Missing the point: Analyzing a thing you haven't used
Just a thought, but if you're going to write opinion pieces on the Apple Watch when you haven't tried one yet, you might want to familiarize yourself with the writing of people who actually have.
Or not, whatever. Writing for the Forbes contributor network and unaccredited lawnmower maintenance academy, Erik Kain wonders "Will The Apple Watch Push The Boundaries Of Good Manners?" (Tip o' the antlers to ghibby!)
More than the Forbes contributor network already has? Not sure that's possible. It's an interesting thought experiment in a "Could God make a boulder so big even he couldn't move it?" kind of way.
The Apple Watch is set sell millions in its first year on shelves.
Successful things are the worst, right? They're so lame.
That’s out of myriad different models ranging from just a few hundred dollars for the iPeasant version...
The i-jokes just write themselves! Seemingly.
Indeed, the entire Apple hype machine ranks among the most irritating phenomena of our age.
Ugh, people liking things and getting a good user experience and valuing that. So gross. Someone gouge the Macalope's eyes out with a spork.
While the company has done marvelous work in the realm of marketing and product design—and I don’t begrudge them one ounce of success...
Kinda sounds like you do, but OK.
...the willingness of the masses to simply hop aboard that train irks me to no end. I am a reverse-snob in this regard, I admit it.
You know that scene in the original Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory movie where Violet's complaining about how disgusting spitting is while picking her nose? Anyway.
The added expense of an Apple Watch to an iPhone setup doesn’t strike me as a particularly good value proposition.
It's not going to be for everyone, this is true. Heck, it's not even going to be for the Macalope for another month unless the backorders are filled faster than expected.
It’s much more for show, for style, for fashion, for signaling than for functionality, of course, and as a rather more utilitarian techie, I guess that just rubs me the wrong way.
Or maybe -- maybe -- you just don't get it. Kind of like how Twitter doesn't get it, but Twitterrific does. No one wants to use their Watch to see trending hashtags. Or, at least no one with a soul. Hellspawn, sure, they might want to see trending hashtags, but not people. The point of the Watch is to narrow the interaction, which is why Twitterrific shows you mentions and direct messages instead of spraying you in the face with a firehose of #belieber, #greysanatomy and #ohgodterroralerts tweets.
Seriously, what kind of kitten-eating gorgon wants to see trending hashtags?
While Apple and its app-developers may need to find ways to not annoy Apple Watch wearers, the wearers themselves may be a source of annoyance for the rest of us...
Sure, because glancing at a watch is suddenly a big problem compared to pulling out and looking at a phone.
“These smartwatches can be as annoying as our smartphones and more visible since you wear them,” says Pamela Eyring, the president of The Protocol School of Washington according to MarketWatch.
Now, simply for context as to how Eyring might have her finger on the pulse of modern trends, here's a quote from her bio page on the Protocol School of Washington's web site:
I love the 1980's and wish big hair was still in fashion!
So... important context. Good to know.
“But smartphones can be hidden easier when you’re with people since you can tuck them into a handbag or jacket pocket.”
Sleeves do not exist. Also, the relative size difference between a smartwatch and a smartphone? It's not a thing at all. In fact, some would claim the Watch is bigger. Because they have depth perception problems.
Some. Would. Claim.
Again, the idea behind the Watch that the members of the Forbes contributor network and the Protocol School of Washington seem unaware of is that it's meant to let you keep your phone in your pocket. Its supposed to let you more easily see the information that actually matters and act as another line of defense against constant distraction rather than a channel for it. That's the idea, anyway. We'll see if it works in practice, but maybe you could try evaluating that instead of ignoring it.
Here's an odd paragraph by Kain.
Call me a traditionalist hold-out but I believe that a phone’s core mission is simply to make phone calls. It shouldn’t have to be charged every day. I shouldn’t have to wake it up in order to make a call. And it shouldn’t be designed with planned obsolescence in mind.
Oh, wait, that's not right. Somehow the Macalope swapped out "watch" for "phone" and "tell the time" for "make phone calls". What a silly way to show how weak an argument is. The Macalope regrets pretending to have made an error.
Now, the horny one swears to you that he didn't swap anything out of this quote:
Watches are supposed to be the closest thing we have to engineered immortality. Watches and firearms.
Nothing says immortality like a gun!
...at least there won’t be Apple zealots lining the street. That’s something to be cheery about.
Good one. We are properly zinged, sir. Kudos to you. Note for next time, however: Did you deliberately decide against using "iZealots"? That's just leaving money on the table.
Well, at least there's one thing the Macalope and Kain do agree on: Quentin Lance is ruining this season of Arrow. So, there's that.