Apple Event - 09 Sep at 10am PDT

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Well obviously those alerts and messages would be non work related distractions. And usually the reason why use of cell phones is not allowed so workers don't play on their phone instead of working. It sounds like everybody you met is an angel at work and would not think about bending the employers rules.

No, they're NOT, and that's why, were I the employer, in this particular situation, I wouldn't allow the watches, either. My guys, in my company, are already on the computers all day (obviously), and while I'm not Cruella DeVille, the social-media crap is something you DO have to watch for...like, X is running a clip on a file to be cleaned, and, oh, yeah, he decided to check his FB page, and well, 20 minutes later...that's not good business.

Fortunately, as my guys all know, I am ALSO on the web/computer all day long. I see if posts are made to FB, Twitter, etc. If I see one post...no big deal. If I see what is obviously a too-long amount of time, a gentle reminder shows up on their computer. I don't mean to be "mean," but that's time I'm paying for. It's not really complicated. People should play on their own play time, not time that an employer has paid for. Everybody BS'es at the watercooler; everybody cheats on their lunch breaks, etc., but at some point, you have to say enough is enough. And: I've seen a lot of people that seem so addicted to their phones, for entertainment and general gabbery, they simply can't have them in the vicinity while working, or they get NOTHING done.

So, no: I would not be inclined to hiring someone who wanted to wear the watch, with the phone in close proximity. To me, that indicates a possible problem. I know that viewpoint won't be popular here on MR, but it's the truth.

@meera:

But that's my point: If your child were injured at work, or your parent, someone would CALL you. Not send you a chat message! How remarkably unreliable TMing is for that type of thing--I'd fire someone who tried to TM me that someone in my family was hurt, injured, etc., because half my TM's never come through. I'd fully expect them to CALL. When I was young, a teen, watching my two far-younger siblings, it was a simple rule: NO disturbing our parents at work, unless a broken bone was involved. PERIOD. And THAT warranted a phone call.

Would your Dad actually think it was appropriate to call you, at work, about a family get-together, or your kid about some appointment the following week? Likely not, of course! So, their messages will get relayed to you, by whatever medium, during off-work hours, or during TM's that you already know you don't need to receive "promptly" or "urgently." Something urgent--an actual phone will ACTUALLY ring, and you'll know. I don't understand why anyone would expect an "emergency" to be relayed via TM.

Hitch

[DuckieTigger]

@Hitch:

No I don't believe your point of view from the other side is going to be unpopular here on MR. Well certainly not by me. It is those that can't stay of the phone / computer for social media that ruin it for everybody else. If it doesn't hinder let it slide a little bit. Social media was a problem at my work on company computers - solution was a complete block of facebook and web-email. Doesn't hurt me any - first I don't have access to company computers, and second I don't do social media. Am I on my phone sometimes? Yes, guilty as charged. When it is busy and hectic then no.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

I guess they'll forfeit the wearables market to Google, LG, Samsung and Motorola when it comes to some 1B Android devices.

Not all 1B of those Android users are in markets where the watch will be sold, nor are they potential customers for any smart-watch, let alone one from Apple.

Apples markets to a pretty narrow audience, while Google casts a pretty wide net with Android. As an example, just going by it's operating systems market share, Android One will probably press Android into millions of more users hands than are using it now. Androids use will grow, but those won't be the same class of customers as the folks buying upmarket HTC M8's and Galaxy Alphas and Motorola 360's. Totally different audience.

Personally, I don't believe Tim Cook is the same kind of absolutest that Steve Jobs was. If the market would bear it, I think he'd sell his watch to the Android and Windows markets too.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Well obviously those alerts and messages would be non work related distractions. And usually the reason why use of cell phones is not allowed so workers don't play on their phone instead of working. It sounds like everybody you met is an angel at work and would not think about bending the employers rules.

It's been established that employees with internet access tend to be more productive and happier at work than those without.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/web-browsin...ry?id=14362815

Obviously, this won't work for every type of job (customer facing jobs, as an example), but it's true for Joe Schmoe office jobs.

Originally Posted by Hitch

When I was young, a teen, watching my two far-younger siblings, it was a simple rule: NO disturbing our parents at work, unless a broken bone was involved. PERIOD. And THAT warranted a phone call.

Would your Dad actually think it was appropriate to call you, at work, about a family get-together, or your kid about some appointment the following week? Likely not, of course! So, their messages will get relayed to you, by whatever medium, during off-work hours

The world has changed a lot. People are more connected and are expected to be reachable. And most do a good job of managing the flow without compromising the quality of their work. It's a genie that's not going back into the bottle.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Shane R

It's been established that employees with internet access tend to be more productive and happier at work than those without.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/web-browsin...ry?id=14362815

Obviously, this won't work for every type of job (customer facing jobs, as an example), but it's true for Joe Schmoe office jobs.

