A Watch Guy's Thoughts on the Apple Watch After Seeing It in the Metal(hodinkee.com)
hodinkee.com
A Watch Guy's Thoughts on the Apple Watch After Seeing It in the Metal
http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review
476 comments
This "serious watch lovers won't go for this" is debatable. I'm one.
He compares the Patek Philippe 3940G, along with a photograph. I have and used to wear the rarer top model of that series, with several more complications and digits in the price. I love and collect complication watches. I hate digital watches -- I've kept only one in 25 years.
Since getting the Pebble Steel with leather band (preordered and meant to cancel when I decided I wouldn't use it), I haven't worn the Patek or any of the other mechanicals during my business day.
The moment to moment difference liberating me from "devices" during my business day is too valuable. I don't love it. But it changes my day.
Given your comment, it's an interesting contrast: I no longer wear any other watch besides the Pebble Steel because I hate interruptions even more than I love mechanical watches. The Pebble's soft vibration and glance-ability is so much less intrusive than checking a device, I'm unwilling to trade it.
Couple the manufacturing detail described here with the benefit to the flow of one's day, and I'd argue the Apple Watch is the first digital likely to appeal to mechanical watch lovers in highly connected jobs.
He compares the Patek Philippe 3940G, along with a photograph. I have and used to wear the rarer top model of that series, with several more complications and digits in the price. I love and collect complication watches. I hate digital watches -- I've kept only one in 25 years.
Since getting the Pebble Steel with leather band (preordered and meant to cancel when I decided I wouldn't use it), I haven't worn the Patek or any of the other mechanicals during my business day.
The moment to moment difference liberating me from "devices" during my business day is too valuable. I don't love it. But it changes my day.
Given your comment, it's an interesting contrast: I no longer wear any other watch besides the Pebble Steel because I hate interruptions even more than I love mechanical watches. The Pebble's soft vibration and glance-ability is so much less intrusive than checking a device, I'm unwilling to trade it.
Couple the manufacturing detail described here with the benefit to the flow of one's day, and I'd argue the Apple Watch is the first digital likely to appeal to mechanical watch lovers in highly connected jobs.
Let's also not forget that most humans have two wrists. Perhaps it will become fashionable to wear a smart watch on one wrist and a high end mechanical watch on the other.
Of course that would remove any remaining doubt that the purpose of a $60,000 watch is to signal wealth rather than tell time.
Alternatively, maybe we'll see mechanical watches with a smart watch "complication". At the very least I'm sure we'll see partnerships between (some) high end mechanical watchmakers and smartwatch platforms.
Of course that would remove any remaining doubt that the purpose of a $60,000 watch is to signal wealth rather than tell time.
Alternatively, maybe we'll see mechanical watches with a smart watch "complication". At the very least I'm sure we'll see partnerships between (some) high end mechanical watchmakers and smartwatch platforms.
As mentioned by Terretta and the original article, serious watch lovers have collections of watches. They could buy the watch just to add to the collection, worn as a conversation piece in addition to its smartphone peripheral feature.
Aside: I was totally surprised by how similar the watch looks to the original iPhone.
Aside: I was totally surprised by how similar the watch looks to the original iPhone.
You really shouldn't use the character online. It's part of the "private use area", so different vendors are free to interpret it in different ways. On most systems, it looks like "□ watch".
What did he mean it to look like? I see a squat li'l rectangle.
I see some sort of hieroglyphic character that looks like a seagull over a pistol over a sort of upside-down fishhook. I have no idea what languages use this glyph.
It's the apple logo
On systems where the user is going to buy an Watch it looks like an apple symbol.
tofu watch!
It's so nice when you see someone think the same little random thought that you had. I definitely saw the original iPhone in that too.
It is debatable. Actually, it's being heavily debated on WUS right now (I assume that you know WUS = Watchuseek). I also love watches. They're on of my primary obsessions. I can't imagine wearing something like this, but I'll certainly take that PP off of your hands if you don't want it anymore. :)
Your point on the politeness of the Pebble is exactly why I'm wearing one right now. I hadn't worn a watch in years, and when I got a Pebble for a project, I thought I would use it just long enough to write some code for it. But I love being able to fend off and deal quietly with the various intrusions of my digital life. I can fend off a phone call, see a text, or be reminded of an appointment without a fit of beepilepsy. It makes my life more serene even when I'm alone, but what really sells me on it is when I'm around others.
You moved from high-end automatic watches to a smartwatch. In the long term, it's worth considering whether people will move from smartwatches to mechanical ones. If people get used to the features of an iWatch in their 20's, will they ever decide it's worth spending many thousands of dollars on a piece of jewelry that displaces all that functionality? If not, automatics may go the way of film cameras.
Whatever their merits as engineering marvels, expensive watches are Veblen goods that are worn to display wealth. Similar mechanisms can be put into pocket watches, but that's a much smaller market. Expensive watches have the appeal they do because they fall on the same continuum as everyone else's watch. Change the middle of the watch market and the current high end will look as absurd as a Vertu brick phone.
Whatever their merits as engineering marvels, expensive watches are Veblen goods that are worn to display wealth. Similar mechanisms can be put into pocket watches, but that's a much smaller market. Expensive watches have the appeal they do because they fall on the same continuum as everyone else's watch. Change the middle of the watch market and the current high end will look as absurd as a Vertu brick phone.
> If not, automatics may go the way of film cameras.
I think you're missing the fact that the mechanical watch industry is already post-apocalypse (i.e., the Quartz Crisis that started in the 70s).
The current mechanical watch industry does not exist for anything other than emotional reasons and won't see that much of an impact from another $400 electronic watch.
As a collector myself I think it's an interesting development for the industry and I'm sure I'll buy some version of the Apple Watch. I doubt it will replace one of my mechanicals as a daily wear.
I think you're missing the fact that the mechanical watch industry is already post-apocalypse (i.e., the Quartz Crisis that started in the 70s).
The current mechanical watch industry does not exist for anything other than emotional reasons and won't see that much of an impact from another $400 electronic watch.
As a collector myself I think it's an interesting development for the industry and I'm sure I'll buy some version of the Apple Watch. I doubt it will replace one of my mechanicals as a daily wear.
I guess his point is that the high-end mechanical watch market only exists at all because of, as you say, collectors. It's older people with a bit of cash to spend on a luxury item. But those 40 year-old people grew up with cheaper versions of the same thing, and so there was a recognizable appeal in the higher-end watches. If today's 20 year-olds all buy smart watches, will they want to spend four figures on a mechanical watch when they're 40 with a bit of cash?
Expensive watches are pointless vanity goods. I would hope that as a society we are educated enough in 20 years that people will use their excess resources to help others instead of purchasing expensive jewelery with virtually zero utility.
This is a completely naive and subjective approach. Please enlighten me as to how you intend to tell the time in the absence of a compatible power supply and/or power grid. Or when that severely limited lithium ion battery stops taking a charge after a year of use. Even if you had acceptable answers to those questions, it still leaves one to question the need for something which implements a subset of the features my phone has at the same cost.
Mechanical watches are moving art and are rarely purchased out of need. With the advent of perpetual automatics, they approach the ideal of mechanical perfection - a miniature machine which can accurately track time (and many other features) in extreme environments without the need of a power source. As such, they continue to appeal to many different people - with higher end, more complicated designs continuing to come about at higher prices. I'm a software developer and I love my automatics for both their technical merits as well as their aesthetic beauty. To each his own
Mechanical watches are moving art and are rarely purchased out of need. With the advent of perpetual automatics, they approach the ideal of mechanical perfection - a miniature machine which can accurately track time (and many other features) in extreme environments without the need of a power source. As such, they continue to appeal to many different people - with higher end, more complicated designs continuing to come about at higher prices. I'm a software developer and I love my automatics for both their technical merits as well as their aesthetic beauty. To each his own
This is a really toxic view of consumption. What level of consumption is moral to you? Can I buy a pack of chewing gum if I earn $100k? What if buying a $100k watch is a smaller percentage of my income than that pack of chewing gum?
Chewing gum aids in oral hygiene, it has utility. The opportunity cost is hardly anything. The opportunity cost of something that exists purely for aesthetic purposes is 100% of the cost of the good. In this case you're talking $1,000+ for a watch. I am always reminded of the scene in Schindler's list where he looks at the additional things he could have sold or gone without to save lives. On my death bed I don't want to look back with regret and wonder how much more I could have done to help people if I wasn't acting selfishly.
To me the moral level of consumption is as close to the minimum required to survive and make an optimal economic contribution to society. Everyone needs happiness and entertainment in their lives. The struggle is avoiding excess.
To me the moral level of consumption is as close to the minimum required to survive and make an optimal economic contribution to society. Everyone needs happiness and entertainment in their lives. The struggle is avoiding excess.
How does one hope to define "excess" if there's a carveout for "happiness and entertainment"? Beyond our Maslow needs, most of what we spend money on is arguably for "happiness and entertainment", no?
By attempting to make optimal entertainment choices. For example, watching a classic film that is in the public domain on archive.org instead of going to see the latest Disney production in the theater and paying $10 for a ticket. Borrow a book from the library. Have friends over for a game night instead of going out for drinks. There is no best solution. My hope is that people will at least try and make better choices.
I agree that most of what people spend their money on is the pursuit of happiness and entertainment. My view is that the path to true happiness does not lie in material goods or personal experiences. Rather, helping others in their struggles and seeing their lives improve leads to fulfillment.
I agree that most of what people spend their money on is the pursuit of happiness and entertainment. My view is that the path to true happiness does not lie in material goods or personal experiences. Rather, helping others in their struggles and seeing their lives improve leads to fulfillment.
Not to pick on you, but this attitude always frustrates me. Should all artists give up their work because creating it serves no "practical" purpose? There is a middle ground in all things, but who is to say where to draw the line?
I want to live in a world where watchmakers (and other artists) are free to make any awesome and expensive thing that they can imagine. Man does not live by bread alone.
I want to live in a world where watchmakers (and other artists) are free to make any awesome and expensive thing that they can imagine. Man does not live by bread alone.
To paraphrase Admiral Adama:
It's not enough to just live. You have to have something to live for. Let it be mechanical watches.
It's not enough to just live. You have to have something to live for. Let it be mechanical watches.
I actively support artists and view creative contributions to society as extremely valuable. I think that a large portion of the future economy is in digital creative work. By contributing to kickstarter and indiegogo I help enable people to fulfill their creative dreams.
For things that can be digitally distributed at virtually no cost, or can be bulk produced at low cost (books, music, board games, etc.) I am fully supportive. For things that have a high economic opportunity cost, such as extremely complex watches, luxury cars, things of that nature, I have a very low tolerance because the cost is human life. As a species we have not yet reached a point where every human has the necessities of life. Once everyone has access to food, water, shelter, and internet (education), then I am all for exploring the limits of our potential in every regard.
For things that can be digitally distributed at virtually no cost, or can be bulk produced at low cost (books, music, board games, etc.) I am fully supportive. For things that have a high economic opportunity cost, such as extremely complex watches, luxury cars, things of that nature, I have a very low tolerance because the cost is human life. As a species we have not yet reached a point where every human has the necessities of life. Once everyone has access to food, water, shelter, and internet (education), then I am all for exploring the limits of our potential in every regard.
Where do you get the idea that there's no economic opportunity cost without physical items? The whole idea of opportunity cost is intangible -- it's the difference between what you got by doing what you did versus what you could have gotten by doing something else. Distributing a book may be free, but writing a book requires maybe years of effort. Why are you giving that author a free pass for not spending that time building wells and schools in the South Sudan?
That's a very good point about the opportunity cost of time. I will reconsider my position.
I think that someone like you should figure out how to implement "conspicuous charity" - figure out a socially acceptable way for people to compete on displays of wealth and taste based on what charities they give to, and how much they give.
As an aside, I think it's your money, and if you want to spend more than I would spend on a server (which is to say, way more than I'd consider spending on a car) on a fancy watch, well, I'm going to make fun of you a little bit, but ultimately, it's your money, and your judgement. But, if fancy watches are primarily signaling, which I believe to be the case, it seems to me that you could figure out how to get the same signaling value out of proving that you gave a certain amount to certain stylish charities.
As an aside, I think it's your money, and if you want to spend more than I would spend on a server (which is to say, way more than I'd consider spending on a car) on a fancy watch, well, I'm going to make fun of you a little bit, but ultimately, it's your money, and your judgement. But, if fancy watches are primarily signaling, which I believe to be the case, it seems to me that you could figure out how to get the same signaling value out of proving that you gave a certain amount to certain stylish charities.
High end brands could release limited edition colors of their products at a higher price with the additional money going to some efficient charitable organization. Who wouldn't want to have an EFF themed Tesla to show off?
Mechanical watches don't require sacrificing many features vs. quartz. Other than not having to wind or set it as often, the only real advantage of quartz is price.
That's what may change if these new smart watches find their killer app. No one really needed a calculator, heart beat monitor, or other gimmick on his wrist, so digital watches never pulled away on features. That might change now.
Would I rather wear an intricate piece of jewelry or see why my phone vibrated without reaching into my pocket? It starts to be a different calculation.
That's what may change if these new smart watches find their killer app. No one really needed a calculator, heart beat monitor, or other gimmick on his wrist, so digital watches never pulled away on features. That might change now.
Would I rather wear an intricate piece of jewelry or see why my phone vibrated without reaching into my pocket? It starts to be a different calculation.
I'd not go that far - look at the Seiko 5, which I find more attractive than most of the Kinetic models anyhow, and gray market in the US, its much much cheaper, several years ago I bought two identical ones for my 30th birthday, should last me my lifetime.
[deleted]
The Seiko 5 has an amazing ecosystem of customized parts by the way, showing that mechanical watches can be a dream for tinkerers.
Oh how I didn't know about the Seiko 5 at all? Was looking for a sports-appropriate watch recently, would prefer it to the eventually chosen Timex IQ Compass. Though the compass proved to be an useful complication!
See also http://www.seiko5finder.com (not affiliated)
Thanks for the link (41 yr old site creator).
I only recently got interested in mechanical watches. It's fun to have a mechanical marvel on my wrist for those times when I don't want to reach into my pocket to tell the time using an electronic marvel.
I'm not sure if I'd ever get a smart watch. Perhaps. I actually feel kind of attached to my automatic. If I stop wearing it for more than two days it will stop running. That just seems cruel to the little guy.
I only recently got interested in mechanical watches. It's fun to have a mechanical marvel on my wrist for those times when I don't want to reach into my pocket to tell the time using an electronic marvel.
I'm not sure if I'd ever get a smart watch. Perhaps. I actually feel kind of attached to my automatic. If I stop wearing it for more than two days it will stop running. That just seems cruel to the little guy.
[deleted]
I find your analogy particularly fitting, albeit you miss the point, perhaps because you are not into either cameras or watches.
Compact cameras are not doing too good, because you can shoot pictures with your phone. DSLR and mirrorless though, are doing swell, with even better projections.
In the same way, I think low end watches (mechanical+smart) will suffer a big hit, but high end watches ($1k+ will not see any difference at all). It's just different market segments. You don't see Martinelli worried about Ikea opening a factory every eayr. They just sell to different people.
I've tried to make that point to people who claim that Apple has ever shrinking market share in the smartphone market. It might seem so to a person who has no idea about marketing, but in reality, Apple's share in the high end segment of the market is increasing.
Compact cameras are not doing too good, because you can shoot pictures with your phone. DSLR and mirrorless though, are doing swell, with even better projections.
In the same way, I think low end watches (mechanical+smart) will suffer a big hit, but high end watches ($1k+ will not see any difference at all). It's just different market segments. You don't see Martinelli worried about Ikea opening a factory every eayr. They just sell to different people.
I've tried to make that point to people who claim that Apple has ever shrinking market share in the smartphone market. It might seem so to a person who has no idea about marketing, but in reality, Apple's share in the high end segment of the market is increasing.
On the other hand, Leica and Hasselblad switched to digital along with everyone else. There's still a high end but it has to compete on technology, not just exclusivity.
Watch purists may go the way of vinyl purists, slowly dying out as the competing technology offers more and more convenience.
Watch purists may go the way of vinyl purists, slowly dying out as the competing technology offers more and more convenience.
there is always Android wear SDK, free and waiting for Swiss watchmakers, when they decide to integrate alarms and notifications from your android handset
The difference between cameras and watches is you can carry a smartphone and a DSLR. Unless you're going to start wearing two watches, you'll be giving up all the utility of a smartwatch for your wealth-indicator, which yes many people will be happy to do now, but that market can only shrink as the high-end smartwatch market grows.
I know several people that own $10K+ watches, and a larger group who own $1K+ watches None of them own only one super expensive watch... and a lot of them carry like three or four in a bag for different situations.
Although you have almost all of that functionality on your smartphone already.
Additionally, he says he's worried because the watch is not "the absolute best one you can buy".
Well, I don't think people buying 30,000 euros watches are such a big market that Apple should worry about missing them.
That includes former French President Sarkozy (he wears the same Patek Philippe watch), not really the "man with an okay job who lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town".
Well, I don't think people buying 30,000 euros watches are such a big market that Apple should worry about missing them.
That includes former French President Sarkozy (he wears the same Patek Philippe watch), not really the "man with an okay job who lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town".
Really high end watches are a signalling device, not a practical device. It tries to convey the size of the bankroll of the wearer to others rather than that there is any additional performance somehow related to the price.
A $50 watch keeps time just about as good as a $10K watch.
And you might even get to keep the former when you're being held up on the way to your Ferrari.
A $50 watch keeps time just about as good as a $10K watch.
And you might even get to keep the former when you're being held up on the way to your Ferrari.
Sometimes the 50 dollar watch performs better than the 10k one - Rolexes keep lousy time. I personally am quite the fan of the Seiko 5, it works, keeps time (when I remember to set it after not wearing it for four days), and at the least it will act as a decent chronometer even if I've not set it, I can tell how much time has elapsed by looking at it twice.
I don't know if I have a use case for the apple watch, I might buy one to try out, see if it works, but I will say -if nothing else, its uniformly a pretty object d'art.
I don't know if I have a use case for the apple watch, I might buy one to try out, see if it works, but I will say -if nothing else, its uniformly a pretty object d'art.
It's a digital accessory priced-to-own.
Auto playing link, don't click if your audio is loud:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101619289
Fairly incredible, expensive watches for rent.
Auto playing link, don't click if your audio is loud:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101619289
Fairly incredible, expensive watches for rent.
>priced-to-own
What does this phrase mean? Search engines are giving me nothing.
What does this phrase mean? Search engines are giving me nothing.
Affordable for the common man.
People complaining about the application of a watch for telling time and the accuracy are so disingenuous.
Go an tell that to someone wearing a diamond ring. That doesn't tell the time either.
Go an tell that to someone wearing a diamond ring. That doesn't tell the time either.
You are underestimating the utility value of a diamond ring. According to many action movies they serve as excellent glasscutters.
A Patek Phillipe 3940g costs around 40k-50k. With several more zeros that is what, 4 million? You gave up a 4 million dollar watch for a Pebble Steel? I mean, the point of a 4million dollar watch isn't even to tell time. It is to say "I can wear your life savings on my wrist"
I kind of agree. The article is kind of right in that it seems to be saying that they're not the same thing and that's right - the only real similarity is that they occupy the space on your wrist but that doesn't mean that it can't appeal to someone who likes high end mechanical watches (I have an IWC which I love but I'm still interested in the Apple watch).
After all, I have expensive leather shoes and trainers. Other than the fact they both go on my feet there is little similarity but I can and do own, use and like both.
After all, I have expensive leather shoes and trainers. Other than the fact they both go on my feet there is little similarity but I can and do own, use and like both.
My Breitling Navitimer only cost $10k and my Pebble, which is about 6 months old now, has been on my wrist for all of 8 hours. I've never worn it again after that one day because it does nothing I find useful. And in comparison to the Breitling the Pebble feels cheap. The only reason I have to not wear the Breitling is when I go more than a meter underwater. And for that I have a Suunto D6i.
+1 re: phone nerds. I had an HTC Apache (AKA Verizon XV6700) at the time, and I wouldn't give up on the idea of a physical keyboard. I was running my customized ppc kitchen BuildOS image (Win Mobile 6.1 stripped down iirc) before upgrading to the original Droid because of the much-higher-res screen. I ran Bugless Beast on the Droid and painstakingly updated it usually within 24 hours of a new release. Before the Apache, I had a Nokia 6600 with Symbian S60, and even as a kid I wrote VB5 for my 3Com Palm Pilot Professional.
I'm typing this on an iPhone 5, and I'll be pre-ordering the 6+ as soon as I can. This is my second iPhone; I started with a 4S. Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time, and I currently only jailbreak iOS to get bluetooth / wifi tethering and because my physical mute switch is broken after a swim in the sink which I've worked around using Activator to toggle silent with a long-press on the status bar.
I'm typing this on an iPhone 5, and I'll be pre-ordering the 6+ as soon as I can. This is my second iPhone; I started with a 4S. Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time, and I currently only jailbreak iOS to get bluetooth / wifi tethering and because my physical mute switch is broken after a swim in the sink which I've worked around using Activator to toggle silent with a long-press on the status bar.
Why didn't you just buy a Nexus? (i used to battle Android updates to, but it's not Google's fault... The Nexus proves that) (1st smartphone was a iPhone 3GS, the rest were all Androids)
>Why didn't you just buy a Nexus?
I'm trying really hard not to start a flamewar, but as someone who has exclusively used (and still uses) Android since the first Moto Droid, Google cannot be trusted, even with the Nexus brand. Take the Galaxy Nexus as evidence, where a similarly aged iPhone was still receiving the latest iOS updates. Or take NFC: Android users have been quick to mock Apple for using NFC, but every time I asked a clerk at the one store nearby that supported paying via a phone and NFC the clerk had never seen it used. Google doesn't tend to "finish the job" for lack of better words.
With respect to the grandparent and the "Fighting", I have to agree with the grandparent. There is NOTHING NEW in the iPhone 6 and yet I'm thinking about getting it and making it my first iOS device because I'm sick of fighting everything from updates to not having the latest apps (which are iOS first usually https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4332000#up_4332278). The same thing happened with me and Linux as a desktop OS after years of use: http://xkcd.com/619/
I'm trying really hard not to start a flamewar, but as someone who has exclusively used (and still uses) Android since the first Moto Droid, Google cannot be trusted, even with the Nexus brand. Take the Galaxy Nexus as evidence, where a similarly aged iPhone was still receiving the latest iOS updates. Or take NFC: Android users have been quick to mock Apple for using NFC, but every time I asked a clerk at the one store nearby that supported paying via a phone and NFC the clerk had never seen it used. Google doesn't tend to "finish the job" for lack of better words.
With respect to the grandparent and the "Fighting", I have to agree with the grandparent. There is NOTHING NEW in the iPhone 6 and yet I'm thinking about getting it and making it my first iOS device because I'm sick of fighting everything from updates to not having the latest apps (which are iOS first usually https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4332000#up_4332278). The same thing happened with me and Linux as a desktop OS after years of use: http://xkcd.com/619/
To be honest, my Nexus 5 is the first device that is good (to me) right out of the box.
I've installed Cyanogenmod on every Android device before and Cydia on my first iOS device (my first smartphone was an iPhone 3GS).
The clerk you are talking about, will still not know what NFC is for payments in a year from now. It doesn't change anything that Apple now joined the same game with Apple Pay... It's more infrastructure related and demand related.
Just like the Apple Watch, there is no actual demand for NFC Payments from regular users.
There was demand for the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Also Maps applications are used a lot (Navigation).
We don't use watches anymore (check your smartphone), we still pay with our wallet and with cash.
I've installed Cyanogenmod on every Android device before and Cydia on my first iOS device (my first smartphone was an iPhone 3GS).
The clerk you are talking about, will still not know what NFC is for payments in a year from now. It doesn't change anything that Apple now joined the same game with Apple Pay... It's more infrastructure related and demand related.
Just like the Apple Watch, there is no actual demand for NFC Payments from regular users.
There was demand for the iPod, iPhone and iPad. Also Maps applications are used a lot (Navigation).
We don't use watches anymore (check your smartphone), we still pay with our wallet and with cash.
"We don't use watches anymore (check your smartphone), we still pay with our wallet and with cash."
When I was living in the UK about 70% of my purchases were done with a chip and pin card, even a couple of beers at a pub.
This because in the end it was quicker and easier than using cash.
If NFC makes paying quicker and easier than using cash or cards, the demand will be there: by the end of the month there will be millions of iPhone6 customers waiting to test these new features.
If I were a shop/chain owner, I would be scrambling to try to please them, before the competition does.
When I was living in the UK about 70% of my purchases were done with a chip and pin card, even a couple of beers at a pub.
This because in the end it was quicker and easier than using cash.
If NFC makes paying quicker and easier than using cash or cards, the demand will be there: by the end of the month there will be millions of iPhone6 customers waiting to test these new features.
If I were a shop/chain owner, I would be scrambling to try to please them, before the competition does.
Here in Canada, we have "contactless" payments on the major credit and debit cards. When it's time to pay, you just tap your card on the reader and it's done().
NFC payments using a phone would add a few more steps, so I think that the wallet and card is going to win out for me. It would be very hard to get it much simpler than it is right now.
() There are limits. My MasterCard, for example, will let me make contactless payments up to a total of $50. At that point it will require me to make a Chip&Pin transaction in order to reset the $50. When this happens the reader will just say "Insert Chip" or something.
NFC payments using a phone would add a few more steps, so I think that the wallet and card is going to win out for me. It would be very hard to get it much simpler than it is right now.
() There are limits. My MasterCard, for example, will let me make contactless payments up to a total of $50. At that point it will require me to make a Chip&Pin transaction in order to reset the $50. When this happens the reader will just say "Insert Chip" or something.
Contactless is supported in the UK as well (usually up to a £20 minimum), but isn't nearly as widely supported as chip +pin, and I certainly don't know anyone who uses it regularly.
Once more supermarkets roll it out (I'm looking at you, Sainsburys), it'll start to get proper traction and kick on to being regular thing.
Also, it's often difficult to see whether a retailer has contactless even when you're standing Right There and then you do the normal chip+pin out of shame because you feel like a right fool with your card out.
Also, it's often difficult to see whether a retailer has contactless even when you're standing Right There and then you do the normal chip+pin out of shame because you feel like a right fool with your card out.
I'm going out with some friends, everyone brings in 10 € into the shared "wallet".. (1 guy has an old Nokia, the rest is shared between Android, iPhone and Windows Phone). One guy has no wallet and only has Apple pay .
Next time he goes out with them, he will have his wallet. To give back the money he borrowed from his friends.
When the above situation can be handled.. There is an option for a walletless life. Where i live (Belgium), this won't happen within the next 2 years
Next time he goes out with them, he will have his wallet. To give back the money he borrowed from his friends.
When the above situation can be handled.. There is an option for a walletless life. Where i live (Belgium), this won't happen within the next 2 years
>he will have his wallet.
The vast majority of men in the US will have their wallets with them regardless. The iPhone 6 will not, and is not designed to replace driver's license, etc.
The vast majority of men in the US will have their wallets with them regardless. The iPhone 6 will not, and is not designed to replace driver's license, etc.
I think that should be the whole point, seeming that without use of the wallet, there is no use for cash anymore.
For the ones that think a wallet isn't required anymore because of Apple Pay. How are you going to transfer money to your friend (with any other device or without a smartphone), with a transfer rate of 0% without cash?
If that problem is solved, there can be a future for a walletless life.
If that problem is solved, there can be a future for a walletless life.
It costs you guys money to make bank transfers? Wow. For the record, I can send and receive money (for free) from my phone only needing the other person's phone number at this point. (Australian. Also, I've never used the pay-to-phone stuff because I just prefer to use their account number. I can do that for free from my phone too.)
It strikes me that our NFC infrastructure is way better than yours too. Somewhat a reverse of most patterns in tech-infrastructure. It's just a pity Google won't support the Nexus' NFC capabilities in Australia - I bet Apple will.
It strikes me that our NFC infrastructure is way better than yours too. Somewhat a reverse of most patterns in tech-infrastructure. It's just a pity Google won't support the Nexus' NFC capabilities in Australia - I bet Apple will.
The banking system in the US is terrible and stuck in the stone age.
Venmo.
In fact, in young circles (in the US), this seems to have become the defacto way of transferring money socially between individuals. I don't think I have paid someone I know with physical cash in years.
In fact, in young circles (in the US), this seems to have become the defacto way of transferring money socially between individuals. I don't think I have paid someone I know with physical cash in years.
Any number of services support ths - I believe Wallet, Venmo, Paypal and Square all offer some form of fee-less peer-to-peer transfer, because it has such a high value for organic growth as people send money to friends.
And/or because it's a nice chunk of data to add to the social graph.
Squarecash, free and works over email so anything that can do email can do it.
Supposedly the lack of updates for the Galaxy Nexus was down to the TI CPU they used. TI stopped working on mobile SoCs shortly after the Galaxy Nexus was released, so they no longer supported it and wouldn't provide any updated firmware needed for newer Android versions. The Verizon version was worse still for updates, but that's little surprise.
Either way, you're comparing 2 year old phones. I also got tired of fighting with Android and installing custom builds, but it's not really necessary these days. Stock builds are much more polished, and many of the more advanced features from OEM and custom builds have been integrated into stock Android. I recently got a HTC One and have found little need to root or install any custom ROMs on it - it does everything I need and doesn't seem worth the hassle any more.
I do agree with what you say about Google not "finishing the job". Many apps and services have been released with a lot of promise, but then been left relatively unchanged from early versions. If Apple Pay succeeds where Google Wallet has failed to gain traction, it will almost certainly be down to Apple making more of an effort to get merchants and services to support it. Perhaps they simly have more influence, but Google isn't exactly a small company, yet they often seem to fail in these areas. In particular, they make little effort to support things (Google Wallet NFC payments is one example) outside of the US. They're an international company, they have offices in many other countries, and yet many of their services remain US only, or take at least a year to be offered elsewhere.
Either way, you're comparing 2 year old phones. I also got tired of fighting with Android and installing custom builds, but it's not really necessary these days. Stock builds are much more polished, and many of the more advanced features from OEM and custom builds have been integrated into stock Android. I recently got a HTC One and have found little need to root or install any custom ROMs on it - it does everything I need and doesn't seem worth the hassle any more.
I do agree with what you say about Google not "finishing the job". Many apps and services have been released with a lot of promise, but then been left relatively unchanged from early versions. If Apple Pay succeeds where Google Wallet has failed to gain traction, it will almost certainly be down to Apple making more of an effort to get merchants and services to support it. Perhaps they simly have more influence, but Google isn't exactly a small company, yet they often seem to fail in these areas. In particular, they make little effort to support things (Google Wallet NFC payments is one example) outside of the US. They're an international company, they have offices in many other countries, and yet many of their services remain US only, or take at least a year to be offered elsewhere.
It's relatively easy to update a gnex on your own, though[1]. I've spend maybe two hours keeping it up to date over the last ~3 years. Yeah, it would be awesome if that wasn't necessary, but in balance the benefits I get outweigh that inconvenience.
Having control over your own phone is a genuinely useful thing, not some abstract ideal. I've been using a wireless tether with a Verizon unlimited data plan for the last 5 years, something I simply couldn't have done with an iPhone. (And it's amazing how many hassles that removes -- I can get internet in the park, or in any shop no matter how shitty the wifi.)
1. I use this ROM: rootzwiki.com/topic/36706-romaosp62114-shiny-rom-ota-like-stock-android-444-ktu84p/#entry1031982
Having control over your own phone is a genuinely useful thing, not some abstract ideal. I've been using a wireless tether with a Verizon unlimited data plan for the last 5 years, something I simply couldn't have done with an iPhone. (And it's amazing how many hassles that removes -- I can get internet in the park, or in any shop no matter how shitty the wifi.)
1. I use this ROM: rootzwiki.com/topic/36706-romaosp62114-shiny-rom-ota-like-stock-android-444-ktu84p/#entry1031982
I was an Android early adopter T-Mobile G1/G2, then a Windows Phone, then iPhone. It's true though, it is easy to update your own ROM, I have an HP Touchpad I run android on.
I have all the control over my phone I desire to have, it does everything I could never need it to, I don't have to worry about my own ROM, or if updates to the system come, I press the update button when the phone tells me to do so, in short, I have the phone-appliance, a construct I am supremely happy with.
Apple products only have three errors (in order of likelihood):
1) You did it wrong. 2) It doesn't do that. 3) and rarely, It's an honest to god bug.
95% of the problems I've ever had with my phone are fixed by turning it off, and turning it on again - this ease of use led me to buy a Mac, another choice I'm quite happy with, it all more or less just works - and with the Mac I have enough freedom to replace the built in apps that don't work with ones that do - Chrome/Thunderbird/Adium instead of Safari, Mail.app and iMessage.
I have all the control over my phone I desire to have, it does everything I could never need it to, I don't have to worry about my own ROM, or if updates to the system come, I press the update button when the phone tells me to do so, in short, I have the phone-appliance, a construct I am supremely happy with.
Apple products only have three errors (in order of likelihood):
1) You did it wrong. 2) It doesn't do that. 3) and rarely, It's an honest to god bug.
95% of the problems I've ever had with my phone are fixed by turning it off, and turning it on again - this ease of use led me to buy a Mac, another choice I'm quite happy with, it all more or less just works - and with the Mac I have enough freedom to replace the built in apps that don't work with ones that do - Chrome/Thunderbird/Adium instead of Safari, Mail.app and iMessage.
The Galaxy Nexus had a chipset that had been orphaned by TI (due to their total withdrawal from the industry), so Google kind of got the short end of the stick with that one.
That's an often bandied about excuse, but actually completely wrong - TI has continued to support existing customers and not only did Google go on to use an OMAP4 in Google Glass, but the Moto360 actually uses an OMAP3.
Google simply stopped supporting the Galaxy Nexus because they didn't feel like it.
Google simply stopped supporting the Galaxy Nexus because they didn't feel like it.
That's short-term balance-sheet thinking. Which isn't a terrible way to make business decisions, but it definitely isn't the kind of thing that builds long-term consumer trust. There's a reason that Apple has tight supplier relationships and even makes a lot of their own chips: having committed to long-term value delivery, they work backward to make sure they can do that efficiently.
The new types of Linux desktops put me off (abandonment of typical desktop window management paradigms, removal of options), and I therefore stick with a Fedora 12 (!) VM running GNOME2 to write any Linux code on.
I too have the same problem with NFC, apart from here in the UK no Android payment systems are ready on the phone itself (you can only install it on some devices).
I too have the same problem with NFC, apart from here in the UK no Android payment systems are ready on the phone itself (you can only install it on some devices).
Modern linux desktops are in a worse state than they were in ~2006.
And yes google are terrible at sending clear messages.
Just look at yesterdays confusing discussion RE hangouts/gchat/gtalk/google voice.
No idea what is going on there.
And yes google are terrible at sending clear messages.
Just look at yesterdays confusing discussion RE hangouts/gchat/gtalk/google voice.
No idea what is going on there.
Which message was that? I am still using GTalk on my phone (Android 4.1, no updates in site, such a relic of a phone to be two years old right? Xperia S - 32GB of storage and a decent camera, so why no updates? It's STUPID)
I notice that people attempting to communicate via Hangouts (on their phone?) doesn't notify me in Talk. If I attempt to call someone who has Talk on their phone from my web browser (therefore using Hangouts), they never get any notification. I can therefore never get in touch with my brother, unless I call him using Talk from my phone. If someone attempts to talk to me via Hangouts, the message is shown in my inbox in the web interface, but NOT on my phone in GMail, nor in Talk on my phone. I therefore never find out about a message until I use the web interface, which I don't really do because I have GMail on my phone......
It's a bit broken.
