I'm somewhere between agreeing with you and believing it was inevitable. Let's be honest: These machines will only get better and better, meaning they'll be able to carry heavier and heavier payloads. I agree his stunt will result in heavy-handedness. Where I'm not sure I agree about is if a time-traveler plucked this stunt out of history if, ten years later, we'd be in a spot that is, at all, any different.

Heh. You're the first person I've talked to that complained about smart watches using both hands. Kudos to that. Anyway, this is exactly the benefit the watches bring and a growing number of people like it.

No, we really don't have it, yet. We're still at the vga phone camera stage. As for the massive "do not want' from consumers, you're saying that after Apple sold over a million Apple Watches.

If all I have to do is scroll a little further, I won't bother getting the phone out.

All of them? No. A lot of them? Oh, yes. Actually the Pebble Watch has been a great purchase for me, my phone spends a lot more time in my pocket. I want more from it.

For starters: No, I did not evangelize browser-on-watch. There's your misinterpretation right there. What I am telling you about, for the second time, is objectivity. You seriously just said something as stupid as "... watch-based experience requires both your arms makes it already a flawed and unpalatable idea." Why is that stupid? You've never tried it. You don't know... which in and of itself isn't so bad, but you're arguing with somebody who does know. It's not helping you. You've already learned this lesson, but here we are, 2015, and you're doing it again.

Thank you for supporting my post by missing the point of it.

This is plainly untrue. Not only do we have the "Reader" mode that digests the information but we've lived in the RSS age for quite a while now. We haven't even started discussing the running of apps designed for the watch. We're well beyond WAP, as you've mentioned later in your post, and it's in a perfect place to create a browsing experience for something like the Apple Watch. Even Samsung has added a wheel to their lineup for the same purpose.

I bolded the operative part of your statement. To answer an earlier comment you made: Plenty of people made the case that cell phones were a terrible form factor for browsing the net.

Outpacing anything is not a factor in this conversation. Nobody's telling you to throw your phone away.

You said I was evangelizing the watch. Your question was built from that premise. Browsing on the watch could turn out to be totally useless. Nothing I've said actually discounts that possibility because I'm saying, instead, that you can't tell that from here. I can invent reasons, but that's incongruous to the point I've been making.

I don't believe they're wrong, I just don't believe they're right. Now if you're really asking why I'm receptive to the idea it's because I have a Pebble Watch that, in short, is a second monitor for my phone. I have plenty of cases where it's more useful to get information on that display than to remove my phone from my pocket. If you'd like to know more about that I'd be happy to share that info with you.

Lots of people thought that their reasoning for cell phones not having cameras was irrefutable, too. It's not. Just being proven wrong due to lack of foresight is reason enough. The real irrefutable question is: "Do modern smartwatches want to part you from your money?" I'm not being snarky, that's perfectly fine.

You can reach your wrist quicker than dig into your pocket. I get headlines on my Pebble Watch, for example. I'd love to be able to scroll down and finish the story since I'm already there.

Right. Stop and think for a minute about why that happened.

No it wasn't. The fact even the earliest shittiest cell phone camera was better than not having a camera at all. The logic was that everybody'd start carrying their camera with them at all times. That was flawed logic on day one.

That is a disingenuous assumption of my motives. If I'm evangelizing anything it's objectivity. History has already told you that your assumptions can easily be wrong, this case is no different. Tech gets better, software gets better, and we live in an age where information is being digested to suit your needs. There's no reason to think it won't happen.

That says more about you than it does about the engineer. Assuming you're an engineer of any sort you've just displayed a lack of objectivity when solving a problem.

Yes, you're right. With more effort he can do the same thing. Thanks for bringing that up.

I'm not sure when this 'plummeting usage' happened or even if it exists, but news events do lead to a good deal more chatter. FB users basically told Zuckerberg they want this.

But.. but.. but... iIsaw somebody from AOL say ROFLMFAO a buncha times on IRC, that means AOL'ers are st00pid!!!

Yes, if you're an asshole. "If it ain't broken don't fix it" only applies to popular things.

Somebody who hates science could say make a similar claim and point at the atomic bomb as proof. If you see the problem with that anti-science guy's statement, then you see the problem with yours.

You rebutted a statement he didn't make.

Oh the irony of that statement.

3D doesn't mean 'suspended disbelief', he's saying a lot of 3D graphics out there are just plain shit because no particular talent is being used to define their style. And he's right! You're probably having a hard time realizing that because this generation of gaming has provided a bunch of tools to make everything look bumpy. You haven't seen much of that before so just seeing the effect looks 'cool'. In a few years from now you're gonna say 'huh, not as nice as I remembered'. Right now you're being impressed by gimmicks.

Heh. You do know this site is ad-supported, right?