You are assuming that there is a majority of office jobs out there? Of course if you do a study on only those that work with a computer it will automatically get the majority of jobs ruled out. Your article also mentions:

Chen and Lim advise companies to strike a middle ground between work and Web browsing, but limit access to personal e-mailing at the workplace.

Which suggest that certain activities can be less productive. That is what I mentioned about my work as well in my last post - IT stepped in and blocked access to social media and personal email on company internet. I am not working in an office, I am a scrub. When I go to the bathroom I need to wash my hands before and after. Does that make me 2nd class because I work in a factory and just suck it up?

The world has changed a lot. People are more connected and are expected to be reachable. And most do a good job of managing the flow without compromising the quality of their work. It's a genie that's not going back into the bottle.

Expected to be reachable at all times even for non-work and non emergency? Give me a break. I am with Hitch on that one: if it is important enough, give my work a damn call. There has never been a time were any employee at my place was denied answering the call after being relieved if necessary.

[Shane R]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Expected to be reachable at all times even for non-work and non emergency? Give me a break. I am with Hitch on that one: if it is important enough, give my work a damn call. There has never been a time were any employee at my place was denied answering the call after being relieved if necessary.

I sit in a small room of 12 employees and our phones are pinging and buzzing all day long: texts, notifications, etc.

And yet, our work gets done. Different strokes.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Shane R

I sit in a small room of 12 employees and our phones are pinging and buzzing all day long: texts, notifications, etc.

And yet, our work gets done. Different strokes.

If you got time to spare and can make up for lost time by working harder that argument is true. Not so much for my job. If I twiddle around for just a single minute and leave my machine sit while I do something else, it will cost the company aprroximately $150 in additional cost. Not lost revenue, but energy cost for heating and cooling.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Yes, but are they more of a drain on battery than RAM?

RAM needs to be refreshed constantly, and it takes power to do that. So, technically 2GB of RAM will use twice as much power to maintain as 1 GB of RAM.

[Glorfindel]

but it would use the flash mem less which would add uptime

[Barty]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Yes, but are they more of a drain on battery than RAM?

Absolutely writing and reading flash takes way more power than RAM

Originally Posted by pilotbob

RAM needs to be refreshed constantly, and it takes power to do that. So, technically 2GB of RAM will use twice as much power to maintain as 1 GB of RAM.

Yes but if you need to reload data from flash, that will drain way more battery because now you also get the CPU involved. The CPU/GPU is the most power hungry component beside the screen.

When you put your laptop to sleep, for example, the RAM stays awake but the system still uses relatively little power.

Apple doesn't give you more memory because they can get away with it. Plain and simple.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

RAM needs to be refreshed constantly, and it takes power to do that. So, technically 2GB of RAM will use twice as much power to maintain as 1 GB of RAM.

I'm not certain the power consumption is linear (there are other factors involved), but even so, the power needed to refresh the RAM is insignificant compared to the rest of the system.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Shane R

It's been established that employees with internet access tend to be more productive and happier at work than those without.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/web-browsin...ry?id=14362815

Yeah--those are studies that don't actually measure time/work. I have. We've done time-motion studies (and I've done them for dogs' years), and here's a surprise: yeah, it's true. Employees are MUCH happier when that have that Internet access, because on average, they will WASTE (not use productively, mind you) about 30-60 minutes PER WORKING DAY. No, that doesn't sound like a lot. It's viewed as, heck, right, it's like just sneaking a few minutes' extra around your smoke break, or cofee break, whatever, and "nobody gets hurt"--but the average employee works 260 days/year. Now, let's assume it's ONLY 20 wasted mnutes per day, and work up from there:

• 20 * 260 = 5,200 minutes/annum = 86.67 hours = 10.83 days/year your employer is paying for you to screw around.
• 30 * 260 = 7800 mins/annum = 130 hours = 16.25 working days/year your employer is paying for you to screw around.
• 45 * 260 = 11,700 mins/annum = 195 hours = 24.38 days that your employer is paying you to screw around. And the winner:
• 60 * 260 = 15,600 mins/annum = 260 hours = 32.50 working days per year--more than a month of time--that your employer is paying you to screw around.

It's just not that hard to blow 20 minutes a day Facebooking, Tweeting, etc. it isn't. I know exactly how much time *I* blow in a day, doing stuff like this--posting on MR, etc. if someone telecommutes for me, and works on a per-book basis, I don't care what they do, as long as the work IS done. However, in many jobs, people are paid HOURLY. Then, I, and other employers, DO care. Let's say, for ease of math, in the above scenarios, the person is making a simple $10/hour (with an 82% burden uplift--payroll taxes, health insurance, paid vacation, etc., to indicate true costs):

1. 86.67 hours x $18.20/hour = $1,577.39/annum time being paid for not worked.
2. 130 hours x 18.20 hour = $2,366.00/annum, time being paid for not worked.
3. 195 hours x 18.20 hour = $3,549.00/annum, time being paid for not worked, and,
4. 260 hours x 18.20 hour = $4,732.00/annum, time being paid for not worked.

