Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Sony bungles another product

Reply
Thread Tools

Sony bungles another product

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2012
Not camera related, but par for the course for this company of late.
Why would you put a plastic face exposed on a watch? In two weeks, it
would be scratched to Hell. I guess a glass or sapphire crystal would
have pushed the price too high?

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...specifications
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2012
On 17/04/2012 14:45, RichA wrote:
> Not camera related, but par for the course for this company of late.
> Why would you put a plastic face exposed on a watch? In two weeks, it
> would be scratched to Hell. I guess a glass or sapphire crystal would
> have pushed the price too high?
>
> http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...specifications


Where does it say it has a plastic face? The face is an OLED
touch-screen, so it is probably going to be glass. And the "polished
plastics" in the tech specs mostly likely refers to the backside of the
casing.

Why one would need a touch-screen watch is another question entirely.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2012
Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 17/04/2012 14:45, RichA wrote:
>> Not camera related, but par for the course for this company of late.
>> Why would you put a plastic face exposed on a watch? In two weeks, it
>> would be scratched to Hell. I guess a glass or sapphire crystal would
>> have pushed the price too high?
>>
>> http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...specifications

>
>Where does it say it has a plastic face?



In the specifications on the site Rich linked to.


>The face is an OLED
>touch-screen, so it is probably going to be glass. And the "polished
>plastics" in the tech specs mostly likely refers to the backside of the
>casing.
>
>Why one would need a touch-screen watch is another question entirely.



Think of it as a remote control for your Android smartphone. I like
the idea (I own an Android smartphone) but would prefer a more
watch-like display rather than the four Android icons with the time
relegated merely to small numbers at the top right of the screen.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Joe Kotroczo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2012
On 17/04/2012 19:09, Bruce wrote:
> Joe Kotroczo<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 17/04/2012 14:45, RichA wrote:
>>> Not camera related, but par for the course for this company of late.
>>> Why would you put a plastic face exposed on a watch? In two weeks, it
>>> would be scratched to Hell. I guess a glass or sapphire crystal would
>>> have pushed the price too high?
>>>
>>> http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...specifications

>>
>> Where does it say it has a plastic face?

>
>
> In the specifications on the site Rich linked to.


I don't see it. Touchscreens are made with a glass layer, so the
plastics mention must refer to the case and not the face.

--
Illegitimi non carborundum
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2012
Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On 17/04/2012 19:09, Bruce wrote:
>> Joe Kotroczo<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/04/2012 14:45, RichA wrote:
>>>> Not camera related, but par for the course for this company of late.
>>>> Why would you put a plastic face exposed on a watch? In two weeks, it
>>>> would be scratched to Hell. I guess a glass or sapphire crystal would
>>>> have pushed the price too high?
>>>>
>>>> http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...specifications
>>>
>>> Where does it say it has a plastic face?

>>
>>
>> In the specifications on the site Rich linked to.

>
>I don't see it. Touchscreens are made with a glass layer, so the
>plastics mention must refer to the case and not the face.



I have an older HTC smartphone with a touchscreen made of plastic. It
worked perfectly well but gradually wore out and had to be replaced
because surface wear caused a significant reduction in display
quality. I replaced it when the second plastic touchscreen wore out.

So not all touchscreens have a glass layer.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Doesn't anyone ever consider ergonomics?


yes

> It's hard enough to use an iPad because of the relatively small screen and
> lack of a real keyboard or mouse.


nonsense. it's *very* easy to use an ipad. a keyboard is not required
and certainly not a mouse.

> It's even harder to use a smartphone for
> similar reasons.


wrong

> And putting that on a watch face? The mind boggles.


why?

> People are not getting smaller, even if their gadgets are shrinking. How would
> I touch-type on the face of a wristwatch?


why would you want to type on a watch? there could be other input
methods, such as dictation.

> How would I watch Blu-ray movies on
> the face of a wristwatch?


why would you want to?
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-17-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Mxsmanic
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > nonsense. it's *very* easy to use an ipad. a keyboard is not required
> > and certainly not a mouse.

>
> The things for which I use computers require both.


that just means it's not ideal for those particular tasks.

> > why would you want to type on a watch? there could be other input
> > methods, such as dictation.

>
> Voice recognition often requires so much correction that it's easier to type
> it to begin with.


you haven't used recent ones.

> > why would you want to?

>
> What else is there to do, besides check the time?


what else is there to do with a cellular phone than call someone, yet
now we have smartphones that do all sorts of stuff.
 
Reply With Quote
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2012
On Apr 17, 3:05*pm, Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Doesn't anyone ever consider ergonomics?
>
> It's hard enough to use an iPad because of the relatively small screen and
> lack of a real keyboard or mouse. It's even harder to use a smartphone for
> similar reasons. And putting that on a watch face? The mind boggles.
>
> People are not getting smaller, even if their gadgets are shrinking. How would
> I touch-type on the face of a wristwatch? How would I watch Blu-ray movies on
> the face of a wristwatch?


The reviews have not been kind...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2012
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>On 2012-04-17 12:48:06 -0700, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> said:
>> Joe Kotroczo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 17/04/2012 19:09, Bruce wrote:
>>>> Joe Kotroczo<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 17/04/2012 14:45, RichA wrote:
>>>>>> Not camera related, but par for the course for this company of late.
>>>>>> Why would you put a plastic face exposed on a watch? In two weeks, it
>>>>>> would be scratched to Hell. I guess a glass or sapphire crystal would
>>>>>> have pushed the price too high?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/sto...specifications

>
>Where
>>>>>>
>>>>> does it say it has a plastic face?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the specifications on the site Rich linked to.
>>>
>>> I don't see it. Touchscreens are made with a glass layer, so the
>>> plastics mention must refer to the case and not the face.

>>
>>
>> I have an older HTC smartphone with a touchscreen made of plastic. It
>> worked perfectly well but gradually wore out and had to be replaced
>> because surface wear caused a significant reduction in display
>> quality. I replaced it when the second plastic touchscreen wore out.
>>
>> So not all touchscreens have a glass layer.
>>
>>

>
>My major touchscreen failure was with a Samsung Omnia. The screen
>failed completely making it useless as a phone or for any other
>purpose. I have no idea of the composition of that screen, but I
>suspect there was more plastic than glass on that screen.
>I replaced the Samsung with a Motorola Android smartphone, which did a
>good enough job, but had the worst battery life of any phone I have
>ever owned. It definitely has a glass screen.
>So when the opportunity arose, I was able to upgrade to an iPhone 4S,
>and I cannot believe I didn't do it sooner. The iPhone 4S is by far the
>best mobile phone I have ever used. The smartphone functions, and
>Retina display are just an added bonus.



It is ironic that you should look down on Samsung when Samsung
supplies so much of the iPhone 4S's technology makes so many of the
iPhone 4S's key components. Without Samsung, the iPhone 4S would not
have been possible.

You made a very bad choice with Motorola who consistently seem to
produce the worst phones that use Android OS, something that is widely
known and disseminated. You probably made a slightly better choice
with the iPhone 4S but Apple is now lagging behind in the smartphone
field, first falling behind HTC and now Samsung who are the sector's
leaders (and without whose technologies the iPhone 4S would not have
been possible).

"Retina display" is a catchy brand name but it is utterly meaningless
when closely similar competing technologies produce closely similar
results. It has about as much meaning as "Ice Cream Sandwich".

Android has now carved out a much larger market share in the
smartphone market than iOS and the recent introduction of the
excellent Android 4.0 will help consolidate Android's lead. Your
opinion and mine are just two in a field of hundreds of millions of
people, far more of whom choose Android phones than Apple.

With Steve Jobs gone, Apple needs to find a new direction for the
iPhone that relies more on innovation and performance but less on
catchy branding and locking its customers into the ever more intrusive
iTunes. Otherwise Apple will be travelling in the same direction as
Sony, another company whose market-leading technology evaporated
rather quickly and now spends its time trying to catch up with others,
including Samsung, while still clinging on to proprietary products
that no longer guarantee market share.


