all 4 iphone 4's drop from 5 bars to 1 bar just by touching the lower left side. not even squeezing, just lightly pressing it. all 4 units. so what are these new phones doing with antenna that causes them to be so sensitive?
also, about the nexus, we have to think that because the nexus is only 9mm thick, the internal antenna is only seperated from our hand by barely 1 mm or so. so we too are detuning the antenna. its not a short like iphone, but close to it.

Consumer Reports confirms iPhone 4 antenna problems
By Nilay Patel posted Jul 12th 2010 1:30PM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2010/07/12/consumer-reports-confirms-iphone-4-antenna-problems-and-so-do/

Enough about the iPhone in the Nexus forum. Please!

Will the Nexus 6 be designed into watch appearance?

As I think watch is convienent and easy take, but watch cannot communicate with others.So, can the Nexus 6 be designed into watch appearance?

ellasmoth said:
As I think watch is convienent and easy take, but watch cannot communicate with others.So, can the Nexus 6 be designed into watch appearance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Errr, what?

ellasmoth said:
As I think watch is convienent and easy take, but watch cannot communicate with others.So, can the Nexus 6 be designed into watch appearance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I stopped wearing a watch when I got my first cellphone that had a clock on it.... because WHY?
Watches are very inconvenient and uncomfortable. They force you to twist your wrist in an uncomfortable direction.
A "Smart" watch is not very smart at all, because its screen is too small to be even slightly useful.
And it can only duplicate a (subset) of the functionality of the host cellphone... so again.... WHY?
You have a phone in your pocket, which can do EVERYTHING WELL, so why suffer with a watch that can do very little.... poorly?
These watches are going to be a VERY short FAD.... and people who buy them will start leaving them at home, because they are NOT essential, ARE uncomfortable, and really don't matter at all.
Now let me explain what a marketing gimmick is.
A marketing gimmick is.... wifi in a car. You're going to PAY EXTRA for a dedicated cellphone service for your car when you have a cellphone with wifi in your pocket you can share data from? Gains you nothing AT ALL.
A marketing gimmick is.... cell networking built into a TABLET, because like a car, you already have a cellphone with wifi in your pocket from which to share your data connection. You pay more for the hardware, and you pay more for the extra SERVICE, and yet GAIN NOTHING.
A marketing gimmick is... a smartwatch.
A marketing gimmick is something that is entirely USELESS that costs the manufacturer VIRTUALLY NOTHING to be used to TRICK DUMB PEOPLE into thinking that they are getting something REALLY AMAZING, **AND PAYING MORE**, when really, they are given absolutely nothing of any value at all.

doitright said:
I stopped wearing a watch when I got my first cellphone that had a clock on it.... because WHY?
Watches are very inconvenient and uncomfortable. They force you to twist your wrist in an uncomfortable direction.
A "Smart" watch is not very smart at all, because its screen is too small to be even slightly useful.
And it can only duplicate a (subset) of the functionality of the host cellphone... so again.... WHY?
You have a phone in your pocket, which can do EVERYTHING WELL, so why suffer with a watch that can do very little.... poorly?
These watches are going to be a VERY short FAD.... and people who buy them will start leaving them at home, because they are NOT essential, ARE uncomfortable, and really don't matter at all.
Now let me explain what a marketing gimmick is.
A marketing gimmick is.... wifi in a car. You're going to PAY EXTRA for a dedicated cellphone service for your car when you have a cellphone with wifi in your pocket you can share data from? Gains you nothing AT ALL.
A marketing gimmick is.... cell networking built into a TABLET, because like a car, you already have a cellphone with wifi in your pocket from which to share your data connection. You pay more for the hardware, and you pay more for the extra SERVICE, and yet GAIN NOTHING.
A marketing gimmick is... a smartwatch.
A marketing gimmick is something that is entirely USELESS that costs the manufacturer VIRTUALLY NOTHING to be used to TRICK DUMB PEOPLE into thinking that they are getting something REALLY AMAZING, **AND PAYING MORE**, when really, they are given absolutely nothing of any value at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. I can think of two uses for me to have one, and I don't need either use any more.
Use 1 - When I was an IT contractor, I used to take public transport and navigate on foot to job interviews. Glancing at a watch could have made that easier
Use 2 - when I used to travel public transport to work with my phone in my pocket and my headphone jack plugged in, it would have been convenient to pick new tracks without constantly trying to get my phone out of my pocket or keeping it permanently in my hand.#
BUT, neither of those are applicable to me now so they're use is gimmick only.
I do like a proper watch. A nice, Swiss one preferably. For no real reason other than because I like them

@doitright
Well said and spot on. I was all like:
http://media0.giphy.com/media/K3raI0cXTkzNC/giphy.gif

rootSU said:
Errr, what?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thinking surgically installed velcro? Super magnets?
I had to abandon my project, kept hitting the wife in the head with it while sleeping.

fazbender said:
Thinking surgically installed velcro? Super magnets?
I had to abandon my project, kept hitting the wife in the head with it while sleeping.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Haha. I actually fitted mine with the Ceramic bracelet from a Rado Ceramica

Good info...helpful
doitright said:
I stopped wearing a watch when I got my first cellphone that had a clock on it.... because WHY?
Watches are very inconvenient and uncomfortable. They force you to twist your wrist in an uncomfortable direction.
A "Smart" watch is not very smart at all, because its screen is too small to be even slightly useful.
And it can only duplicate a (subset) of the functionality of the host cellphone... so again.... WHY?
You have a phone in your pocket, which can do EVERYTHING WELL, so why suffer with a watch that can do very little.... poorly?
These watches are going to be a VERY short FAD.... and people who buy them will start leaving them at home, because they are NOT essential, ARE uncomfortable, and really don't matter at all.
Now let me explain what a marketing gimmick is.
A marketing gimmick is.... wifi in a car. You're going to PAY EXTRA for a dedicated cellphone service for your car when you have a cellphone with wifi in your pocket you can share data from? Gains you nothing AT ALL.
A marketing gimmick is.... cell networking built into a TABLET, because like a car, you already have a cellphone with wifi in your pocket from which to share your data connection. You pay more for the hardware, and you pay more for the extra SERVICE, and yet GAIN NOTHING.
A marketing gimmick is... a smartwatch.
A marketing gimmick is something that is entirely USELESS that costs the manufacturer VIRTUALLY NOTHING to be used to TRICK DUMB PEOPLE into thinking that they are getting something REALLY AMAZING, **AND PAYING MORE**, when really, they are given absolutely nothing of any value at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse