By the basic reasoning above, Apple shouldn't bother with an iWatch because the market for that was spoiled by Samsung's lame attempt at one last year. I don't think anyone would suggest that. Apple clearly took the existing concept and improved upon it vastly, then marketed it to their much broader user base. This gave them a reason to continue asking a premium - there weren't many alternatives for people who liked that feature. The iWatch may turn out differently, as there are several competitors already out there, and the latest announcement is for a couple products that already accomplish the goal of refined presentation and functionality. Not that Apple can't improve upon it, but it's going to be much more of a challenge than it was to improve upon the Atrix.
Also, any fingerprint scanner is vulnerable if the hackers get access to your fingerprints. That article was like saying a computer is vulnerable because it can be hacked if someone steals your passwords. Not exactly. There are degrees of vulnerability. I have some people looking into how feasible hacks are for various scanning technologies and devices, and the one mentioned in that article isn't a joke. To continue your analogy, there's a difference between getting access to someone's passwords for a device that can be remote-wiped, requires a secondary key, etc., and for a device that lacks additional protections. |