 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-18-2012
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Bruce
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It is ironic that you should look down on Samsung when Samsung
> supplies so much of the iPhone 4S's technology makes so many of the
> iPhone 4S's key components. Without Samsung, the iPhone 4S would not
> have been possible.


apple is moving away from samsung as a parts supplier because they are
a competitor and are ripping off apple's intellectual property.

> You made a very bad choice with Motorola who consistently seem to
> produce the worst phones that use Android OS, something that is widely
> known and disseminated. You probably made a slightly better choice
> with the iPhone 4S but Apple is now lagging behind in the smartphone
> field, first falling behind HTC and now Samsung who are the sector's
> leaders (and without whose technologies the iPhone 4S would not have
> been possible).


apple is definitely not lagging in the smartphone field nor are they
falling behind htc or samsung. the reality is that apple is slightly
*ahead* of samsung, but close enough to call it a tie, and htc is not
doing particularly well at all.

<http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...-past-samsung-
as-worlds-top-smartphone-vendor/>

Apple outscored Samsung by less than a percentage point in market
share last quarter thanks to heavy demand for the iPhone 4S,
according to IDC.

Brisk sales for the iPhone 4S helped Apple narrowly surpass
smartphone rival Samsung.

Rounding out the list, HTC watched its market share dip to 6.5
percent from 8.5 percent a year ago, though its shipments crept up to
10.2 million.

> "Retina display" is a catchy brand name but it is utterly meaningless
> when closely similar competing technologies produce closely similar
> results. It has about as much meaning as "Ice Cream Sandwich".


it's not utterly meaningless at all. the retina display has a very high
pixel density (326 ppi), more than you can see at normal viewing
distances for a cellphone. at the time it was introduced, no other
smartphone had anything close to it. two years later, a couple of other
smartphones have similar displays, as the competition plays catchup.

ice cream sandwich is nothing more than a codename for android 4.0.
that really is meaningless, but unfortunately, very few android users
run it (approximately 3%) because the android ecosystem is so
fragmented and locked down by the carriers and manufacturers. most
android users are running gingerbread, which came out at the end of
2010, nearly 18 months ago!

meanwhile, most ios users have updated to 5.0 or 5.1. *all* iphones
since 2009 can run it, which is far, far more than can run ice cream
sandwich.

> Android has now carved out a much larger market share in the
> smartphone market than iOS and the recent introduction of the
> excellent Android 4.0 will help consolidate Android's lead. Your
> opinion and mine are just two in a field of hundreds of millions of
> people, far more of whom choose Android phones than Apple.


more bullshit. the breakdown is fairly close.

> With Steve Jobs gone, Apple needs to find a new direction for the
> iPhone that relies more on innovation and performance but less on
> catchy branding and locking its customers into the ever more intrusive
> iTunes.


nonsense. there is no itunes lock-in. you don't even have to use itunes
at all.

> Otherwise Apple will be travelling in the same direction as
> Sony, another company whose market-leading technology evaporated
> rather quickly and now spends its time trying to catch up with others,
> including Samsung, while still clinging on to proprietary products
> that no longer guarantee market share.


more nonsense.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fastest way to compute dot product (inner product) in Ruby? theosib@gmail.com Ruby 4 11-02-2007 03:24 AM
Product Manager/ Sr. Product Manager padma C++ 0 10-03-2007 12:30 PM
Hey, Free Sony PSP. Best thing since sliced bread! It's So easy,and 100% legal! GET A FREE SONY PSP! !!NO CATCH!! Sarah Stewart Computer Support 0 05-08-2005 08:47 AM
looking for opinions on QUALITY OF PICTURES for Sony S85 vs Sony F717 if any ... alex Digital Photography 2 08-01-2003 10:30 PM
Sony TRV230 vs. Sony TRV245 (UK Models) J.B. Digital Photography 3 07-17-2003 01:03 AM



Advertisments