I notice that people attempting to communicate via Hangouts (on their phone?) doesn't notify me in Talk. If I attempt to call someone who has Talk on their phone from my web browser (therefore using Hangouts), they never get any notification. I can therefore never get in touch with my brother, unless I call him using Talk from my phone. If someone attempts to talk to me via Hangouts, the message is shown in my inbox in the web interface, but NOT on my phone in GMail, nor in Talk on my phone. I therefore never find out about a message until I use the web interface, which I don't really do because I have GMail on my phone......
It's a bit broken.
I also dislike the newer Linux desktop environments like Unity and Gnome 3, but XFCE, Cinnamon, and Mate are all an improvement over Gnome 2.
Agreed about NFC, it's frustrating that I've had NFC on my phone for 2 years now, but still not been able to use it for payments. EE does have an NFC payment service now, but for some reason they only let you use it on a few specific phones, not including my HTC. I'm not sure if this is down to differences in the hardware or just favouritism. I'm hoping that Apple Pay will at least push more places and services to support NFC payments in general.
Agreed about NFC, it's frustrating that I've had NFC on my phone for 2 years now, but still not been able to use it for payments. EE does have an NFC payment service now, but for some reason they only let you use it on a few specific phones, not including my HTC. I'm not sure if this is down to differences in the hardware or just favouritism. I'm hoping that Apple Pay will at least push more places and services to support NFC payments in general.
Just use Linux Mint w/Cinnamon. It feels like Windows 7 done right, and works almost great on Asus ultrabooks (they've broken something about battery life in Qiana).
Linux Mate is gnome2. I, like you, stuck with an older fedora for a long time, and I'm typing this here now on a F20-Mate install.
Is F20 alright? Are things mostly working on it? I only ask because I have memories of my upgrades from FC1 to FC2 to FC4, to FC7 to FC10 to FC12 and things ALWAYS broke between them.
Here's an example: recently I wanted to get a route around a traffic jam. So, I tried to tell Google Now (on my Nexus 4) to "navigate to work". All of a sudden they took this feature away -- the only thing that comes up is a Google search trying to answer why this doesn't work. And nothing conclusive -- some people are having issues, others not. Android / Nexus was pretty good, but they keep on fixing it further till it's getting more and more broken.
Yes! They "fix" things that don't need fixing. Like their old Android Maps application - how does typing "OK Maps" logically mean you want to save offline maps? Why remove a menu item?
I keep the old one on my phone and resist installing the new one. Also, Google Local has gone?
That's the problem with cloud services I suppose, but at least if they had the decency to keep cloud services going whilst there were obvious users of them (without breaking things), that'd be appreciated. I mean, how long has MobileMe been going for OSX?
I keep the old one on my phone and resist installing the new one. Also, Google Local has gone?
That's the problem with cloud services I suppose, but at least if they had the decency to keep cloud services going whilst there were obvious users of them (without breaking things), that'd be appreciated. I mean, how long has MobileMe been going for OSX?
Really irritates me that I've put my home address (or an address very close to my home) in Google Maps, explicitly marked as home, but I can't type "home" as a destination. I have to start typing the address, then Google says "oh, you mean your home? Yeah I can do that".
And in maps you can't just type "Location to Location" anymore, either.
My Nexus 5 is OK for $350, but after two years of trying the competition I'm going back to iOS next month. I like Apple's approach of getting the UX right and worrying about the other stuff (extensibility, standards compliance, filesystem, etc) after. Whatever incredibly nonstandard thing Safari does with text reflow is better than what Chrome (in 4.4) does, even if its more compliant. Having documents being able to open up in different apps is a huge pain in the ass. I download a PDF and for some reason it always asks whether I want to open it in Adobe or HP ePrint. But other times I'm stuck always opening documents in some app I don't want. Should I open this in YouTube or Chrome? Maps or Chrome? Just do the right thing and don't ask me! I still don't understand how the filesystem works. Older apps seem to have a different download folder or something than newer apps?
I'm not dumb. I used to write highly multithreaded network code for a living. I took Diff Eq in college! But Android makes me feel dumb, so I'm selling the N5.
I'm not dumb. I used to write highly multithreaded network code for a living. I took Diff Eq in college! But Android makes me feel dumb, so I'm selling the N5.
I like being asked what to open it in. It means you can stop certain application pinching file associations, as typically happens in Windows (and iTunes is notorious for doing it on OSX).
But I can understand why it would be annoying.
But I can understand why it would be annoying.
When I used a Nexus 4 (stock), I could never figure out the opening in different apps. It would ask me if I wanted to open a reddit link in Chrome or Firefox or the reddit app. I would select Chrome and hit the "always do this" button, and the very next time it would ask again. The next time, it wouldn't ask. Then it would ask five times in a row.
It's almost as bad as "do you want to view this site in the tapatalk app?".
It's almost as bad as "do you want to view this site in the tapatalk app?".
I think it's due to an app that can potentially use those links being installed and/or updated. It cancels the previous "always do this" otherwise you wouldn't be able to switch.
Yes, this.
You just gave a far better explanation than I did in favor of the appliance-phone device.
You just gave a far better explanation than I did in favor of the appliance-phone device.
I think only the Nexus 5 started to catch up with the 4/5S in terms of speed and build quality. And it's only with CM11 on the N5 that it begins to reach the "smoothness" of Apple's UI (and yes, I know there are some tricks used).
I love the way my Nexus 5 runs. I use it just as much as my iPhone 5 and although it doesn't have the same UX niceties, it's still plenty smooth and fast.
What really frustrates me is the camera. Some photos are great, others look like the image has been made deliberately bad. I don't think the Nexus phones will deliver a great camera experience any time soon, and there's only so much compensation that G+ can make to a dull, blurry photo.
What really frustrates me is the camera. Some photos are great, others look like the image has been made deliberately bad. I don't think the Nexus phones will deliver a great camera experience any time soon, and there's only so much compensation that G+ can make to a dull, blurry photo.
Do you have HDR+ on? It makes all the difference.
Who gives a shit. They're both converging on the same form-factors and features. It's good we have at least two successful smartphone platforms. If there were only one there would be less innovation and more price gouging.
> converging on the same features
> if there was only one there would be less innovation
Does not compute.
> if there was only one there would be less innovation
Does not compute.
Competition spurs innovation. Samsung copies from Apple whatever is successful there, Apple copies from Samsung/Google whatever is successful there. Would Apple have created a phablet if Samsung hadn't innovated and proved the market? Probably not. Samsung doesn't have the fingerprint reader, but it's probably coming. And then they'll have to think of something new to differentiate themselves.
“Samsung copies from Apple whatever is successful there, Apple copies from Samsung/Google whatever is successful there.”
That doesn’t really sound like innovation.
EDIT: Never mind, I didn’t pick up on the actual gist of your comment, that being the copying done by each company forces the other to come up with new, possibly innovative ideas to one up the competition.
That doesn’t really sound like innovation.
EDIT: Never mind, I didn’t pick up on the actual gist of your comment, that being the copying done by each company forces the other to come up with new, possibly innovative ideas to one up the competition.
Samsung didn't innovate the phablet, many people had released 5" devices before them. They have, however, sold many more than anyone previously ("proved the market").
>> Samsung doesn't have the fingerprint reader
FWIW, I think the latest Samsung devices (or at least the S5) have fingerprint readers.
Wait when did VB5 run on a palm pilot?
I used to write apps for palm pilot and it was a hell of resource constrained C.
I used to write apps for palm pilot and it was a hell of resource constrained C.
Perhaps a decade ago, I was roped into maintaining Palm apps written in VB and deployed with AppForge (http://www.techrepublic.com/article/appforge-palm-developmen...).
In a sense, tools like these were the precursors of today's mobile cross-compilers and cross-platform development environments (e.g. Unity).
In a sense, tools like these were the precursors of today's mobile cross-compilers and cross-platform development environments (e.g. Unity).
Okay. Wow. That actually is pretty cool for the time.
It came after I had stopped playing around with palm dev (1999).
> Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time
This rings true to me. I was long a diehard Android/Linux guy - even an explicitly anti-Apple person. 5 years of professional development later and I'm typing on my 15" MacBook Retina Pro which I have not had to restart in something like 42 days, thinking about which iPhone I'm going to dump my Galaxy SIII for in a few weeks' time.
I still run a GNU Linux on any desktop I have, and I actually don't see that changing anytime soon (my Linux complaints are generally with built-in peripherals on laptops which is hardly Linux's fault but still makes for a bad experience), but Apple has really won me over. I've got an iMac in my bedroom, an iPod I climb/bike/run/ski with. I can't see becoming a watch-wearer with the Apple Watch (I haven't worn a watch ever really) but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
I'm curious to see if Apple can do what Google couldn't, and make wearables a significant presence in the market, thus forcing other companies to react. If we leave other companies to break trail, as it were, I think the acceptance of wearables is still a little further off.
This rings true to me. I was long a diehard Android/Linux guy - even an explicitly anti-Apple person. 5 years of professional development later and I'm typing on my 15" MacBook Retina Pro which I have not had to restart in something like 42 days, thinking about which iPhone I'm going to dump my Galaxy SIII for in a few weeks' time.
I still run a GNU Linux on any desktop I have, and I actually don't see that changing anytime soon (my Linux complaints are generally with built-in peripherals on laptops which is hardly Linux's fault but still makes for a bad experience), but Apple has really won me over. I've got an iMac in my bedroom, an iPod I climb/bike/run/ski with. I can't see becoming a watch-wearer with the Apple Watch (I haven't worn a watch ever really) but it's not outside the realm of possibility.
I'm curious to see if Apple can do what Google couldn't, and make wearables a significant presence in the market, thus forcing other companies to react. If we leave other companies to break trail, as it were, I think the acceptance of wearables is still a little further off.
> make wearables a significant presence in the market
I think the next phase on wearable computing will include around-the-neck wireless devices. These are an example: http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&fiel...
I've seen a lot of folks recently wearing around-the-neck Bluetooth headphones. I was really skeptical of them and considered them a fad, but then received one as a present. I have subsequently been blown away by the value and convenience, and now believe that around-the-neck will be an important part of the future in wearable computing. I think the innovation was a combination of being small, light, well designed, effective wireless, long enough battery life, and an unobtrusive place to rest on the body.
Advantages:
- The absence of wires between my pocket and my head is a HUGE benefit. I now wear the wireless headphones by default, which are super convenient while doing routine activities like chores around the house, or changing clothes, or while traveling between house and car, etc. Wires get in the way and are inconvenient enough to stop me from using headphones (e.g., while buckling a seat-belt, or moving laundry around). Neck headphones are convenient enough to wear by default, and don't get in the way.
- The device overall is so convenient that I barely notice I'm wearing them. I frequently fall asleep while wearing them after listening to a book or podcast. They are small and light enough to evaporate from your senses.
- They're small enough to fit inside most shirts if needed
- Being continuously present around my neck removes the pain of unbundling wires from one's pocket. Those wires are always tangled. The neck device's wires are short and can't get tangled. The device magnetically contains its earbugs when not in use, so no dangling wires.
- Battery life is good enough that I can use them the whole next day even after leaving them on overnight (assuming audio isn't playing all night)
- While tethered to a primary device (smartphone or tablet), I can roam almost anywhere within my house within audio reception
I'm listening to audio substantially more now as a result of the device. While I think glasses would be far too intrusive, I've started wearing wireless headphones all day long by default now. I see many people doing it too. I could see these devices either replacing glasses or complementing them (move the processing units out of the glasses frame, and down around the neck, perhaps with an easily detached wire - a wire to the neck is probably doable).
What's not easy is finding new audio content dynamically while wearing them. I'm a big audiobook and podcast fan, so I listen to Audible and NPR and the like. But I have to prepare all my content ahead of time on another computing device to which the headphones are tethered. If the headphones were interactive, and commands were available by voice, to find and listen to books, podcasts, or the news, then I think they could form quite the electronic companion.
A full phone could probably be designed with that form factor (but no screen). Or imagine if I could control appliances within my house. TV, turn on. Search for "<the latest movie>". The headphones relay the command to my device, which instructs the house. There's a lot of potential there.
I think the next phase on wearable computing will include around-the-neck wireless devices. These are an example: http://www.amazon.com/s/?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&fiel...
I've seen a lot of folks recently wearing around-the-neck Bluetooth headphones. I was really skeptical of them and considered them a fad, but then received one as a present. I have subsequently been blown away by the value and convenience, and now believe that around-the-neck will be an important part of the future in wearable computing. I think the innovation was a combination of being small, light, well designed, effective wireless, long enough battery life, and an unobtrusive place to rest on the body.
Advantages:
- The absence of wires between my pocket and my head is a HUGE benefit. I now wear the wireless headphones by default, which are super convenient while doing routine activities like chores around the house, or changing clothes, or while traveling between house and car, etc. Wires get in the way and are inconvenient enough to stop me from using headphones (e.g., while buckling a seat-belt, or moving laundry around). Neck headphones are convenient enough to wear by default, and don't get in the way.
- The device overall is so convenient that I barely notice I'm wearing them. I frequently fall asleep while wearing them after listening to a book or podcast. They are small and light enough to evaporate from your senses.
- They're small enough to fit inside most shirts if needed
- Being continuously present around my neck removes the pain of unbundling wires from one's pocket. Those wires are always tangled. The neck device's wires are short and can't get tangled. The device magnetically contains its earbugs when not in use, so no dangling wires.
- Battery life is good enough that I can use them the whole next day even after leaving them on overnight (assuming audio isn't playing all night)
- While tethered to a primary device (smartphone or tablet), I can roam almost anywhere within my house within audio reception
I'm listening to audio substantially more now as a result of the device. While I think glasses would be far too intrusive, I've started wearing wireless headphones all day long by default now. I see many people doing it too. I could see these devices either replacing glasses or complementing them (move the processing units out of the glasses frame, and down around the neck, perhaps with an easily detached wire - a wire to the neck is probably doable).
What's not easy is finding new audio content dynamically while wearing them. I'm a big audiobook and podcast fan, so I listen to Audible and NPR and the like. But I have to prepare all my content ahead of time on another computing device to which the headphones are tethered. If the headphones were interactive, and commands were available by voice, to find and listen to books, podcasts, or the news, then I think they could form quite the electronic companion.
A full phone could probably be designed with that form factor (but no screen). Or imagine if I could control appliances within my house. TV, turn on. Search for "<the latest movie>". The headphones relay the command to my device, which instructs the house. There's a lot of potential there.
Around-the-neck could be great as part of Google Glass-like headwear devices, hosting a heavy-duty battery, processing unit, everything but the display really. As you said, a necklace is unobtrusive, as long as it is kept sufficiently flat. I see it going under the clothes as a strictly auxilliary part of the headwear.
Out of interest, which headphones did you go with? I've been looking at wireless headphones but I've always been put off by not knowing their battery life. Aside from the manufacturer's ratings, which have a variable degree of accuracy :p
Has the switch to Apple devices happened because you have had increased purchasing power as a developer? Before these 5 years, you likely had disdain for Apple devices as being "overpriced" compared to PC equivalents, and thought "I could use Linux for that!" and would spend plenty of time hacking around to get things working.
Are you now an "Apple guy" because you have money to spend and no longer consider Apple devices overpriced for their value, and you now value your time more?
Just curious (this is what happened to me you see; I want to spend time getting things done, not faffing around).
Are you now an "Apple guy" because you have money to spend and no longer consider Apple devices overpriced for their value, and you now value your time more?
Just curious (this is what happened to me you see; I want to spend time getting things done, not faffing around).
Not the parent, but as someone with a similar history (Symbian / WinMo Hacker), I used to ridicule Apple at every chance I got. I used to be a hardcore PC Gamer (builder as well, and have built atleast 20 rigs for others).
When I was presented with the original iPhone, I was pissed but overtime as I came to see the merits of it, and by extension Apple hardware. At work I use an iMac, but my personal laptop still is a Lenovo (with Ubuntu 14.04). But I'll be pre-ordering the next MBP as soon as it is announced.
I don't have the patience that I earlier had to debug seemingly simple but drawn out errors/bugs. Apple nails the entire experience (s/w & h/w), and for a developer for whom Time = Money, this is the best possible investment one can make. I also wouldn't have considered Apple hardware had I not been working (and earning) substantially.
But I'm still not an Apple guy and for one-off setup stuff I stick with non Apple hardware (routers, etc). But I wouldn't call them overpriced, they work out of the box with as minimal config required as possible.
When I was presented with the original iPhone, I was pissed but overtime as I came to see the merits of it, and by extension Apple hardware. At work I use an iMac, but my personal laptop still is a Lenovo (with Ubuntu 14.04). But I'll be pre-ordering the next MBP as soon as it is announced.
I don't have the patience that I earlier had to debug seemingly simple but drawn out errors/bugs. Apple nails the entire experience (s/w & h/w), and for a developer for whom Time = Money, this is the best possible investment one can make. I also wouldn't have considered Apple hardware had I not been working (and earning) substantially.
But I'm still not an Apple guy and for one-off setup stuff I stick with non Apple hardware (routers, etc). But I wouldn't call them overpriced, they work out of the box with as minimal config required as possible.
That has been definitely my case as well.
I never "disdained" Apple devices, but they were not in my acceptable price range until I started having a regular salary.
But I don´t really think they are so much better than Windows or Linux systems in terms of "getting things done".
I just value their design and the tight hardware-software integration, and I find the premium price to be acceptable, now.
I never "disdained" Apple devices, but they were not in my acceptable price range until I started having a regular salary.
But I don´t really think they are so much better than Windows or Linux systems in terms of "getting things done".
I just value their design and the tight hardware-software integration, and I find the premium price to be acceptable, now.
> Are you now an "Apple guy" because you have money to spend and no longer consider Apple devices overpriced for their value, and you now value your time more?
This is definitely a big part of it, yes. I could make it work with Android/Linux, but I can afford Apple products now. Also, as a 100% remote developer, I need my laptop/phone/ to be totally reliable, or it reflects on me professionally. For this reason also I am far less tolerant of say, random battery life issues with my phone. Additionally, some proprietary software (quite annoyingly) only runs in Windows/OSX. Again, I could boot a VM, but I'd rather not, and I suppose these days I can (literally) afford not to.