Now, maybe people look at this and think, "hey, so what? It's not my problem," but trust me: those of you buying things pay for it somewhere, because employers, even little-bitty guys like me?--we gotta get it somewhere. Money doesn't simply appear out of thin air. When I'm paying someone salaried, not hourly, and they work 60/hours/week, I don't care if they FB, Tweet, or, frankly, run around the office naked 5x weekly, hooting like an owl. As long as they get their work DONE. They have priorities, task lists, etc. But someone paid by the hour, without a set amount of work, other than, "respond to what comes in," or handle customer service? That's simply different. I try not to be Simon Legree, I mean it, but...you need to realize that most companies (the majority of businesses in the world are small businesses) aren't made out of piles of cash. Every penny counts, and $5K a year, for "not-work" really matters. It certainly would to me. I just don't have $5K/annum/per employee to blow--and THAT is at the imaginary $10/hour rate!! Imagine what it is for those people being paid more!

(And really: think of this: you walk into McDonald's, or your favorite Pizza joint, whatever, and you SIT. Or you stand at the counter. While the chick behind the counter surfs Facebook. Forget the costs, everything else: how would you FEEL, as a customer of that business? That her Facebooking is more important than YOU????)

Obviously, this won't work for every type of job (customer facing jobs, as an example), but it's true for Joe Schmoe office jobs.

Really--it's not. You may view it as different, but work's work. I can't speak to what you do, because I don't know what it is, but I certainly know, pre-Facebook, pre-computers, or now--what a blown hour of time daily looks like from an employee, of WHATEVER make or model. I've seen it for ages, and putting a new face on it (yes, pun intended) doesn't change what it is, and what it isn't. It's just paid-for time being not-worked.

The world has changed a lot. People are more connected and are expected to be reachable. And most do a good job of managing the flow without compromising the quality of their work. It's a genie that's not going back into the bottle.

My view is, it's simply noisier and more egocentric. ME! ME! ME! look at ME! ME! ME on Facebook! Look at my SELFIE!!! Ooooh, look at me and my DOG!

That's not "connected." That's just noise for the sake of attention-seeking.

And the helicopter-parenting crap? OMG...don't get me started on that. I see these ridiculous lines of parents, all lined up at schools, to pick their kids up, like their little legs would fall off if they got up off their duffs and walked home--really? Somehow, I and my sibs all managed to schlep 2+ miles to school every day, each way, and none of us died, had our legs fall off...we didn't get in cars of strangers, we didn't get abducted. And no: we didn't need to be supervised 24/7, with text messages, phone calls, GPS...what's next? Sticking a tracking chip in a kid's neck, like SPOT, and watch him all day long, so you know every step he takes? What a stifling existence. For everyone concerned.

I recently watched someone--who has phones practically glued to her head all day, monitoring not only her own, MORE-than-adult kids, (she has a grandchild in college, mind you), but her grandkids--practically organize an entire moving party for a grandchild, to go to college. I mean, the whole fam damily went. Carried his stuff, packed his bags, made sure he didn't forget anything. UHRRRR? Jesus wept, back in my day, we got packed off to boarding school, and if we forgot something, TOUGH. I was nearly half the age that this kid is now, when I was expected to pack my OWN stuff and travel by bloody train to school, on my OWN. Soldiers are younger than this kid, when they fight. It's a ridiculous level of gross over-supervision and coddling.

My point is: that's not "connection." That is something else altogether, and this watch? It's just a step further down that path. It's CREEPY. (Isn't there some cheap-o TV show out there with this very plotline? I saw this go by on Netflix, or something? Uber-popular, hip "watches" that actually allow the government to monitor you? And folks are pissy about the NSA and metadata???? But they want THIS?? NOOO thanks. I'll take my heart attack when it comes, rather than tag myself like damn dog.)

The "not-working?" That's between people and their employer, but I suspect if they had actually done time-motion studies and keystroke/activity logs, they'd be pretty damn surprised. Internet activity for employees DOES, sure, create "more satisfied" employees--but it's an expensive PERK for employers to provide to those whose internal barometers of honesty aren't working that great.

Hitch

[Shane R]

you win.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Shane R

you win.

Not really trying to "win," per se. Just saying: there's another "side" out there, the employers' sides, and they are paying for all that employee satisfaction--and so are their customers, in the resulting product pricing. Goofing off is goofing off, no matter what you call it (mental-health days, sick days, "connection" yadda-yadda-yadda). it's a shocking amount of paid-for time, being un-worked. ;-)

And the WATCH? Sorry, gang; that's waaaaaaaaaaay too Big Brother for me, and no, I'm not talking about some reality TV show. Too much opportunity for abuse, and I have ZERO faith in Apple's mindset to protect me.

Hitch

[Fluribus]

I was never a potential customer for an iPhone 6, but I am for the iPad. No way they will sell me the next iPad with 1GB of RAM.