Sony bungles another product

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Apr 17, 2012.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    RichA, Apr 17, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    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/st...52921666417428&tab=featuresTab#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
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Apr 17, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Joe Kotroczo <> 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/st...52921666417428&tab=featuresTab#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.
     
    Bruce, Apr 17, 2012
    #3
  4. RichA

    Joe Kotroczo Guest

    On 17/04/2012 19:09, Bruce wrote:
    > Joe Kotroczo<> 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/st...52921666417428&tab=featuresTab#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
     
    Joe Kotroczo, Apr 17, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:
    >On 17/04/2012 19:09, Bruce wrote:
    >> Joe Kotroczo<> 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/st...52921666417428&tab=featuresTab#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.
     
    Bruce, Apr 17, 2012
    #5
  6. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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?
     
    nospam, Apr 17, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> 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.
     
    nospam, Apr 17, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    On Apr 17, 3:05 pm, Mxsmanic <> 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...
     
    RichA, Apr 18, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2012-04-17 12:48:06 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >> Joe Kotroczo <> wrote:
    >>> On 17/04/2012 19:09, Bruce wrote:
    >>>> Joe Kotroczo<> 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/st...52921666417428&tab=featuresTab#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.
     
    Bruce, Apr 18, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> 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_3-57372401-37/apple-inches-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.
     
    nospam, Apr 18, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <2012041806470929267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Jobs the guru, was always a myth. The Ive design team always provided
    > the innovation and performance for Apple.


    yep, and they're all still there, alive and healthy.

    > ...and Apple has and does lead in innovation. They all play the "catchy
    > branding" game.


    also true.

    > As far as locking customers into iTunes, Google, and
    > each of the Android system carriers goes about locking their customers
    > into the "Android Market".


    it's called 'google play' now, one of the dumbest names ever.

    > That was the only way I could get Apps
    > pushed on me when I used Android.


    you can get android apps elsewhere, but you risk getting bogus apps
    that may be malware. at least there's a little safety with google play.

    > Once I got my iPhone, it configured without hassle via iTunes using my
    > Android data, making it the easiest phone activation I have yet
    > experienced.


    very true. people can argue about specs all day long but what matters
    is how easy it is to actually use.
     
    nospam, Apr 18, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Apr 17, 8:05 pm, Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Doesn't anyone ever consider ergonomics?


    Yep, I would find it easier to look at a watch than get my phone or
    pad out of a bag or pocket.

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


    I'#ve not had a significant problem with an ipad even an ipod is
    doable,
    but I admit I wouldn;t want to type out war and peace out on it.

    > It's even harder to use a smartphone for
    > similar reasons. And putting that on a watch face? The mind boggles.


    The small button on the side of my watch to change to date anbd tine
    and.or wind up
    knobs have been small in the past and quite usable for a few hundred
    years.
    This watchb seems relatively big.
    I used a minox camera one but I wouldn't expect it to produce
    exibitionsize prints
    that compete with DSLRs or even modern compacts.

    My only concern with the 'watch' would be battery life..
    will it last a day if I'm listen to music ?
    Would I have to charge it every night
    And of cuse the cost, I can;t see it being much cheaper than a nano
    but if it is it might be worth it for some but not me.



    >
    > People are not getting smaller,


    I agree with that and they are mostly getting wider.
    A lot of high end watches such as Rolex in particualr seem massive
    far bigger than these sony.


    > even if their gadgets are shrinking.


    No need to get personal ;-)

    > How would
    > I touch-type on the face of a wristwatch?


    The same way I'd use an ipod nano I guess, in fact I thought they were
    re-badged nano's
    until it dawned on me that Apple wouldn;t allow such a thing.



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


    Well I wouldn't watch a blu-ray on an ipod or a iphone,
    I wouldn;t pay the extra for the quaility.
     
    Whisky-dave, Apr 18, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    >Jobs the guru, was always a myth.



    On the contrary, Apple was dying on its feet without him and Jobs
    extracted a very high price from Apple to come back and rescue it.

    Without Job's vision, ideas, determination and discipline (a.k.a.
    sheer control freakery) Apple would have gone bust or been sold soon
    after the time they approached him to rejoin the company.
     
    Bruce, Apr 18, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Bruce
    <> wrote:

    > On the contrary, Apple was dying on its feet without him and Jobs
    > extracted a very high price from Apple to come back and rescue it.


    it wasn't a very high price.