This is definitely a big part of it, yes. I could make it work with Android/Linux, but I can afford Apple products now. Also, as a 100% remote developer, I need my laptop/phone/ to be totally reliable, or it reflects on me professionally. For this reason also I am far less tolerant of say, random battery life issues with my phone. Additionally, some proprietary software (quite annoyingly) only runs in Windows/OSX. Again, I could boot a VM, but I'd rather not, and I suppose these days I can (literally) afford not to.
>> Fighting with Android became less and less appealing over time
> This rings true to me. I was long a diehard Android/Linux guy - even an explicitly anti-Apple person.
I keep hearing this but there's always some other reason lurking behind it.
I have never been an anti-Apple person. I use Linux on my desktop because I need something that just works. It must never fail on me and all tools I need must be readily available. Mac probably comes the closest, but speak with any Windows person and it's "yeah just install this usb driver to get the adb going and then install this binary stuff from a website and then..". No thanks, I have work to do.
I suppose the same can be true for the iPhone as well. Instead of rooting and installing homebrew and stuff to tether, just get something that works and click the button.
I don't "fight" my tools, Linux, Mac or otherwise. I get something that works instead. For the past decade, that has equated to Linux on a Thinkpad for me.
> This rings true to me. I was long a diehard Android/Linux guy - even an explicitly anti-Apple person.
I keep hearing this but there's always some other reason lurking behind it.
I have never been an anti-Apple person. I use Linux on my desktop because I need something that just works. It must never fail on me and all tools I need must be readily available. Mac probably comes the closest, but speak with any Windows person and it's "yeah just install this usb driver to get the adb going and then install this binary stuff from a website and then..". No thanks, I have work to do.
I suppose the same can be true for the iPhone as well. Instead of rooting and installing homebrew and stuff to tether, just get something that works and click the button.
I don't "fight" my tools, Linux, Mac or otherwise. I get something that works instead. For the past decade, that has equated to Linux on a Thinkpad for me.
I absolutely agree. With Linux on a Thinkpad I never have to worry about my tools. They just work, upgrade without issue and don't get in my way. Suspend works, and the hardware is solid and upgradeable. I really can't fault the setup. They're not as shiny as Macs, but give me a Thinkpad any day.
I just realized I've used the same Linux installation for the better part of ten years. It has survived many in-place upgrades and two hardware changes (where I just move everything over, no need for a reinstall).
Since Linux users for the most part doesn't need to mess with drivers, it just keeps working. (And thank you everyone out there who keeps making this possible.)
Since Linux users for the most part doesn't need to mess with drivers, it just keeps working. (And thank you everyone out there who keeps making this possible.)
> I use Linux on my desktop because I need something that just works.
Agreed - I still use Linux on my desktop for this reason as well. I can have years' worth of uptime, if need be. I haven't used a Thinkpad, which the comment below suggests is a better laptop/Linux experience, and I have had some annoying issues with Wifi drivers, etc while using non-Ubuntu versions of Linux. There's also inevitably some corporate software of some variety that you run into that needs IE/Safari, so it's nice to have them around. The software for my GPS has no Linux installer, and while that isn't a deal-breaking fact, I use that software to plan climbing and skiing trips, so it's nice to have. It's one more voice saying "pay for the convenience" I suppose.
Agreed - I still use Linux on my desktop for this reason as well. I can have years' worth of uptime, if need be. I haven't used a Thinkpad, which the comment below suggests is a better laptop/Linux experience, and I have had some annoying issues with Wifi drivers, etc while using non-Ubuntu versions of Linux. There's also inevitably some corporate software of some variety that you run into that needs IE/Safari, so it's nice to have them around. The software for my GPS has no Linux installer, and while that isn't a deal-breaking fact, I use that software to plan climbing and skiing trips, so it's nice to have. It's one more voice saying "pay for the convenience" I suppose.
> Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions.
I hate those things too, but I'm still chomping at the bit for the Apple Watch (and plan to disable all notifications except SMS). Why?
- Wrist GPS while driving
- Siri without taking phone from pocket
- Music remote control (hopefully video, too)
- NFC payments
- Heart monitor (QS)
- Other cool apps as yet unimagined
I certainly don't blame anyone who doesn't want one; it's a bulky, expensive frivolity. But its UI affordances create opportunities for active use cases beyond the passive notifications that have characterized smartwatch functionality until recently.
I hate those things too, but I'm still chomping at the bit for the Apple Watch (and plan to disable all notifications except SMS). Why?
- Wrist GPS while driving
- Siri without taking phone from pocket
- Music remote control (hopefully video, too)
- NFC payments
- Heart monitor (QS)
- Other cool apps as yet unimagined
I certainly don't blame anyone who doesn't want one; it's a bulky, expensive frivolity. But its UI affordances create opportunities for active use cases beyond the passive notifications that have characterized smartwatch functionality until recently.
> - Wrist GPS while driving
Please don't look at a screen while driving. You might end up killing people.
Please don't look at a screen while driving. You might end up killing people.
Please don't change radio stations while driving.
Please don't use the navigation built into your car while driving.
Please don't look at your speedometer while driving.
Please don't look at your gas gauge while driving.
Please don't look at the clock while driving.
Please don't change temperature controls while driving.
In the US (with terrible driving schools), they teach you how to maintain control of your car while glancing at a screen for a brief moment of time, because it's necessary to do so. Looking at a GPS or at the radio is far different from doing something time consuming and interactive like texting.
If you think glancing at a GPS is an unacceptable risk, you should probably abstain from driving altogether.
Please don't use the navigation built into your car while driving.
Please don't look at your speedometer while driving.
Please don't look at your gas gauge while driving.
Please don't look at the clock while driving.
Please don't change temperature controls while driving.
In the US (with terrible driving schools), they teach you how to maintain control of your car while glancing at a screen for a brief moment of time, because it's necessary to do so. Looking at a GPS or at the radio is far different from doing something time consuming and interactive like texting.
If you think glancing at a GPS is an unacceptable risk, you should probably abstain from driving altogether.
> - Wrist GPS while driving
I recommend trying GPS while driving without any screen at all. Pull up navigation on your phone or stand-alone unit, then place it in the center console where you cannot see it. Let it give you directions only though TTS.
This is how I've been using GPS for years now, I find that I pay much more attention to the road and actually have fewer navigational mistakes (probably because I am paying more attention to the road).
I recommend trying GPS while driving without any screen at all. Pull up navigation on your phone or stand-alone unit, then place it in the center console where you cannot see it. Let it give you directions only though TTS.
This is how I've been using GPS for years now, I find that I pay much more attention to the road and actually have fewer navigational mistakes (probably because I am paying more attention to the road).
One of the features Apple has mentioned for its watch is its ability to use its little force feedback mechanism to make different pulses depending on whether you're supposed to turn left or right, so you don't actually have to look at the directions. It actually sounds like kind of a neat idea.
Definitely an interesting idea. I wonder if haptic feedback for GPS navigation could somehow be integrated into cars. The steering wheel might work.. except people are often pretty bad at keeping both hands on the wheel. Maybe in the seat.
Simple left/right indications are fine for walking, but not for driving. You need explicit lane guidance, or else you'll miss practically all your turns driving a new route.
Even if the GPS is accurate to a few feet, it doesn't know where the back of the line in the left turn lane is!
Even if the GPS is accurate to a few feet, it doesn't know where the back of the line in the left turn lane is!
Agreed. To add to your point about fewer mistakes, it is sometimes difficult to correlate the picture on the screen with what you are seeing on the actual road, causing you to miss turns.
That's great when the route isn't intentionally confusing like in some cities. "Turn left in 1000 feet" when there is an intersection shaped like an asterisk is one example a ran into recently. I had to stop in the middle of the road (blocking traffic) and dig out my phone so I could see if I should slight left, turn 90 degrees left, or go through and slight left.
I find that the combination of distance updates and street name cover most of those cases, though there are indeed edge-cases where it doesn't work great.
Whenever I get into a taxi who is using a GPS unit, I get really scared. They seem to be new drivers who spend more time looking at the screen than the road, which is not good in Beijing.
But I have the feeling that Watch is not meant for driving situations :) It could be quite good while walking around a new city.
But I have the feeling that Watch is not meant for driving situations :) It could be quite good while walking around a new city.
When driving in unknown territory (why else would you need a GPS) when the terrain is a bit more rugged a GPS can visually warn you at night of an upcoming curve and this can be a life-saver in countries where the roads are really bad.
> probably because I am paying more attention to the road
For me it was the fact that I wasn't trying to 'beat the system' and guess a better way.
For me it was the fact that I wasn't trying to 'beat the system' and guess a better way.
Ummm, you shouldn't be looking at GPS while driving. It's easy enough to tether a smartphone to your car's console. I know on my last 3 phones (all Android) the GPS would actually interrupt the music when I was coming up on a turn, then return to the music.
As for music remote control, headphones generally have controls somewhere on them or the cord so you don't need to take your phone out.
As for music remote control, headphones generally have controls somewhere on them or the cord so you don't need to take your phone out.
Is looking at your watch whilst driving also dangerous? What about using your arm to change gear? How do you use dashboard SATnav if you shouldn't look at your GPS whilst driving? I have a TomTom that suckers to the windscreen and has a display on it. If it was dangerous to look at it whilst driving, would it show a map with turn-by-turn directions whilst driving?
> Is looking at your watch whilst driving also dangerous?
You never need more than a quick glance at a normal wristwatch.
> What about using your arm to change gear?
If you need to look at the gear shifter you're doing it wrong... (I drive a manual daily btw)
> How do you use dashboard SATnav if you shouldn't look at your GPS whilst driving?
You don't 'use' it. You take a quick glance to know when you need to turn. I'd say it IS dangerous to program your next destination while driving.
The issue isn't looking at your wrist watch, it's shifting your attention to your wristwatch. If the GPS on the watch had a simplified interface with say, only an arrow when a turn was coming up, I'd say it's a great idea. If it's a full map, you'd need to take your attention off the road for far too long while you loop at the map.
And again, all of it is more complicated and less effective than simply using the voice commands that any phone can already send through your car speakers...
You never need more than a quick glance at a normal wristwatch.
> What about using your arm to change gear?
If you need to look at the gear shifter you're doing it wrong... (I drive a manual daily btw)
> How do you use dashboard SATnav if you shouldn't look at your GPS whilst driving?
You don't 'use' it. You take a quick glance to know when you need to turn. I'd say it IS dangerous to program your next destination while driving.
The issue isn't looking at your wrist watch, it's shifting your attention to your wristwatch. If the GPS on the watch had a simplified interface with say, only an arrow when a turn was coming up, I'd say it's a great idea. If it's a full map, you'd need to take your attention off the road for far too long while you loop at the map.
And again, all of it is more complicated and less effective than simply using the voice commands that any phone can already send through your car speakers...
I wasn't implying that you need to look at the gear stick - that'd be hilarious to see... once.
I would agree programming a destination whilst driving would be dangerous; my TomTom doesn't show a QWERTY keyboard for text input so it is even more frustrating.
Sadly my car (2008 VW Golf TDi GT Sport) does not understand that I have a phone. It knows how to pair with my phone via bluetooth for calls, but it does not work the other way around - my phone can't send audio to the car. The audio head unit is a bit thick (it will resume in the wrong place for MP3 CDs, and the optional iPod interface is really dumb and requires creation of playlists, which is not very helpful for a 160GB iPod; that's a lot of playlists).
Admittedly perhaps my car is considered old (6 years, 86k miles in a diesel) but I am certain that there are many more cars that don't have bluetooth duplex audio. It would be wrong to assume that all cars have it.
Come to think of it, my wife's car (2010 Mini Cooper) doesn't have two-way audio either! It's got a USB interface so the iPod works properly, and you can pair to make and receive calls via bluetooth but I don't think it can pipe audio to the car.
Unless I am mistaken?
I would agree programming a destination whilst driving would be dangerous; my TomTom doesn't show a QWERTY keyboard for text input so it is even more frustrating.
Sadly my car (2008 VW Golf TDi GT Sport) does not understand that I have a phone. It knows how to pair with my phone via bluetooth for calls, but it does not work the other way around - my phone can't send audio to the car. The audio head unit is a bit thick (it will resume in the wrong place for MP3 CDs, and the optional iPod interface is really dumb and requires creation of playlists, which is not very helpful for a 160GB iPod; that's a lot of playlists).
Admittedly perhaps my car is considered old (6 years, 86k miles in a diesel) but I am certain that there are many more cars that don't have bluetooth duplex audio. It would be wrong to assume that all cars have it.
Come to think of it, my wife's car (2010 Mini Cooper) doesn't have two-way audio either! It's got a USB interface so the iPod works properly, and you can pair to make and receive calls via bluetooth but I don't think it can pipe audio to the car.
Unless I am mistaken?
A quick glance when the wrist is already in eyeline is no worse than a quick glance at the speedometer or the rearview mirror. But in any case, the primary navigatory use would be to use it while stopped at a light. (And as mentioned, it's also awesome for walking.)
> you shouldn't be looking at GPS while driving
There are a lot of things you shouldn't do, but people do anyway. I'd rather someone looks at their wrist on the steering wheel or speak to their wrist instead of fidgeting with a phone or the GPS device in/on their dash.
There are a lot of things you shouldn't do, but people do anyway. I'd rather someone looks at their wrist on the steering wheel or speak to their wrist instead of fidgeting with a phone or the GPS device in/on their dash.
Yeah well I'd rather people are drunk than texting while driving, and doing cocaine if nothing else would keep them awake at the wheel, yet I wouldn't suggest either is a safe practice...
[deleted]
Voice feedback and a HUD are probably the safest solutions when driving, still I like the idea of not having to take my iPhone with me to track my regular running activities (I'm not sure if this is supported by Apple Watch though).
Many modern cars have GPS directions integrated next to the Speedometer, I would imagine this to become universal in the future.
> But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that.
If anyone can build a market from scratch it is Apple, but why would the younger crowd want a watch at all? Unless you are older than 30 (or perhaps even older), you likely aren't in the habit of wearing a watch. What is going to compel the younger crowd to do so?
If anyone can build a market from scratch it is Apple, but why would the younger crowd want a watch at all? Unless you are older than 30 (or perhaps even older), you likely aren't in the habit of wearing a watch. What is going to compel the younger crowd to do so?
This thing is going to open up entirely new frontiers in cheating.
For maybe one year until watches are banned during tests.
They already are (along with any sort of wrist/hand jewelry) in many testing centers.
They already are (along with any sort of wrist/hand jewelry) in many testing centers.
That's probably the first practical use of the paired doodle thing they demoed that I've seen. I wonder if that works independently of the phone, or if it's done via phone bluetooth.
It's going to ruin cheating. With my Pebble, no one knows what it is other than an ugly watch, so no one tells me to take it off. With Apple, of course everyone will know what it is and what it does and the instructions will tell everyone to take off their smartwatch when they enter an exam.
The younger generation is probably less familiar with Dick Tracy to appreciate the watches.
Maybe it's better not to think of it as a watch.
The modern smartphone has little in common with the devices that were known as telephones until about 20 years ago, yet it has retained the name. It's not easy to predict something like this. (In the film Back to the Future II, the hero's 2015 house is filled with telefax receivers. There's a scene where his boss sends a fax to all of them and printed pages start pouring out. This is how people imagined the future of telephones a mere 30 years ago!)
The meaning of 'watch' as a timepiece may soon become as antiquated as the meaning of 'phone' as a fixed receiver on an analog landline.
The modern smartphone has little in common with the devices that were known as telephones until about 20 years ago, yet it has retained the name. It's not easy to predict something like this. (In the film Back to the Future II, the hero's 2015 house is filled with telefax receivers. There's a scene where his boss sends a fax to all of them and printed pages start pouring out. This is how people imagined the future of telephones a mere 30 years ago!)
The meaning of 'watch' as a timepiece may soon become as antiquated as the meaning of 'phone' as a fixed receiver on an analog landline.
If you think about what smartphones are really most like, they're basically pocket-watches: big flat things with a metal case and a glass face that you flip open an optional protective cover to look at, which sit in your pocket when not in use, and trail a cord out of said pocket to somewhere else on your person (your ears, nowadays.)
That said, the word "watch" is likely a very good word to keep for the wrist-devices: their natural UX, given the limited possible set of affordances, is designed around passive alerts. Which is to say, they watch for events, and you watch them.
That said, the word "watch" is likely a very good word to keep for the wrist-devices: their natural UX, given the limited possible set of affordances, is designed around passive alerts. Which is to say, they watch for events, and you watch them.
Great analogy. Just enormously big and inconvenient pocketwatches with a lot of complications. (/me wearing wristwatch and a SonyEricsson W580 in my pocket)
Exactly. In 2006, no one expected Apple to be in the business of making phones. And they never really wanted you to think of the iPhone as just a phone. It was more like an iPod that could make phonecalls and other magical things. They wanted to define a new product category, and they did. This isn't a watch, it's a way to see your iPhone all the time without pulling it out of your pocket; it's seeing all your notifications and looking good (as opposed to looking ridiculous like Google Glass).
> In 2006, no one expected Apple to be in the business of making phones.
My recollection of history is a bit different. What I remember is that people were practically begging Apple to build a phone. You might say there was a half-hearted attempt with the ROKR, in partnership with Motorola, but it didn't really address what people were seeking. The calls for a phone done the "Apple way" continued. Now, I do believe Apple ended up greatly exceeding the expectations of the customers with the iPhone and, as you suggest, perhaps even created a new market segment because of that, but was hardly a surprise to see them announce something phone-like.
