Laughable Apple watch ads: Urban millenial D.B's that only ever see LARGE buttons on the watch

In article , Mort wrote:

looking to the future, additional sensors could monitor other vitals,
such as blood sugar. currently that requires a finger prick but there
is a lot of research into non-invasive methods. for someone with
diabetes, tracking blood sugar levels on a continuous basis could be a
life saver if it alerts them of something abnormal immediately rather
than when they notice they're about to pass out.

I published a world first about continuously monitoring blood sugar in
1960, then further on as well. Current methods measure sugar in the
tissues, not in the blood, and they are most definitely not the same.
There are currently available tissue glucose monitors, with and without
an insulin pump. How in the world do you think that an Apple watch can
do that?

i didn't say the apple watched measured blood sugar. android wear
watches don't measure blood sugar either.

the technology to do that does not exist yet. several companies are
working on non-invasive methods, including google who is working on a
contact lens to measure blood sugar.

http://www.healthline.com/health-new...elops-glucose-
monitoring-contact-lens-012314

i said that at some point in the future, a wearable device could
measure blood sugar with a non-invasive method. when this happens,
diabetics and hypoglycemics will be very, very happy.

In article , Mort wrote:

It is my understanding that the Apple Watch is fully operative only when
used with a nearby i-phone.

currently, yes, and android wear watches require an android phone.

so what?

the first cellular phone required a car. it was large and had to be
installed in the trunk. over the years it got smaller and more capable.

a future smar****ch (not just apple's) will be a standalone device.
however, the technology to do that today does not exist.

In article , PeterN
wrote:

the spot watch was *very* different than a smar****ch of today. it was
a one-way device using a microsoft proprietary network that sat on top
of fm radio and could only receive data. it also wasn't in all cities
because microsoft had to sign agreements to transmit the data. its
business model was a yearly subscription. users don't want that.

Adobe agrees. The subscription business model will never work.

adobe doesn't make watches.

try to stay on topic.

The topic is business models. Your words, not mine.

nope. the topic is the microsoft spot watch.

the *entire* paragraph above is about the spot watch. the rest of the
thread is about smar****ches.

My next heart attack will cocme whn you admit to being wrong.

how about you set an example and not lie and twist things?

what i wrote was unambiguously about the spot watch. period.

And of course, totally in context of the discussion.

yes it was, until you came along to derail it.

BTW: The subscription model doesn't work with cars, either.

nonsense. many people lease cars.

Most cars are just a tad larger than a watch.

so what?

apartments are larger than cars and there's a *huge* market for people
who rent them.

Get your sarcasm meter fixed.

get your cluelessness fixed.

then again, perhaps that's not possible.

And once again you resort to the perjorative.

in response to your pejorative comments.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Less clutter, yay.

It is my understanding that the Apple Watch is fully operative only
when used with a nearby i-phone.

Not sure what an "i-phone" is, nor what "fully operational" means in this
context.

then you're stupid.

In article , No-Spam wrote:

Sandman:
Less clutter, yay.

Mort:
It is my understanding that the Apple Watch is fully operative
only when used with a nearby i-phone.

Sandman:
Not sure what an "i-phone" is, nor what "fully operational" means
in this context.

then you're stupid.

"Wosh" said the joke far above No-Spam.

--
Sandman

On 5/30/2015 9:59 AM, nospam wrote:

snip


i said that at some point in the future, a wearable device could
measure blood sugar with a non-invasive method. when this happens,
diabetics and hypoglycemics will be very, very happy.


Yes! The key is not today. If I want to benefit from that future
technology, I will make the appropriate investments.

--
PeterN

On 5/30/2015 9:59 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Mort wrote:

It is my understanding that the Apple Watch is fully operative only when
used with a nearby i-phone.

currently, yes, and android wear watches require an android phone.

so what?

the first cellular phone required a car. it was large and had to be
installed in the trunk. over the years it got smaller and more capable.

Nope. I had that. It was an anolog, not cellular phone. I had a portable
version that was about the size of a WWII walkie talkie.



a future smar****ch (not just apple's) will be a standalone device.
however, the technology to do that today does not exist.



--
PeterN

On 5/30/2015 9:59 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

the spot watch was *very* different than a smar****ch of today. it was
a one-way device using a microsoft proprietary network that sat on top
of fm radio and could only receive data. it also wasn't in all cities
because microsoft had to sign agreements to transmit the data. its
business model was a yearly subscription. users don't want that.

Adobe agrees. The subscription business model will never work.

adobe doesn't make watches.

try to stay on topic.

The topic is business models. Your words, not mine.

nope. the topic is the microsoft spot watch.

the *entire* paragraph above is about the spot watch. the rest of the
thread is about smar****ches.

My next heart attack will cocme whn you admit to being wrong.

how about you set an example and not lie and twist things?

what i wrote was unambiguously about the spot watch. period.

And of course, totally in context of the discussion.

yes it was, until you came along to derail it.


The readers can decide that for themselves.

BTW: The subscription model doesn't work with cars, either.

nonsense. many people lease cars.

Most cars are just a tad larger than a watch.

so what?

apartments are larger than cars and there's a *huge* market for people
who rent them.

Get your sarcasm meter fixed.

get your cluelessness fixed.

then again, perhaps that's not possible.

And once again you resort to the perjorative.

in response to your pejorative comments.


Where?

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is my understanding that the Apple Watch is fully operative only when
used with a nearby i-phone.

currently, yes, and android wear watches require an android phone.

so what?

the first cellular phone required a car. it was large and had to be
installed in the trunk. over the years it got smaller and more capable.

Nope. I had that. It was an anolog, not cellular phone. I had a portable
version that was about the size of a WWII walkie talkie.

that doesn't change anything.

the point is that technology advances and although smar****ches need a
smartphone now, they won't in the future.

you're actually agreeing with me.

On 5/30/2015 2:55 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It is my understanding that the Apple Watch is fully operative only when
used with a nearby i-phone.

currently, yes, and android wear watches require an android phone.

so what?

the first cellular phone required a car. it was large and had to be
installed in the trunk. over the years it got smaller and more capable.

Nope. I had that. It was an anolog, not cellular phone. I had a portable
version that was about the size of a WWII walkie talkie.

that doesn't change anything.

the point is that technology advances and although smar****ches need a
smartphone now, they won't in the future.

you're actually agreeing with me.


If you are right, you are right. The fact is that cell phones did not
require a car. Early analog phones did.



--
PeterN