    > Without Job's vision, ideas, determination and discipline (a.k.a.
    > sheer control freakery) Apple would have gone bust or been sold soon
    > after the time they approached him to rejoin the company.


    got that wrong too.
     
    nospam, Apr 18, 2012
    #14
  15. Laszlo Lebrun, Apr 18, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    Bruce Guest

    Laszlo Lebrun <> wrote:
    >On 17/04/2012 15:45, 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/st...52921666417428&tab=featuresTab#specifications

    >
    >Have you ever had a Rollex?



    As in a fake Rolex?
     
    Bruce, Apr 18, 2012
    #16
  17. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Mxsmanic
    <> wrote:

    > > Without Job's vision, ideas, determination and discipline (a.k.a.
    > > sheer control freakery) Apple would have gone bust or been sold soon
    > > after the time they approached him to rejoin the company.

    >
    > Which is exactly what will happen to Apple now that Jobs is dead.


    apple is *not* going bust nor will it be sold any time soon, especially
    since apple's stock has almost doubled since jobs died.

    nobody knows what will happen to apple, microsoft, google, facebook,
    amazon or any other company.
     
    nospam, Apr 18, 2012
    #17
  18. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Laszlo Lebrun writes:


    >> Have you ever had a Rollex?


    > I almost bought one, in the days when I had money. But then I discovered that
    > you're not paying for accuracy with a Rolex, you're paying for a name and
    > fancy mechanical parts. Rolex mechanical watches are off by around 6 seconds a
    > day, which is a dozen times worse than a $5 quartz watch for children.


    And not as good at timekeeping as the much cheaper navigator's
    clockwork watches used by armed forces in WW2.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 19, 2012
    #18
  19. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm writes:


    >> And not as good at timekeeping as the much cheaper navigator's
    >> clockwork watches used by armed forces in WW2.


    > It took a while for me to understand that a Rolex is designed for someone who
    > is too shallow to care about the correct time of day.


    I don't think shallow is the right word. Certainly too wealthy to be
    bothered about exact timekeeping, but not wealthy enough to have
    stopped bothering if others didn't notice your wealth.

    Interesting that after technological progess had rendered clockwork
    chronometers both obsolete and absurdly expensive the Swiss
    chronometer certification labs had to invent a special forgiving
    category for old fashioned clockwork wrist watches. Otherwise they
    wouldn't have been able to issue chronometer certificates to Rolexes
    etc.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 20, 2012
    #19
  20. Mxsmanic <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm writes:


    >> Interesting that after technological progess had rendered clockwork
    >> chronometers both obsolete and absurdly expensive the Swiss
    >> chronometer certification labs had to invent a special forgiving
    >> category for old fashioned clockwork wrist watches. Otherwise they
    >> wouldn't have been able to issue chronometer certificates to Rolexes
    >> etc.


    > In today's world of accurate quartz movements, does anyone even care about
    > chronometer certificates? The certificate standard is not very exacting
    > compared to the accuracy of even a cheap quartz watch.


    You're right if you're referring to the generously kind chronometer
    certification provided by (mostly Swiss) laboratories for the
    certification as "chronometers" of very expensive (mostly Swiss)
    clockwork wrist watches.

    The original important use of chronometers which spurred the
    development of the technology was for determining longitude at
    sea. Watches meeting that standard are often referred to as "marine
    chronometers". That marine chronometer standard is at least a few
    times better than the accuracy of a Rolex "chronometer".

    In other words the Rolex "chronometer" standard is a marketing
    exercise which means "pretty good at timekeeping for a clockwork wrist
    watch but not quite good enough for marine navigation". If you wanted
    a back up time and sextant navigation system for your sea going yacht
    in case all your modern electronics died you'd want something rather
    better than your Rolex.

    The laboratories have also developed a chronometer standard for
    digital watches. In all respects it's it's at least ten times better
    than the clockwork standard and in some respects well over 100 times
    better. What's more it has to keep to that standard despite much more
    severe punishment such as mechanical shocks severe enough to destroy a
    clockwork watch. There would have been no point in measuring digital
    watches to the generous Rolex clockwork "chronometer" standard since
    $10 quartz watches can pass it.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Apr 21, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lee
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    2,219
  2. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,995
    Andrew Rossmann
    Feb 5, 2005
  3. Goro
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    5,046
    Guest
    Feb 15, 2006
  4. Annika1980

    Another Week, Another Great Lens !

    Annika1980, Apr 19, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    389
    Bart van der Wolf
    Apr 21, 2006
  5. Talal Itani

    SHOULD I BUY ANOTHER SONY?

    Talal Itani, Jul 7, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    465
    captmike
    Jul 12, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page