My recollection of history is a bit different. What I remember is that people were practically begging Apple to build a phone. You might say there was a half-hearted attempt with the ROKR, in partnership with Motorola, but it didn't really address what people were seeking. The calls for a phone done the "Apple way" continued. Now, I do believe Apple ended up greatly exceeding the expectations of the customers with the iPhone and, as you suggest, perhaps even created a new market segment because of that, but was hardly a surprise to see them announce something phone-like.
hindsight is 20-20. Apple was oft quoted as saying they wouldn't do it. The ROKR was a disaster but perhaps made them realize they had to do it themselves.
> This is how people imagined the future of telephones a mere 30 years ago!
There's a part in this terrible move "Time Cop" (1994, set in 2004) where one of the characters uses this communications device that's a rectangular slab with a 2" or 3" bezel and is two or three inches deep, but has a touch screen. I thought, wow, this is what they thought an iPad would be, but what we have is actually better.
There's a part in this terrible move "Time Cop" (1994, set in 2004) where one of the characters uses this communications device that's a rectangular slab with a 2" or 3" bezel and is two or three inches deep, but has a touch screen. I thought, wow, this is what they thought an iPad would be, but what we have is actually better.
>If anyone can build a market from scratch it is Apple, but why would the younger crowd want a watch at all? Unless you are older than 30 (or perhaps even older), you likely aren't in the habit of wearing a watch. What is going to compel the younger crowd to do so?
If they're gonna buy it it won't be on the merits of its watch functionality. So it's not about being a watch, in the same way (or actually far more so) than a smartphone is not about the phonecalls.
It's a machine you wear on your wrist that also happens to tell time.
Mind you, what the "younger crowd" wants is not really that predictable in the sense of "why would they buy a watch".
If it becomes a kind of fashion statement, they'd buy it, the same way hipsters now buy vests and hats (the kind of which people haven't really wore since 50 years or so), huge headphones (something that was a tiny market a decade or so ago, despite everything being available), etc.
If they're gonna buy it it won't be on the merits of its watch functionality. So it's not about being a watch, in the same way (or actually far more so) than a smartphone is not about the phonecalls.
It's a machine you wear on your wrist that also happens to tell time.
Mind you, what the "younger crowd" wants is not really that predictable in the sense of "why would they buy a watch".
If it becomes a kind of fashion statement, they'd buy it, the same way hipsters now buy vests and hats (the kind of which people haven't really wore since 50 years or so), huge headphones (something that was a tiny market a decade or so ago, despite everything being available), etc.
With the apple watch coming into the market. It'll be very interesting to see what schools do... Currently iPods / cellphones are ban in most schools. If it's seen, kids are typically given a warning. If they repeatedly fail to follow procedures, the device gets taken away. Watches will become a lot harder to regulate.
> If they're gonna buy it it won't be on the merits of its watch functionality.
It annoyed me how much they touted how incredibly precise it is. As if 50ms matters on a wristwatch.
It annoyed me how much they touted how incredibly precise it is. As if 50ms matters on a wristwatch.
> Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop.
I agree with the sentiment, but, based on my interactions with OSX and iOS, I assume it's not essential that the watch buzz and interrupt you all the time. I have all popups & notifications disabled in OSX and iOS, and they're still great tools when you're ready to pay attention to them.
I won't be getting an Apple Watch v1 (because it's not waterproof, and well, v1), but it wouldn't surprise me if I bought one down the line. I think there's a lot of interesting things that can be done with all the new sensors, and UX.
I agree with the sentiment, but, based on my interactions with OSX and iOS, I assume it's not essential that the watch buzz and interrupt you all the time. I have all popups & notifications disabled in OSX and iOS, and they're still great tools when you're ready to pay attention to them.
I won't be getting an Apple Watch v1 (because it's not waterproof, and well, v1), but it wouldn't surprise me if I bought one down the line. I think there's a lot of interesting things that can be done with all the new sensors, and UX.
I was negative on the Apple Watch until my wife mentioned something interesting: she wants one so she can doesn't have to constantly check her phone for important work emails during family time. Its a huge boon for the Blackberry crowd--people like my wife and I who would otherwise put their phone on the table during dinner to keep an eye on it.
She's also pretty fashion conscious and while she isn't happy with the design, I think it passes the bar. She really would prefer something with Apple guts and external design by her favorite fashion brands, however.
She's also pretty fashion conscious and while she isn't happy with the design, I think it passes the bar. She really would prefer something with Apple guts and external design by her favorite fashion brands, however.
Doesn't almost every single existing android/smart wearable provide the ability to not "constantly check her phone for important work emails during family time"? At this point, apple needs to be doing more than their competitors in order to keep justifying their environment lock-in, _especially_ in the mobile space
Tory Burch isn't going to make watch bands for random Android Wear devices. I know it hasn't been announced, but look at the iPhone accessories market: most of the designer labels focus their efforts on Apple products. The tie-in to the Apple Watch is inevitable.
Do you think that environment lock-in is something that most consumers care about?
While waiting for the watch, a lot of people never open the Settings app so they don't realize that the notifications settings for Mail on the iPhone are pretty flexible, with VIP contacts and custom notifications per account.
Every watchmaker has always had a hard time selling women's watches. This watch, especially if they thin it out, might
be the game changer?
Not to be too rude but has your wife tried simply, well, not checking her phone after work?
IMO most of these smartwatches are adding to the problem of constant interruptions, not solving it.
The proper response to 'important work emails during family time' is to ignore them.
Unless you're the president of the United States or something to that effect. People have too little family time as it is once you start adapting what you wear in order to accommodate further encroachment on the little that remains soon there'll be nothing left.
Work can usually wait until the next day.
And if you do have to be on call outside of regular work hours make sure you're compensated for each and every minute that you're on call.
Unless you're the president of the United States or something to that effect. People have too little family time as it is once you start adapting what you wear in order to accommodate further encroachment on the little that remains soon there'll be nothing left.
Work can usually wait until the next day.
And if you do have to be on call outside of regular work hours make sure you're compensated for each and every minute that you're on call.
Reasons for me to stay with mechanical watches:
- The NSA won't hack into it
- Most will work decades and follow me, given I service them every 5 to 8 years
- The NSA won't hack into it
- Most will work decades and follow me, given I service them every 5 to 8 years
A lot of the article talks about the manufacturing process being so precise and sophisticated as a reason why the 'old school' watches are popular among his crowd.
It would be great to see apple release a video similar to the 'making the mac pro' that shows just how sophisticated and precise their manufacturing for the watch would be.. it might even get a few more people on board that have an interest in production quality.
It would be great to see apple release a video similar to the 'making the mac pro' that shows just how sophisticated and precise their manufacturing for the watch would be.. it might even get a few more people on board that have an interest in production quality.
I'm not a serious watch lover, but I imagine members of that group have larger collections than your typical microcomputer lover or smartphone lover, and place a high value on finding one that's different from any they already have.
The problem is there's no ecosystem and no added value.
The iPhone and iPad had apps, the iPod had podcasting and iTunes. WATCH has nothing equivalent. It seems to be a drastically cut-down iPhone you wear on your wrist, with a few haptic doodads added to create a USP.
It's aiming for a weird market that Apple has traditionally done well in - emotional spending and evangelism - but it's trying to cultivate desire by attempting to be explicitly fashionable, instead of offering 'magical' user benefits that lead indirectly to the perception of being fashionable. ('Show, don't tell.')
Obvious conclusion is that it's not a Jobsian coup like the last few revolutions were.
Maybe it could be with more thought about where it fits as a product, and what makes it unique. But currently 'small iOS wrist device for semi-fashionable people' seems like a challenging place to succeed in.
The iPhone and iPad had apps, the iPod had podcasting and iTunes. WATCH has nothing equivalent. It seems to be a drastically cut-down iPhone you wear on your wrist, with a few haptic doodads added to create a USP.
It's aiming for a weird market that Apple has traditionally done well in - emotional spending and evangelism - but it's trying to cultivate desire by attempting to be explicitly fashionable, instead of offering 'magical' user benefits that lead indirectly to the perception of being fashionable. ('Show, don't tell.')
Obvious conclusion is that it's not a Jobsian coup like the last few revolutions were.
Maybe it could be with more thought about where it fits as a product, and what makes it unique. But currently 'small iOS wrist device for semi-fashionable people' seems like a challenging place to succeed in.
There was no podcasting ecosystem before the iPod was released, and no significant app ecosystem before the iPhone.
Palm had a thriving app ecosystem. So did Psion. Even the TRS-80 Model 100 if you could view it as a precursor to the modern tablet.
define "thriving" because I find this hard to believe.
Sure for the Palm market - there were vendors making applications, people buying them, and people buying devices just to run those applications. At the time, you could subscribe to dead-tree magazines that had reviews, advertisements just for Palm devices and applications. The market was large enough to support many companies, and many people buying and selling software.
Even the TRS-80 Model 100 had it's own market for software that was thriving for about three years - complete with requisite magazine support.
...
My hunch is that the new generation of people who recently discovered the recent application ecosystems are shocked to find out that some slightly-older people remember when this same exciting feeling happened before - I would imagine all the way back to the late 1970's when you could put a computer together yourself and sell software out of your garage.
Even the TRS-80 Model 100 had it's own market for software that was thriving for about three years - complete with requisite magazine support.
...
My hunch is that the new generation of people who recently discovered the recent application ecosystems are shocked to find out that some slightly-older people remember when this same exciting feeling happened before - I would imagine all the way back to the late 1970's when you could put a computer together yourself and sell software out of your garage.
I appreciate the hint that I may be younger than you, but I was involved in the eco-systems around the Sinclair ZX81 and the Spectrum, and later on with DECUS, so I have a pretty good idea how this stuff works.
My point isn't whether or not there's an ecosystem, but whether or not there's a planned ecosystem which is deliberately designed to add value, and created as a conscious strategy - not just something that happens by accident.
I wish people here would stop thinking about technology and think more about the overall user experience - which is not about hardware or software or ecosystems, but about creating gotta-have-that experiences and life-changing tools.
So far I don't see WATCH doing that. It might, and there may be plans, and we'll all be surprised a year from now.
But so far, there's no evidence that Apple are thinking about WATCH in those terms. And that makes it different to previous launches.
My point isn't whether or not there's an ecosystem, but whether or not there's a planned ecosystem which is deliberately designed to add value, and created as a conscious strategy - not just something that happens by accident.
I wish people here would stop thinking about technology and think more about the overall user experience - which is not about hardware or software or ecosystems, but about creating gotta-have-that experiences and life-changing tools.
So far I don't see WATCH doing that. It might, and there may be plans, and we'll all be surprised a year from now.
But so far, there's no evidence that Apple are thinking about WATCH in those terms. And that makes it different to previous launches.
This is why I hedged with the word 'significant.' I completely agree that people were making and selling apps for mobile devices before the iPhone came along. Can we both agree that the ecosystem exploded in size and visibility to the general population only after the iPhone was released, though?
You're quite correct that the market is much broader now - not only are there more consumers, there's more developers.
But to me, this doesn't feel different - just larger.
Even the cycles seem to the same - with early adopters leading the way, the first wave of quick and dirty apps, then more polished apps, and then the tsunami of shovel-ware that kills the market for newcomers.
But to me, this doesn't feel different - just larger.
Even the cycles seem to the same - with early adopters leading the way, the first wave of quick and dirty apps, then more polished apps, and then the tsunami of shovel-ware that kills the market for newcomers.
That's what happens when something becomes consumer focused rather than (essentially) B2B. Prices go way down, sales go way up. I paid $50 for a Palm app back in the day, and that same app would go for 99c today. That doesn't mean the Palm app marketplace was insignificant or unimportant. Smartphones wouldn't be here if their value wasn't proven with PDAs.
Remember that the Internet wasn't as big as it is now, and not many people had access.
I remember there being a big market for these devices and apps back in the day.
I remember there being a big market for these devices and apps back in the day.
It is called 'podcasting', after all.
I don't understand. The apple watch does allow 3rd party apps.
They made mention of WatchKit in the keynote. It sure looked like there were third party apps on the devices demoed. (I think I saw a Path logo). It's not clear if these apps are sort of accessories that can be embedded in iOS Apps or watch specific apps.
Reading between the lines the impression I got is that the WatchKit API will let you define widgets that come with your app and that will be downloaded to the watch when the App is installed on the iPhone.
I think this shows there is an ecosystem- it's the App ecosystem and it's the most vibrant one out there. But it's not exactly the same (which may be the cause of the parents confusion)
Reading between the lines the impression I got is that the WatchKit API will let you define widgets that come with your app and that will be downloaded to the watch when the App is installed on the iPhone.
I think this shows there is an ecosystem- it's the App ecosystem and it's the most vibrant one out there. But it's not exactly the same (which may be the cause of the parents confusion)
"there's no ecosystem"
I think the 200 million iPhones are the ecosystem. I don't see an obvious point to the watch by itself - it seems like it's main "feature" is to expand what your iPhone can do.
The absolute most expensive iPhone is the 128GB iPhone 6 Plus - $950 w/o contract. But it's the highest-end phone in a world with millions of millionaires. This gives a way for iPhone customers to pay more to get more.
I think the 200 million iPhones are the ecosystem. I don't see an obvious point to the watch by itself - it seems like it's main "feature" is to expand what your iPhone can do.
The absolute most expensive iPhone is the 128GB iPhone 6 Plus - $950 w/o contract. But it's the highest-end phone in a world with millions of millionaires. This gives a way for iPhone customers to pay more to get more.
I think the watch is analogous to Google Glass. Glass is, essentially, an accessory. It adds a remote display, camera, and audio functions to an android phone. (It has bluetooth, not a cellular radio)
I think the Apple Watch is similar.
I think the Apple Watch is similar.
But Glass's full display makes it capable of being a standalone device (once the guts shrink enough).
Before long, a Watch can also be self-contained, technically, but remains limited by form-factor: tiny display. Unlike Glass, it must remain accessory... or so it seems.
But consider: the iPhone is primarily a consumption device. In many ways, it is predicated on many use-cases not requiring a full computer. Is it possible a Watch-size device will similarly turn out to cover many important uses? Obviously, you can use it as a phone. For music/video. To read txt messages/short emails. Casual games.
It's a real consumption device (unless Siri gets unrealistically good). Maybe many web-site functions (i.e. the actual use of the website, not actual current website) can be delivered via Watch: lookup opening hours; store locators; product list/price/specials. Perhaps Watch versions, as we now have Mobile versions - and of course, Watch App versions).
Before long, a Watch can also be self-contained, technically, but remains limited by form-factor: tiny display. Unlike Glass, it must remain accessory... or so it seems.
But consider: the iPhone is primarily a consumption device. In many ways, it is predicated on many use-cases not requiring a full computer. Is it possible a Watch-size device will similarly turn out to cover many important uses? Obviously, you can use it as a phone. For music/video. To read txt messages/short emails. Casual games.
It's a real consumption device (unless Siri gets unrealistically good). Maybe many web-site functions (i.e. the actual use of the website, not actual current website) can be delivered via Watch: lookup opening hours; store locators; product list/price/specials. Perhaps Watch versions, as we now have Mobile versions - and of course, Watch App versions).
After getting powerful enough, smartwatches could be full "peer" devices in your Personal Area Network, though.
Rather than tethering the watch to your phone and having the watch just being treated as another phone peripheral, you could just as well do the opposite: have the phone tether to the watch to serve as e.g. a keyboard and secondary display.
Rather than tethering the watch to your phone and having the watch just being treated as another phone peripheral, you could just as well do the opposite: have the phone tether to the watch to serve as e.g. a keyboard and secondary display.
On the contrary, the iPhone (and iPod Touch) launched without an app ecosystem. Instead of having third party apps, Apple pushed for developers to produce web apps for Mobile Safari. It wasn't until iOS 2.0 that an API was released and the App Store was launched. In that time, the sole way to load apps onto these devices was with a jailbreak.
Additionally, the iPod launched when the iTunes Store was in its nascency. In fact, iTunes wasn't released for Windows until a few years afterwards. It wasn't possible to load apps (small games) on the iPod until the release of the iPod video.
With the promise of an API at launch, there is more of an ecosystem in place than existed for the previous products you mentioned.
Additionally, the iPod launched when the iTunes Store was in its nascency. In fact, iTunes wasn't released for Windows until a few years afterwards. It wasn't possible to load apps (small games) on the iPod until the release of the iPod video.
With the promise of an API at launch, there is more of an ecosystem in place than existed for the previous products you mentioned.
I realise Jobs needed a push to get to the open app system, and was originally against it - or at least for something that was more like the Widget system on OS X, and not so much like the Objective-C monster the App Store turned into.
But my point - which apparently no one understands here - is that the products were always conceived originally, from the top, as part of a strategy that included a stack of support services and interactions with a user community.
I'm not seeing that on offer here.
Of course WATCH does apps. That was always a given. But the App Store is saturated, and once devs have produced the obligatory new watch faces, fitness, dating and friend-finding apps, my guess is that the opportunities for doing something compelling, original and gotta-have-that are smaller than they were with the original iPhone.
There will be an exception, or maybe four or five. There will not be thousands of potential gotta-have-that apps to match those that are available in the iPhone/iPad app store.
Apple has always been one of the few tech companies that understands that you don't sell hardware, or software - you sell a complete package of unique and exclusive benefits that happens to run on a hardware device.
That worked for the original Mac, then the OS X Mac, then the iPod, then the iPhone, then the iPad. All had obvious user benefits that were so intuitively compelling they barely needed explanation, and which were enhanced and supported over time with software services that made the package even stronger.
I'd be interested to know what the downvoters on this thread believe is the equivalent user benefit and software support package for WATCH.
I don't believe 'It does apps too and there's even an API, so therefore there's an ecosystem' is the most insightful answer to that question, or that it's what users are looking for to persuade them this is a must-have device.
But my point - which apparently no one understands here - is that the products were always conceived originally, from the top, as part of a strategy that included a stack of support services and interactions with a user community.
I'm not seeing that on offer here.
Of course WATCH does apps. That was always a given. But the App Store is saturated, and once devs have produced the obligatory new watch faces, fitness, dating and friend-finding apps, my guess is that the opportunities for doing something compelling, original and gotta-have-that are smaller than they were with the original iPhone.
