The rumor mill is churning out new details on the possible timelines and specifications of the elusive Apple Watch, and unfortunately for Cupertino, the wearable device looks more and more unremarkable by the day.
A glimmer of hope flickered on the horizon for an earlier-than-planned Apple Watch rollout when a number of Twitter users spotted what seemed like fairly advanced prototypes on the wrists of company employees.
Sadly, it’s not looking good for anyone dreaming of a shiny, Apple Watch-containing box under the Christmas tree. That’s one miracle out of Santa’s control, apparently.
Even worse, you may not be able to use the timepiece for love-declaring purposes next February, as “one person briefed by the Apple department involved in shipping the watch quipped that Apple would be lucky to ship it by Valentine’s Day”.
Lucky, as in it looks like a long shot. But also lucky, as in Cupertino is pulling all the stops to make it happen. So again, this is good material for dreamers and half-glass-full type of tech consumers.
The rest might start to seek solace in the arms of Android Wear or Tizen-running wearable pieces, particularly as they’ll probably all look the same under the hood. Similar dual-core processors, identical 512 MB RAM modules, 4 GB on-board storage, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity.
Besides, fresh gossip is flying around in regards to Apple Watch’s screen resolution and, you guessed it, it’s nothing to write home about. According to NPD Display Search, a more than reputable market research and consulting firm, both the 1.3 and 1.5-inch panels shall sport 320 x 240 pixels for 299 and 261 ppi pixel densities respectively.
On-par with Android and Tizen rivals? Apple wishes, as the 1.5-inch Moto 360 boasts 320 x 290 pixels, and the 2-inch Samsung Gear S 480 x 360. Of course, the Apple Watch advertising juggernaut is poised to focus more on the much-hyped sapphire glass protecting the displays, which reportedly brought the production costs of the screens as a whole to a whopping $27.41.
Pretty expensive, given the traditionally handsome profit margins of iPhones, don’t you think? Also, it kind of puts their decision to snub sapphire for the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus into perspective.
Sources: Mac Rumors , The Information , G for Games
Read More: http://ift.tt/ZPv6yG
A glimmer of hope flickered on the horizon for an earlier-than-planned Apple Watch rollout when a number of Twitter users spotted what seemed like fairly advanced prototypes on the wrists of company employees.
Sadly, it’s not looking good for anyone dreaming of a shiny, Apple Watch-containing box under the Christmas tree. That’s one miracle out of Santa’s control, apparently.
Even worse, you may not be able to use the timepiece for love-declaring purposes next February, as “one person briefed by the Apple department involved in shipping the watch quipped that Apple would be lucky to ship it by Valentine’s Day”.
Lucky, as in it looks like a long shot. But also lucky, as in Cupertino is pulling all the stops to make it happen. So again, this is good material for dreamers and half-glass-full type of tech consumers.
The rest might start to seek solace in the arms of Android Wear or Tizen-running wearable pieces, particularly as they’ll probably all look the same under the hood. Similar dual-core processors, identical 512 MB RAM modules, 4 GB on-board storage, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth connectivity.
Besides, fresh gossip is flying around in regards to Apple Watch’s screen resolution and, you guessed it, it’s nothing to write home about. According to NPD Display Search, a more than reputable market research and consulting firm, both the 1.3 and 1.5-inch panels shall sport 320 x 240 pixels for 299 and 261 ppi pixel densities respectively.
On-par with Android and Tizen rivals? Apple wishes, as the 1.5-inch Moto 360 boasts 320 x 290 pixels, and the 2-inch Samsung Gear S 480 x 360. Of course, the Apple Watch advertising juggernaut is poised to focus more on the much-hyped sapphire glass protecting the displays, which reportedly brought the production costs of the screens as a whole to a whopping $27.41.
Pretty expensive, given the traditionally handsome profit margins of iPhones, don’t you think? Also, it kind of puts their decision to snub sapphire for the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus into perspective.
Sources: Mac Rumors , The Information , G for Games
Read More: http://ift.tt/ZPv6yG
via VRForums | Singapore Technology Lifestyle Forums - News around the web! http://ift.tt/1Cm3mjb
No comments:
Post a Comment