There will be an exception, or maybe four or five. There will not be thousands of potential gotta-have-that apps to match those that are available in the iPhone/iPad app store.
Apple has always been one of the few tech companies that understands that you don't sell hardware, or software - you sell a complete package of unique and exclusive benefits that happens to run on a hardware device.
That worked for the original Mac, then the OS X Mac, then the iPod, then the iPhone, then the iPad. All had obvious user benefits that were so intuitively compelling they barely needed explanation, and which were enhanced and supported over time with software services that made the package even stronger.
I'd be interested to know what the downvoters on this thread believe is the equivalent user benefit and software support package for WATCH.
I don't believe 'It does apps too and there's even an API, so therefore there's an ecosystem' is the most insightful answer to that question, or that it's what users are looking for to persuade them this is a must-have device.
Think outside the box a bit. The watch is potentially a new input device, can simplify action and interaction (just look at the watch rather than pulling phone out of pocket)
It's gonna take some time to figure out the killer apps for this computing paradigm. There's nothing at all wrong with the Pebble, it's just that the apps to make it worthwhile don't really exist yet. Apple has enough dirty money to get other people to do the heavy lifting in that arena.
It's gonna take some time to figure out the killer apps for this computing paradigm. There's nothing at all wrong with the Pebble, it's just that the apps to make it worthwhile don't really exist yet. Apple has enough dirty money to get other people to do the heavy lifting in that arena.
It has NFC for payments, and Apple has partners for that. In that instance, and in many others, it's leveraging partnerships and infrastructure established for the iPhone. Just as the iPad leveraged iPhone, which in turn leveraged iPod's iTunes. e.g. maps, siri, appstore, music/video suppliers.
Probably existing developers (knowing objective-C, libraries, OS; swift too) will end up being the most important resource...
But I think you're right that it's simply not a general-purpose device, like apple2e, mac, iphone or ipad. It's too limited. It's more like an ipod, appleTV, game console or kindle.
BTW: I hate the way apple fanboys downvote any comment that can in any way be interpreted as remotely critical of Apple or Apple products. It's more interesting to have a discussion. As it is, your first comment is so down-grayed, I can't actually read it.
Probably existing developers (knowing objective-C, libraries, OS; swift too) will end up being the most important resource...
But I think you're right that it's simply not a general-purpose device, like apple2e, mac, iphone or ipad. It's too limited. It's more like an ipod, appleTV, game console or kindle.
BTW: I hate the way apple fanboys downvote any comment that can in any way be interpreted as remotely critical of Apple or Apple products. It's more interesting to have a discussion. As it is, your first comment is so down-grayed, I can't actually read it.
NFC is still a solution looking for a problem.
It's the same issue really with EMV cards in the US, no one will install readers until there are cards, no one will issue cards until there are readers.
At the core of it, the physical card standard is 'good enough' for most people.
It's the same issue really with EMV cards in the US, no one will install readers until there are cards, no one will issue cards until there are readers.
At the core of it, the physical card standard is 'good enough' for most people.
Apparently in Australia, half of card transaction < $100 are by NFC (in cards). So, there's demand for it.
Apple may have the market clout to drive adoption in the US. They have experience in getting partners together, to make new technology actually work. Yes, it may take time, and they may go niche by niche.
Apple may have the market clout to drive adoption in the US. They have experience in getting partners together, to make new technology actually work. Yes, it may take time, and they may go niche by niche.
Perhaps I should have prefaced in the original post "In the US..."
But the first OSX versions were horribly buggy. Nobody wanted to upgrade. Real stability came by about 10.6 Snow Leopard.
Apple Watch augments your iPhone's capability and introduces novel use cases based on 'micro interactions' and ambient feedback. It's a consumption device. For now, it must be used with an existing iPhone. It will eventually become a fully independent and integrated device.
Regarding value.. imho, the next evolution of the technical maturity model for mobile will center around decision support. This is where I see wearables providing the most value, which may have significant impact to business process applications and sensor networks.
To the average consumer, this may mean having ambient access to specific economic information, transactional data or live media. It will become a part of your daily informata and utility / Internet usage.
Regarding value.. imho, the next evolution of the technical maturity model for mobile will center around decision support. This is where I see wearables providing the most value, which may have significant impact to business process applications and sensor networks.
To the average consumer, this may mean having ambient access to specific economic information, transactional data or live media. It will become a part of your daily informata and utility / Internet usage.
I find the number of downvotes on your comment to be slightly depressing. It's one thing for readers here to disappear posts that are absurd, thoughtless, insulting, or spam, but this is just a person who apparently has a dissenting opinion and maybe slightly overstated the point. It's no reason to prevent everyone else from reading it.
Yeah I agree - I think people are overusing / abusing the downvoting thing too much. Although I believe pg himself said that you could use a downvote just if you disagree, the implementation of gradually fading out the text means that one lone dissenting voice can be shown as not being important.
Which leaves me in the obscure situation of upvoting comments I disagree with just because I think they shouldn't have been downvoted.
Which leaves me in the obscure situation of upvoting comments I disagree with just because I think they shouldn't have been downvoted.
Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?
A big clunky square box with a rubber strap. Some dim electronic display on top. That's what it looks like at a distance. Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out.
Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling: https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch
Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch? http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/
A big clunky square box with a rubber strap. Some dim electronic display on top. That's what it looks like at a distance. Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out.
Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling: https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch
Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch? http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/
I have played with a prototype of the new samsung watch. I think it already gave a good idea of where they wanted to go. Considering their phone designs, it is not bad, but not a work of art either. Samsung watches are plasticky things.
I have conflicted thoughts on Apple Watch. On one hand, I can see that Apple has put a LOT of thought on its appearance (as with most of their products) and on the little details. On the other hand, I don't think the final design look good. I would need to try it first hand to confirm it but my first impression is that I don't want that big rectangular clunky thing on my hand.
And a circular watchface in a rectangular frame with a lot of whitespace (well blackspace actually) ? I just can't get over it.
If I had to guess what Apple Watch would look like before its reveal, I would have bet on something very similar to the Moto360.
I have conflicted thoughts on Apple Watch. On one hand, I can see that Apple has put a LOT of thought on its appearance (as with most of their products) and on the little details. On the other hand, I don't think the final design look good. I would need to try it first hand to confirm it but my first impression is that I don't want that big rectangular clunky thing on my hand.
And a circular watchface in a rectangular frame with a lot of whitespace (well blackspace actually) ? I just can't get over it.
If I had to guess what Apple Watch would look like before its reveal, I would have bet on something very similar to the Moto360.
I agree with the initial impression of a "big rectangular clunky thing", but thankfully the smaller version of the Apple Watch looks more reasonable. That along with the what-seem-like-great strap choices might make it a bit more palatable than the other watches out right now (Samsung, LG, etc.).
The Moto360 is initially easier to accept due to its familiar "normal" watch appearance, but I think the software and "experience" on devices like the Apple Watch will prevail.
The Moto360 is initially easier to accept due to its familiar "normal" watch appearance, but I think the software and "experience" on devices like the Apple Watch will prevail.
That remains to be seen :) .
Apple Watch is far from its release and Wear is near its second iteration. I honestly think it is not possible to know where the wearable landscape will be in 6 months or one year. Wear's contextual way of displaying card is hit or miss but I am not necessarily convinced that the zooming crown is the right solution.
I agree that the Moto 360 and the Apple Watch are in a class of their own at the moment (or would be if the Apple Watch was more than an ad at that point). Samsung and LG have delivered gadgets targeted at geeks whereas Motorola and Apple are making jewelry pieces that are also smart-watches.
Also, whatever the quality of product, Apple marketing machine is a juggernaut that will create sales.
My main gripe with all this is that I really, really, don't want two wearable ecosystems that are tied to their parent OSes.
I agree that the Moto 360 and the Apple Watch are in a class of their own at the moment (or would be if the Apple Watch was more than an ad at that point). Samsung and LG have delivered gadgets targeted at geeks whereas Motorola and Apple are making jewelry pieces that are also smart-watches.
Also, whatever the quality of product, Apple marketing machine is a juggernaut that will create sales.
My main gripe with all this is that I really, really, don't want two wearable ecosystems that are tied to their parent OSes.
I've got to say, this picture makes it look pretty good:
http://static.squarespace.com/static/4fa14d3ce4b08a53fa26468...
I think as with most watches, it's a piece of your outfit. It doesn't look good on its own, and it's not supposed to.
http://static.squarespace.com/static/4fa14d3ce4b08a53fa26468...
I think as with most watches, it's a piece of your outfit. It doesn't look good on its own, and it's not supposed to.
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder - when I saw that picture, it was the one I liked the least. But, hey, that's why people buy/wear different things.
This article gave me more insight into why someone might actually buy this watch. But in reality I just don't see people clamoring for something like this. Although I never thought Steve Jobs was really a visionary, I did always recognize that he did have enough understanding of the market to see what people were looking for and provide it better than anyone else. I mean, digital music, smart phones, etc. all existed before Apple produced iTunes and the iPhone, but nobody marketed it correctly or provided exactly what people were looking for like Jobs and Apple. I just don't think people who can pull that off come along very often, and I don't think Apple has anyone (at least not facing the public) that can match what Steve did.
I'm not sure Jobs would be trying to produce a watch...I might consider what Jobs did and think he might have moved over into self driving cars or something like that. People would buy a self driving car from Apple, and it seems the market is starting to build momentum.
This article gave me more insight into why someone might actually buy this watch. But in reality I just don't see people clamoring for something like this. Although I never thought Steve Jobs was really a visionary, I did always recognize that he did have enough understanding of the market to see what people were looking for and provide it better than anyone else. I mean, digital music, smart phones, etc. all existed before Apple produced iTunes and the iPhone, but nobody marketed it correctly or provided exactly what people were looking for like Jobs and Apple. I just don't think people who can pull that off come along very often, and I don't think Apple has anyone (at least not facing the public) that can match what Steve did.
I'm not sure Jobs would be trying to produce a watch...I might consider what Jobs did and think he might have moved over into self driving cars or something like that. People would buy a self driving car from Apple, and it seems the market is starting to build momentum.
People would buy a self driving car from Apple, and it seems the market is starting to build momentum.
User interfaces and industrial design is what Apple excels at. I'm not sure I'd trust a self driving car from them.
User interfaces and industrial design is what Apple excels at. I'm not sure I'd trust a self driving car from them.
> But, hey, that's why people buy/wear different things.
I often wonder if the motto let's have our own tastes and buy different things is not just some recent invention intended to help us spend more money. I wonder if in the past, e.g.in the middle age, people were that much obsessed by external differentiating assets like clothes, perfumes, shoes and so on. Maybe, just maybe, this is a vast scam. And maybe without ads and tv we would be very happy to wear similar clothes, and let other things, more important things like intelligence or knowledge, differentiate us from the crowd.
I often wonder if the motto let's have our own tastes and buy different things is not just some recent invention intended to help us spend more money. I wonder if in the past, e.g.in the middle age, people were that much obsessed by external differentiating assets like clothes, perfumes, shoes and so on. Maybe, just maybe, this is a vast scam. And maybe without ads and tv we would be very happy to wear similar clothes, and let other things, more important things like intelligence or knowledge, differentiate us from the crowd.
In the past when new fashions were introduced, it really sucked if you didn't like them, because suddenly that's all you could buy. People didn't like it. They just didn't have much choice.
As far as a 'recent' invention, humans have been building completely unique building, architecture and paintings for our entire known history.
As far as a 'recent' invention, humans have been building completely unique building, architecture and paintings for our entire known history.
1/3 of the width is black, if you count from grey edge to grey edge. I agree that it doesn't look bad or bulky on this image, but the bevel size still strikes me as odd, considering how little room you've got on a watch like this.
People said Apple would be mocking Motorola for the black area in the bottom of their watch. I don't personally have a preference in the square/circle debate, but I really thought Apple would be able to get rid of more of the bevel.
People said Apple would be mocking Motorola for the black area in the bottom of their watch. I don't personally have a preference in the square/circle debate, but I really thought Apple would be able to get rid of more of the bevel.
>Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?
If you think it's ugly, it's ugly. I'd prefer a round watch, personally, but to each his own. However, the watch looks really well made and the straps look great. Two downsides for me: iPhone-only (I'm not going leave Android) and (potentially) battery life.
>Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling
Really? Most of them aren't possible with current technology (or ever). I'm also not a big bracelet guy.
If you think it's ugly, it's ugly. I'd prefer a round watch, personally, but to each his own. However, the watch looks really well made and the straps look great. Two downsides for me: iPhone-only (I'm not going leave Android) and (potentially) battery life.
>Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling
Really? Most of them aren't possible with current technology (or ever). I'm also not a big bracelet guy.
>If you think it's ugly, it's ugly.
I like your attitude on this.
I like your attitude on this.
It's subjective - there's a reason if you go to a regular watch shop they have as many different watches as they do.
Apple have made a start on trying to work with different preferences with the interchangable straps and clasps and so on but something like this is never going to please everyone.
Personally I wouldn't go as far as ugly but I'm certainly not wow-ed by it in terms of how it looks. It seems to be well designed and well made but lots of things are and it doesn't mean I want to strap them to my wrist.
Apple have made a start on trying to work with different preferences with the interchangable straps and clasps and so on but something like this is never going to please everyone.
Personally I wouldn't go as far as ugly but I'm certainly not wow-ed by it in terms of how it looks. It seems to be well designed and well made but lots of things are and it doesn't mean I want to strap them to my wrist.
And would you prefer this other big ugly rectangular watch instead: http://www.independentjewellers.com/blog/2012/04/the-most-co...
Only 2.7 _million_ dollars...
Only 2.7 _million_ dollars...
"The Most Complicated Watch In The World"
How many people have ever walked into a jewelers and, when asked what they wanted from a watch, replied "I want it to be as complicated as possible - the more complicated the better".
A watch at that price does one thing and one thing only - it says loud and clear that the wearer is almost certainly richer than you.
How many people have ever walked into a jewelers and, when asked what they wanted from a watch, replied "I want it to be as complicated as possible - the more complicated the better".
A watch at that price does one thing and one thing only - it says loud and clear that the wearer is almost certainly richer than you.
That's an interesting clarification but I'm not sure it changes much.
After all, a 1000 year calendar is impressive, but who really has ever gone, "hold on is it the 20th century or the 21st"? That might have been an issue for a few of us who were a bit drunk on New Year's Eve 14 years ago but it's not going to be a problem again for at least 86 years.
I still think a $2.7m dollar watch has one purpose - to allow the owner to say they have a $2.7m watch.
I should point out, I'm not against expensive, mechanical watches (I own one and love it), I just think there are limits and for me they probably kick in around the point a sixth digit gets added to the price.
After all, a 1000 year calendar is impressive, but who really has ever gone, "hold on is it the 20th century or the 21st"? That might have been an issue for a few of us who were a bit drunk on New Year's Eve 14 years ago but it's not going to be a problem again for at least 86 years.
I still think a $2.7m dollar watch has one purpose - to allow the owner to say they have a $2.7m watch.
I should point out, I'm not against expensive, mechanical watches (I own one and love it), I just think there are limits and for me they probably kick in around the point a sixth digit gets added to the price.
I just think there are limits and for me they probably kick in around the point a sixth digit gets added to the price.
To clarify, 6 digits including or excluding cents?
To clarify, 6 digits including or excluding cents?
I'm being open minded to the idea that my definition of value here isn't everyone's so I'm excluding cents. My own watch is expensive (by my thinking) would meet either criteria but I could see myself maybe one day buying a watch that topped $10,000.
Maybe.
Maybe.
> Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?
I think build quality will really make or break it here. On paper, it's not that attractive, but if--as an object--it's machined very precisely and out of attractive materials, I think it can overcome that. It certainly seems to be what they're hoping for.
I think the litmus test will be how the face feels (without strap) just in your hand. Does it feel like a premium object or not?
I think build quality will really make or break it here. On paper, it's not that attractive, but if--as an object--it's machined very precisely and out of attractive materials, I think it can overcome that. It certainly seems to be what they're hoping for.
I think the litmus test will be how the face feels (without strap) just in your hand. Does it feel like a premium object or not?
> Honestly it looks like something Samsung or Sony might turn out.
As does the iPhone 6
edit: and this is coming from quite the apple fanboy
As does the iPhone 6
edit: and this is coming from quite the apple fanboy
I doubt you're alone, but i think the apple watches look good, especially worn (vs. on their own). The smaller size also makes them look elegant, even compared to the Moto 360 (which I otherwise prefer as a physical object). After seeing Ars Technica's side-by-side comparison of screenshots, the round screen of the 360 seems both ridiculous and poorly used (although the Apple UI designers might have done better with a round display).
That said, I don't find the device compelling. One more gadget to charge.
That said, I don't find the device compelling. One more gadget to charge.
http://i.imgur.com/aL7ogTS.png?1
http://i.imgur.com/qGvqIqK.png
Would you still call those ugly? Either way it's definitely not just some dim display with a rubber strap.
http://i.imgur.com/qGvqIqK.png
Would you still call those ugly? Either way it's definitely not just some dim display with a rubber strap.
> "Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays, and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch?"
1. The Samsung offering looks huge on that men's wrist, never mind women's wrist.
2. Why would you put a curved watch on a wrist, if the top part of the wrist is flat?
1. The Samsung offering looks huge on that men's wrist, never mind women's wrist.
2. Why would you put a curved watch on a wrist, if the top part of the wrist is flat?
> Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just ugly?
On the internet you are never the only one. I don't like it either, but it's just subjective opinion. I'm sure a lot of people will like it.
On the internet you are never the only one. I don't like it either, but it's just subjective opinion. I'm sure a lot of people will like it.
> rubber strap
I think you missed something.
I think you missed something.
A Timex might last over a decade if you replace the battery occasionally. A mechanical watch will offer inferior time keeping accuracy but, if maintained, can operate well for centuries. A quality mechanical watch is an heirloom item, which is one reason why watch aficionados can rationalize spending thousands on a single watch.
The Apple watch will be totally obsolete and incompatible with everything inside of five years. It's soldered-on and nearly impossible to replace battery will likely run out of charges in far less time than that. These are not heirloom items. They're disposable. As such, I don't expect the same kind of build quality from an Apple watch that I would from a mechanical watch. That they do offer good build quality for the money is therefore totally unexpected and rather nice.
That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these. As a fitness tracker and GPS watch they're inferior to what's out there (chiefly because the Apple watch relies on your iPhone's GPS). I don't do workouts with a phone in my pocket. Also, so far it's unclear if the Apple watch is waterproof, and it had better be to have any use at all in this market! For almost all other applications, the effort of working with such a tiny screen and different interface outweighs the trouble of reaching into your pocket and pulling out your phone. If I want eye candy on my wrist, I'll dust off a mechanical instead of buying something that will be junk in a few years.
The Apple watch will be totally obsolete and incompatible with everything inside of five years. It's soldered-on and nearly impossible to replace battery will likely run out of charges in far less time than that. These are not heirloom items. They're disposable. As such, I don't expect the same kind of build quality from an Apple watch that I would from a mechanical watch. That they do offer good build quality for the money is therefore totally unexpected and rather nice.
That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these. As a fitness tracker and GPS watch they're inferior to what's out there (chiefly because the Apple watch relies on your iPhone's GPS). I don't do workouts with a phone in my pocket. Also, so far it's unclear if the Apple watch is waterproof, and it had better be to have any use at all in this market! For almost all other applications, the effort of working with such a tiny screen and different interface outweighs the trouble of reaching into your pocket and pulling out your phone. If I want eye candy on my wrist, I'll dust off a mechanical instead of buying something that will be junk in a few years.
The fact that Apple is making the watch body out of solid gold (in one model) is interesting. It suggests:
A. They will do future upgrades to the internals of the watch to make it current with the latest model.
B. They will allow trade-in for a small fee to the latest version with the same case material (and recycle the gold in the case into a new watch).
If they didn't one of these, a customer would soon feel that their rather expensive watch had fallen behind the technology curve.
My guess: B
A. They will do future upgrades to the internals of the watch to make it current with the latest model.
B. They will allow trade-in for a small fee to the latest version with the same case material (and recycle the gold in the case into a new watch).
If they didn't one of these, a customer would soon feel that their rather expensive watch had fallen behind the technology curve.
My guess: B
My guess: C. The people rich enough to buy a gold smartwatch doesn't care. They'll just buy the next when it comes out.
I don't think either A. or B. is realistic in the long run, both because Apple will obviously want to make the future versions of the watch as thin as possible which might make it difficult to fit the new hardware in the old case (imagine if in a few years they decide to use a bigger curved screen for instance) and also because Apple is not really famous for supporting what they consider to be obsolete products.
I think people who'd buy a gold iWatch are not looking for a family heirloom to give to their great-grandchildren, they're looking for something "bling" to show off how rich they are. I think it's for the petrodollar market, basically. I'm sure you can already find diamond encrusted iphones made by third parties already...
I think people who'd buy a gold iWatch are not looking for a family heirloom to give to their great-grandchildren, they're looking for something "bling" to show off how rich they are. I think it's for the petrodollar market, basically. I'm sure you can already find diamond encrusted iphones made by third parties already...
With B, it doesn't need to fit into the old case size. You'd get a new case with new watch internals, the old one would be melted down, for an upgrade fee.
I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes
me want one of these.
Covert tactile communication / notification. Imagine a poker game.
A rotary phone will be bolted to the wall and work for 100 years. An iPhone needs to be replaced in a few years once the battery starts to go.
This is essentially the same scenario, people wont care about them being disposable, because they wont necessarily be using it as a watch as the main feature any more. (Just like how people hardly use their phones for talking any more)
This is essentially the same scenario, people wont care about them being disposable, because they wont necessarily be using it as a watch as the main feature any more. (Just like how people hardly use their phones for talking any more)
People who buy mechanical watches for 3k+ buy them because they are beautifully engineered and finished works of art. Trust me, I'm one of them. Most of us will not swap out our Tudors, our Omegas, our Patek's, or our VC's with one of these. It's just a different market.
The thing is though, once a watch can do more than tell time, the market is going to expand dramatically. If a killer app comes out, I expect the original market to get crowded out.
Well, I just don't think that most of the people who wear watches as jewelry (like myself) care for a watch to do any more than it already does. I appreciate the beauty of a watch and the (old school) engineering behind it. I don't want something like this. Just a different market.
To give you some perspective, I'm a bit of a watch freak, certainly not the norm. Hell, I visit and participate in more than one watch forum on a daily basis. Mine is the general sentiment being expressed in those forums.
To give you some perspective, I'm a bit of a watch freak, certainly not the norm. Hell, I visit and participate in more than one watch forum on a daily basis. Mine is the general sentiment being expressed in those forums.
It's not a watch doing more than it already does; it's other devices converging onto your wrist.
You used to have to carry a camera around if you wanted to take pictures. Now that's part of the hunk of silicon in your pocket. Similarly, you used to have to carry a bunch of plastic cards in a wallet. Now that's part of the hunk of silicon on your wrist.
The hunk of silicon on your wrist isn't a "watch that does more" any more than a device that's both a camera, a PDA, a GPS, etc. is a "phone that does more." It's a convergence of several orthogonal devices that isn't a phone, or a watch, at all.
Thinking of the Apple Watch as primarily a watch obscures the value proposition. It has the form factor of a watch, but it may as well not tell time at all, for all people will care about that feature of it. In fact, maybe it's better to pretend it doesn't tell time, to help you cut through to the real reasons people would want one on their wrist.
You used to have to carry a camera around if you wanted to take pictures. Now that's part of the hunk of silicon in your pocket. Similarly, you used to have to carry a bunch of plastic cards in a wallet. Now that's part of the hunk of silicon on your wrist.
The hunk of silicon on your wrist isn't a "watch that does more" any more than a device that's both a camera, a PDA, a GPS, etc. is a "phone that does more." It's a convergence of several orthogonal devices that isn't a phone, or a watch, at all.
Thinking of the Apple Watch as primarily a watch obscures the value proposition. It has the form factor of a watch, but it may as well not tell time at all, for all people will care about that feature of it. In fact, maybe it's better to pretend it doesn't tell time, to help you cut through to the real reasons people would want one on their wrist.
The problem is that it competes with something that I love. I have to chose one or the other and, as a watch collector/enthusiast/lover/obsessor (I seriously love watches) it will never win. Ever.
You do have two wrists, right?
I really hope you're joking.
Mostly, but perhaps we'll see wristbands that don't look like watches that can be worn on the other wrist?
Actually, that's exactly what the watch enthusiast crowd seems to be asking for. They will never replace their Omegas with this, but they would be open to wearing a band on the other wrist a la fitbit.
"if a killer app"
That's a pretty big "if" though isn't it?
The killer features of watches is that they tell the time. Yet the jury is still out on the Apple Watch (and horribly divided, it seems).
That's a pretty big "if" though isn't it?
The killer features of watches is that they tell the time. Yet the jury is still out on the Apple Watch (and horribly divided, it seems).
The killer feature of phones is that they call people. My £10 candy bar phone does that far better than the iPhone, but I don't think that Apple is too worried.
And here I thought the killer watch app was telling time!
> A rotary phone will be bolted to the wall and work for 100 years.
But who will know how to use it?
I grew up using rotary phones. But about 15 years ago, after many years of using Touch-Tone, I tried to place a call on a rotary wall phone. And I couldn't do it without a lot of retries. There is a little bit of a technique of knowing how hard to turn and just when to release. And I had lost the recipe.
Plus I don't think anyone under 30 y/o has even used one. They'd find it difficult to dial correctly.
Not only that, the rotary phones are filled with mechanical components that rust and wear out. If it weren't for the infernal non-replaceable battery, my money would be on an iPhone surviving for much longer than a rotary phone.
But who will know how to use it?
I grew up using rotary phones. But about 15 years ago, after many years of using Touch-Tone, I tried to place a call on a rotary wall phone. And I couldn't do it without a lot of retries. There is a little bit of a technique of knowing how hard to turn and just when to release. And I had lost the recipe.
Plus I don't think anyone under 30 y/o has even used one. They'd find it difficult to dial correctly.
Not only that, the rotary phones are filled with mechanical components that rust and wear out. If it weren't for the infernal non-replaceable battery, my money would be on an iPhone surviving for much longer than a rotary phone.
An iPhone isn't to a rotary phone as an Apple Watch is to a mechanical watch.
> That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one of these.
Haptic walking directions for me. I travel a lot and walk a lot, and to be able to find my way without having to looking at a phone screen would be lovely (not to mention it means I can then keep my attention on my surroundings rather than being distracted).
Haptic walking directions for me. I travel a lot and walk a lot, and to be able to find my way without having to looking at a phone screen would be lovely (not to mention it means I can then keep my attention on my surroundings rather than being distracted).
That's why I'm waiting for vibrating insoles. Glancing at a watch is useful (G Watch owner here...), but it's still looking at something. Wearables will be awesome when they're don't appear to be there.
Buzz once to turn left, twice to turn right. Eyes up! :)
GPS is a battery hog, that is maybe why they decided to use the phone's battery and GPS?
We here on HN are mostly looking at Apple Watch as Android Wear vs. Apple Watch. This article is interesting since it shows that Apple is successful at completely ignoring these competitors and promoting Watch in a totally different market and environment, where all that matters is Brand, Design and Build. No matter if Android Wear is as good or even better, none of their manufacturers can compete in the luxury space as well as Apple may be able to.
I think this is a key point that's further backed up by Apple's recent hiring of people from the high-end fashion space.
It certainly seems to me that Apple aren't even trying to directly compete for the audience that Android Wear attracts.
Ben Thompson[1] has been talking for months about Apple moving properly into the luxury goods sector. The Watch seems like their first real push in that direction.
[1]: http://stratechery.com
It certainly seems to me that Apple aren't even trying to directly compete for the audience that Android Wear attracts.
Ben Thompson[1] has been talking for months about Apple moving properly into the luxury goods sector. The Watch seems like their first real push in that direction.
[1]: http://stratechery.com
I agree. Hiring Angela Ahrendts away from Burberry was a strong sign!
I agree. This is way less about anything technical and much more about fashion (a thing Apple is quite good at). I'm reminded of this article that was posted on HN not too long ago[0].
Also, based purely on style, the Apple watch looks quite luxurious, and the pictures really do make it seem "expensive". However, I also find other smart watches quite nice, such as the Moto360.
Also, based purely on style, the Apple watch looks quite luxurious, and the pictures really do make it seem "expensive". However, I also find other smart watches quite nice, such as the Moto360.
I forgot to actually link to the item:
[0] - http://www.subtraction.com/2014/07/09/looks-by-dr-dre/
[0] - http://www.subtraction.com/2014/07/09/looks-by-dr-dre/
Funny that, I have been saying for years when people were comparing the iPhone to various Android devices based a tech laundry list that Apple essentially operates as a fashion business and a technical comparison is meaningless. That's not how or why people buy these things. I seriously want to see the guy who walks into a store asks for a phone with at least two ARMv7-A cores at 1.5GHz with a screen of at least 280ppi.
So, nothing new there except now they compete with existing fashion items.
All told, even though the article was gushing (almost to the point of shill) it still admits it's bulky, it's for nerds and it's a market category noone asked for. We will see how it goes.
So, nothing new there except now they compete with existing fashion items.
All told, even though the article was gushing (almost to the point of shill) it still admits it's bulky, it's for nerds and it's a market category noone asked for. We will see how it goes.
Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review.
I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:
> Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches
> In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish.
Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned.
I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.
I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350 mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead, we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:
> Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches
> In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or Asia) look amateurish.
Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he mentioned.
I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes: other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look quite nice and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.
>Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy? "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back? I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review.
That wouldn't be a watch review I'd want to read, that would be the analogous of what we say in the photography forums "pixel peeping"/"measurebation" review (which, like the reviews you describe in watch circles, all too common).
That wouldn't be a watch review I'd want to read, that would be the analogous of what we say in the photography forums "pixel peeping"/"measurebation" review (which, like the reviews you describe in watch circles, all too common).
Yeah, but I think "watch fans" are quite different than photographers in that respect.
Watch fans are generally pretty up-front about the fact that they like watches mainly because they're beautiful/elegant/cool artifacts. As long as a watch keeps OK time, they don't seem particularly concerned with the nominal functionality.
I think in reality, many people like cameras for similar reasons, but it's not quite as acceptable to admit that. Even if someone really bought that expensive Leica because it's a beautiful jewel of precision manufacturing and high-quality materials (a perfectly fine reason if you ask me), they often put up something of a front, trying to emphasize all the ways it takes great pictures and helps their photography style...
Watch fans are generally pretty up-front about the fact that they like watches mainly because they're beautiful/elegant/cool artifacts. As long as a watch keeps OK time, they don't seem particularly concerned with the nominal functionality.
I think in reality, many people like cameras for similar reasons, but it's not quite as acceptable to admit that. Even if someone really bought that expensive Leica because it's a beautiful jewel of precision manufacturing and high-quality materials (a perfectly fine reason if you ask me), they often put up something of a front, trying to emphasize all the ways it takes great pictures and helps their photography style...
There are several different Apple Watches in a range of different materials, so I think this was more of a preview of the whole line.
Oh sweetheart. Bless you.
"Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For" -
Thats what I feel when I hear about any tech company launching a watch, be it Samsung or Apple. Maybe its just me, but since owning a smartphone, I feel I don't really need a watch. None I know wears a watch anymore. Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones. Also, how many more screens can I handle? Laptops for work, tablets for browsing, smartphones for on the go tech.... and a smartwatch to do what exactly?
Maybe I am missing the whole point of smart watches. I am hoping its just not me.
Thats what I feel when I hear about any tech company launching a watch, be it Samsung or Apple. Maybe its just me, but since owning a smartphone, I feel I don't really need a watch. None I know wears a watch anymore. Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones. Also, how many more screens can I handle? Laptops for work, tablets for browsing, smartphones for on the go tech.... and a smartwatch to do what exactly?
Maybe I am missing the whole point of smart watches. I am hoping its just not me.
This is my experience going from watch, to smartphone, to smartwatch:
The phone replaced my watch because it completed the same task while also completing many more. Why bother with a watch (for me, at least, just another thing to remember) when the phone works just as well?
A phone is not a perfect replacement, however. I constantly have to pull it out of my pocket, input a code to unlock it for various tasks, etc.
My Android watch has replaced the action of pulling my phone out of my pocket and unlocking it for basic tasks. It tells me the time, lets me dismiss phone calls, can pause and play my music, take notes, remind me of things, and display texts--and I no longer have to fish around in my pocket for a phone that takes seconds to unlock and navigate through.
As the smartphone replaced a repetitive task (remembering to wear my watch), the smartwatch replaces another repetitive task (wrestling with a phone stuck in my pocket).
The phone replaced my watch because it completed the same task while also completing many more. Why bother with a watch (for me, at least, just another thing to remember) when the phone works just as well?
A phone is not a perfect replacement, however. I constantly have to pull it out of my pocket, input a code to unlock it for various tasks, etc.
My Android watch has replaced the action of pulling my phone out of my pocket and unlocking it for basic tasks. It tells me the time, lets me dismiss phone calls, can pause and play my music, take notes, remind me of things, and display texts--and I no longer have to fish around in my pocket for a phone that takes seconds to unlock and navigate through.
As the smartphone replaced a repetitive task (remembering to wear my watch), the smartwatch replaces another repetitive task (wrestling with a phone stuck in my pocket).
yeah...people somehow manage to justify buying anything that apple makes. And nothing wrong with that, just interesting observation.
Apple makes Android watches, now?
Exactly my experience as well. I got a smartwatch for a project and expected to hate it; I hate most gadgets. But it effectively made my phone more polite.
I've been around a while, and I've seen the "tech" industry evolve, or devolve depending on your perspective, into one that's entirely about fashion.
I guarantee that for most people who would buy a watch like this the actual functionality is probably so far removed from their minds it's a non-issue. The marketing doesn't say what the watch does, it fetishizes the laser-cut infinitely adjustable magnetic watch band with meticulous design to make you go, "Oooooooh."
We are so far from the days where tech reviews would contain a breakdown of the new instructions in the latest microprocessor. Devices are only tangentially about functionality and tech; people will buy this because carrying around a phone (that replaced the watch) was "so last year."
I think any attempt to debate the merits of the device on a functional level are misguided. This is a watch that you will have to take off and RECHARGE for pete's sake.
I guarantee that for most people who would buy a watch like this the actual functionality is probably so far removed from their minds it's a non-issue. The marketing doesn't say what the watch does, it fetishizes the laser-cut infinitely adjustable magnetic watch band with meticulous design to make you go, "Oooooooh."
We are so far from the days where tech reviews would contain a breakdown of the new instructions in the latest microprocessor. Devices are only tangentially about functionality and tech; people will buy this because carrying around a phone (that replaced the watch) was "so last year."
I think any attempt to debate the merits of the device on a functional level are misguided. This is a watch that you will have to take off and RECHARGE for pete's sake.
You nailed it - "This is a watch that you will have to take off and RECHARGE for pete's sake.". No tech-watch company has yet advertized what the major benefit of the watch really is.
Don't misunderstand me - This is a beautiful device. I will go check it out in the Apple store just to see if I am missing some major use case that can help improve my productivity in a significant way. Till then, its just another add-on device for me.
Don't misunderstand me - This is a beautiful device. I will go check it out in the Apple store just to see if I am missing some major use case that can help improve my productivity in a significant way. Till then, its just another add-on device for me.
You are talking about tech for its own sake. The target market for this segment is vanishingly small.
But to address your point more directly. Do you already know how to make a wearable device of a similar size that offers all these features without having to recharge once a day, by "early 2015"? If you do, then I'm very sure you can find employment at Apple or one of its competitors.
But to address your point more directly. Do you already know how to make a wearable device of a similar size that offers all these features without having to recharge once a day, by "early 2015"? If you do, then I'm very sure you can find employment at Apple or one of its competitors.
Watches are fashion accessories first, and time pieces second. So no. And I wear a fossil watch 24/7 not sure if I want a apple watch, but it does look sexy.
> None I know wears a watch anymore.
You're taking functionality and fashion and grouping them together. Then you're dismissing one of the elements, functionality, and throwing out the other with it, fashion.
I wear a mechanical watch purely for fashion. The same way females wear rings in their ears. Ultimately, I don't think the first iteration of Apple Watch is going to supplant that, however it may in the future.
You're taking functionality and fashion and grouping them together. Then you're dismissing one of the elements, functionality, and throwing out the other with it, fashion.
I wear a mechanical watch purely for fashion. The same way females wear rings in their ears. Ultimately, I don't think the first iteration of Apple Watch is going to supplant that, however it may in the future.
> The same way females wear rings in their ears.
That's an odd way of phrasing it. Are you a Ferrengi? Usually we call them women, not females.
That's an odd way of phrasing it. Are you a Ferrengi? Usually we call them women, not females.
No, it's not just you. I can't see using a smart watch. But (I realize this is an unpopular opinion), I don't care for smart phone either. Little tiny screen, slow button push typing, half assed internet with me _all the time. Not my thing at all. I finally got a Nexus 7 so I could have internet in my pocket for those times I really needed it. It sits collecting dust while I wear my laptops out.
It's funny to see the looks (especially being a web developer) when I take out my $15 dumb phone. Some people look like they think I'm one step above homeless. But I just don't have a use for a smart phone other than to make sure web apps display properly. I guess I like devices to do one thing and do it well. But I realize this is minority opinion.
It's funny to see the looks (especially being a web developer) when I take out my $15 dumb phone. Some people look like they think I'm one step above homeless. But I just don't have a use for a smart phone other than to make sure web apps display properly. I guess I like devices to do one thing and do it well. But I realize this is minority opinion.
"Werent watches one of the main things replaced by smartphones"
Weren't watches replaced by watches?
They started off in towers, then to rooms, then to tables, then to pockets and then to wrists. Is this not a similar evolution of computers?
Weren't watches replaced by watches?
They started off in towers, then to rooms, then to tables, then to pockets and then to wrists. Is this not a similar evolution of computers?
A watch is only to tell time. A phone is only to talk. Neither of these require a size bigger than "barely able to see easily. However smartphones have incorporated 'web browsing' (and analogues) into them, and they do have a size requirement that they can't get smaller than. The market has spoken, and all the vendors are bringing out larger phones with bigger screens. That functionality isn't something that can fit onto a wrist; not until we have sci-fi style holographic projectors, anyway.
It's about wearables not watches. Apple just hasn't totally abandoned skeuomorphism yet.
Apple has a pattern of doing things like this. They launch things, and you say to yourself "what problem is that solving? who's going to buy that?" Then they iterate on the design and functionality of the thing, and apps get developed for the specific device, and suddenly it makes perfect sense. iPhone 1 was ridiculously feature bare. iPad 1 had no real great apps, and was pretty feature bare as well. We all know how those both turned out. That's what I imagine will happen with this one. I'm looking to version 2 or 3 for when these things become amazing.
Apple is historically the kind of company that says "you can have it in any color you like, so long as it's black" for new products... and then when the product has been around for awhile, they start accessorizing it.
The iPhone is a good example: it wasn't until last year that you could have more than 2 versions (black and white)... and the 5c added many possible combinations with the off color cases. That's a product that had been on the market 6 years at that point!
So, actually offering all these different variations is quite a departure for them.
One argument for the Beats acquisition I heard was that Beats did this as well- they had many SKUs and many color combinations for each model of headphone and the argument went that managing selling a product line like that took a lot of special skill.
I wonder if this is the thing that Apple was really buying with Beats? (or more realistically, a big part of Beats value to Apple.)
The iPhone is a good example: it wasn't until last year that you could have more than 2 versions (black and white)... and the 5c added many possible combinations with the off color cases. That's a product that had been on the market 6 years at that point!
So, actually offering all these different variations is quite a departure for them.
One argument for the Beats acquisition I heard was that Beats did this as well- they had many SKUs and many color combinations for each model of headphone and the argument went that managing selling a product line like that took a lot of special skill.
I wonder if this is the thing that Apple was really buying with Beats? (or more realistically, a big part of Beats value to Apple.)
Another explanation for color choices - the austere Jobs is no longer at the helm, it's Tim Cook, and Tim clearly wants to steer Apple into the fashion market - he recently hired many top execs from fashionable brands. Beats acquisition ties in as well - wearing Beats is more a fashion statement more than a technical selection.
Apple apparently understands the watch market. So yes, fashion.
I remember the shock and lust the original coloured iMac was greeted with. That was the first comeback Jobs hit.
Jobs was fine with colors.
Jobs was fine with colors.
Also the iPod minis.
Don't forget these guys: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lCcb-07Pmcc/TwXJDjDeNJI/AAAAAAAACF...
There is a fine line between using things like color as a tool to shape a product, versus using them as an option to sell a product. I know which side Jobs was on.
More realistically, I think it was obvious to them that they couldn't make a watch in a singular style and expect wide adoption. Personal style is a very important factor in watch purchases.
nailed it.
the iPod Nano is the counterexample, together with the bright colors of the iMac.
the Nano is especially important as it was used already by various kickstarter projects as a poor man's Apple Watch. the real one looks very similar actually.
the Nano is especially important as it was used already by various kickstarter projects as a poor man's Apple Watch. the real one looks very similar actually.
I think of those as supporting examples. The first iMac had bright colors, but you're right that they both adopted colors rather quicker than my example of the iPhone.
I wonder how much of the impetus for the Apple Watch came from the number of people who wanted to use the nano as a watch. Kind of a back door MVP in a way.
I wonder how much of the impetus for the Apple Watch came from the number of people who wanted to use the nano as a watch. Kind of a back door MVP in a way.
The iPod Nano actually launched in black and white, briefly dropping the color options from the earlier HD based iPod mini. That was toward the beginning of Apple's black/white phase.
Thru went back to colors pretty quickly, probably for a mix of fashion and scratch resistance. There was a class action about the plastic nanos getting damaged too easily.
Thru went back to colors pretty quickly, probably for a mix of fashion and scratch resistance. There was a class action about the plastic nanos getting damaged too easily.
[deleted]
That's not really true. There was the iPods, but also the 1998 iMac which I think was the first computer to come in multiple colors.
We partnered with Timex on a wearables project once, and their sentiment seemed to be that you needed a couple of thousand SKUs before you'd truly satisfy people's desire for personal expression. With less you'd run into "I like that thin blue band, but it should be a different shade of blue."
My issue with the watch is the crown control. It just feels lazy to me to take a control mechanism made 100+ years ago for winding mechanical watches off your wrist, and repurpose it for digital control of a watch on your wrist.
Is it possible that the best possible UX solution for winding a mechanical watch and controlling a digital OS is exactly the same? Perhaps. But that seems improbable to me. It's hard to know until the thing is out in the wild, but I would expect a lot of people fiddling awkwardly with the top half of that tiny little dial as the bottom of the dial digs into their wrist. Doesn't seem terribly fun.
Or to look at it differently, both of Apple's other consumer hits (iPod, iPhone) introduced a navigation interface that was completely novel and way better than anything else on the market (iPhone => finger navigated multi-touch screen, iPod => rotary dial). A crown on a watch is definitely not novel, and I'm thoroughly skeptical it will be way better than its competition.
That being said, it's unlikely that this thing bombs. But as a test of innovation post-Steve, I'm just not seeing it. And over time, the luster of Apple will fade if there's no innovation.
Is it possible that the best possible UX solution for winding a mechanical watch and controlling a digital OS is exactly the same? Perhaps. But that seems improbable to me. It's hard to know until the thing is out in the wild, but I would expect a lot of people fiddling awkwardly with the top half of that tiny little dial as the bottom of the dial digs into their wrist. Doesn't seem terribly fun.
Or to look at it differently, both of Apple's other consumer hits (iPod, iPhone) introduced a navigation interface that was completely novel and way better than anything else on the market (iPhone => finger navigated multi-touch screen, iPod => rotary dial). A crown on a watch is definitely not novel, and I'm thoroughly skeptical it will be way better than its competition.
That being said, it's unlikely that this thing bombs. But as a test of innovation post-Steve, I'm just not seeing it. And over time, the luster of Apple will fade if there's no innovation.
The control mechanism that's lasted over 100 years obviously works well. We are not too far into the touchscreen era, and when the thing is only 1 inch on each side the touchscreen isn't going to work especially well.
Someone made a mockup a week or two ago that used the ring around normal watch face as an input mechanism. I actually thought that was kind of a neat idea. I'd kind of like to see one of the Android watchmakers give it a try. But it was more of a 'watch with some interaction' (like the old Timex Datalink) than a 'smartwatch'.
Someone made a mockup a week or two ago that used the ring around normal watch face as an input mechanism. I actually thought that was kind of a neat idea. I'd kind of like to see one of the Android watchmakers give it a try. But it was more of a 'watch with some interaction' (like the old Timex Datalink) than a 'smartwatch'.
Apple could easily do that for a round "Apple Watch 2". It's the same as the digital crown in function, just in a different place. The just have to make the bezel touch sensitive. The feel of using it would be very reminiscent of the iPod scroll wheel.
Crown mechanisms worked well for a completely different purpose. They are the easiest way to set and wind a watch that is not on your wrist. Totally different use case than controlling the watch's screen while you're wearing it!
Ventura Watches[1] uses a similar mechanism to configure their watch. It is called Easyskroll (TM) and was patented in 2002 under 2002CH-1962 [2] so Apple may have a problem here.
[1] http://www.ventura.ch/
[2] https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KScQVKCwL...
[1] http://www.ventura.ch/
[2] https://www.google.ch/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=KScQVKCwL...
With about 100 years of prior art for configuring the settings on a mechanical watch I don't think that patent should ever have been granted, nor do I think it stands much chance of survival once they try to get money out of Apple.
I liked this:
"But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it."
Specifically "The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable."
Apple knows?
Obviously Apple didn't develop the watch in a vacuum. And they have the money and resources to hire and consult with the best people in the world. So the surprise isn't that they did this what's surprising is how other equally rich companies don't tend to do things like this. In other words they seem to be lacking the motivation and creativity to even hire the right individuals.
"But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it."
Specifically "The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable."
Apple knows?
Obviously Apple didn't develop the watch in a vacuum. And they have the money and resources to hire and consult with the best people in the world. So the surprise isn't that they did this what's surprising is how other equally rich companies don't tend to do things like this. In other words they seem to be lacking the motivation and creativity to even hire the right individuals.
The smartwatch represents the beginning of a new era: the unbundling of the smartphone. Like Marc Andreessen pointed out with his last tweet in this storm (https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/481554165454209027), "Unbundle X from Y, but then use the liberation of X as leverage to do amazing new things with X."
This thought framework has me convinced that watch-like wearables have a place, but I think the fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.
This thought framework has me convinced that watch-like wearables have a place, but I think the fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.
> The fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.
I agree. I think they will sell a boatload of the first generation, but two or three years down the track it will get its equivalent of the iPod-on-Windows or App-store-for-iPhone moment and take off. Everything will suddenly click and everyone will want one.
I agree. I think they will sell a boatload of the first generation, but two or three years down the track it will get its equivalent of the iPod-on-Windows or App-store-for-iPhone moment and take off. Everything will suddenly click and everyone will want one.
Here's one thing I realized about the famous Apple "reality distortion field" with the release of this watch.
The reality distortion doesn't start with the consumer once the product is released. It starts within Apple while the product is being developed. I mean they really believed when they were building the Apple Watch "We are building a $350 device". Wheter you love the design or hate it, it's hard to deny the effort that went into designing this device, from getting the dimensions right, to the curvature of the screen and bezel camouflage to the bracelet selection. This reality distortion field only then gets transfered to the RIGHT customer who has no problem paying $350.
I still think it'll be a tough slog to get the watch through the early adopter curve and over the early majority hump simply because it has no compelling features as of yet, but that might change with a wider ecoaystem. As of right now, the main selling feature of this watch is the built in reality distortion field.
With the right offer though it might have an easier time. If you got the watch for $100 extra when upgrading your iPhone anyways that might be an easier pill to swallow than paying $350 outright. Whatever the offer may be, Apple needs to find the equivalent of the carrier subsidies which propelled smartphone adoption at the end of last decade.
TL'DR: What Apple realizes is that the way to sell their watch is to communicate to their customers that they want to wear the watch because they'll enjoy wearing it - no other reasons or features are needed. In fact many of the truly novel features (payment, identification, keyless entry...) will only scare away mainstream users. Just put in on their wrist first.. And show them the true functionality slowly and in stages.
The reality distortion doesn't start with the consumer once the product is released. It starts within Apple while the product is being developed. I mean they really believed when they were building the Apple Watch "We are building a $350 device". Wheter you love the design or hate it, it's hard to deny the effort that went into designing this device, from getting the dimensions right, to the curvature of the screen and bezel camouflage to the bracelet selection. This reality distortion field only then gets transfered to the RIGHT customer who has no problem paying $350.
I still think it'll be a tough slog to get the watch through the early adopter curve and over the early majority hump simply because it has no compelling features as of yet, but that might change with a wider ecoaystem. As of right now, the main selling feature of this watch is the built in reality distortion field.
With the right offer though it might have an easier time. If you got the watch for $100 extra when upgrading your iPhone anyways that might be an easier pill to swallow than paying $350 outright. Whatever the offer may be, Apple needs to find the equivalent of the carrier subsidies which propelled smartphone adoption at the end of last decade.
TL'DR: What Apple realizes is that the way to sell their watch is to communicate to their customers that they want to wear the watch because they'll enjoy wearing it - no other reasons or features are needed. In fact many of the truly novel features (payment, identification, keyless entry...) will only scare away mainstream users. Just put in on their wrist first.. And show them the true functionality slowly and in stages.
Apple doesn't really sell early-adopter products. They sell to the early-majority segment, who then persuade the late majority eventually. [1]
You can tell because they don't do anything particularly novel. The early Mac innovations were taken from Xerox PARC. The first iPod came out 3 years after the first MP3 player. The first iPhone came out 6 years after the first smartphone. The Pebble was part of the YC 2011 class.
This is a smart approach. Apple lets other people pioneer a product space to figure out what works, and then use their immense design talent and their even more immense cash reserves to turn a good-but-geeky product into something that the bulk of the market will actually buy and use. And then they scoop up enormous amounts of money.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle
You can tell because they don't do anything particularly novel. The early Mac innovations were taken from Xerox PARC. The first iPod came out 3 years after the first MP3 player. The first iPhone came out 6 years after the first smartphone. The Pebble was part of the YC 2011 class.
This is a smart approach. Apple lets other people pioneer a product space to figure out what works, and then use their immense design talent and their even more immense cash reserves to turn a good-but-geeky product into something that the bulk of the market will actually buy and use. And then they scoop up enormous amounts of money.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_lifecycle
I don't really follow what you're saying. How is designing something to match its price point distorting reality?
Because the mark-up on the actual price of producing a product is inflated due to the reality distortion field. Apple is not in the business of selling a collection of electrical conponents, silicon and labour. They are selling admission to the experience of owning an Apple product.
Apple superfans won't wear this watch because of some feature that makes their lives easier somehow. The first buyers will wear it because they enjoy wearing it from a physical and psychological standpoint.
Apple superfans won't wear this watch because of some feature that makes their lives easier somehow. The first buyers will wear it because they enjoy wearing it from a physical and psychological standpoint.
I'm not sure your follow up clarifies your point, but it's entirely possible I'm misunderstanding it.
Are you saying that the only way Apple can sell their products for such a profit (over the raw cost of materials) is because of the Reality Distortion Field? We know that they've been working on this for years with all of the associated costs of designing and developing a product in that time.
Are you saying that the only way Apple can sell their products for such a profit (over the raw cost of materials) is because of the Reality Distortion Field? We know that they've been working on this for years with all of the associated costs of designing and developing a product in that time.
No what I am saying is that the much talked about "reality distortion field" is nothing Apple specific. It's simply the ability of a company to charge a higher mark up due to premiumness of its brand.
People don't buy Mercedes cars because of the high tech in the cars (although that's a bonus). They but them because they're Mercedes cars.
In the same way people don't buy Rolexes to tell the time (although that's a bonus). They buy them because they want to wear a Rolex.
As easy as it is for some of the snobbier techies to dismiss Samsung's or LG's R&D I am pretty sure their smart watches didn't come out of thin air. They simply end up charging less for them because they never imagined them as premium products but rather utilities. They didn't start with a "reality distortion field".
People don't buy Mercedes cars because of the high tech in the cars (although that's a bonus). They but them because they're Mercedes cars.
In the same way people don't buy Rolexes to tell the time (although that's a bonus). They buy them because they want to wear a Rolex.
As easy as it is for some of the snobbier techies to dismiss Samsung's or LG's R&D I am pretty sure their smart watches didn't come out of thin air. They simply end up charging less for them because they never imagined them as premium products but rather utilities. They didn't start with a "reality distortion field".
A watch which does need charging once a day with a special charger, which is not very robust, very clunky, with a UI for kids for 350+?
No way.
Apple targets the fashion market. Material might be great, but the form factor is horrible: big, clunky, ...
Basically Apple tries to sell a very tiny computer add-on in a jewelry case.
Currently I'm only using watches for training a Garmin 310xt and now most of the time a Suunto Ambit2 S. The latter is the more modern and it does the training stuff very well. I can swim with it, it has GPS and it has very good heart rate monitoring functionality (it gets the oxygen consumption and energy using heart rate variability data).
For Apple I would hope that the new Apple Watch is the equivalent of the first iPhone, which also wasn't very good on the hardware level (slow, limited connectivity, ...).
No way.
Apple targets the fashion market. Material might be great, but the form factor is horrible: big, clunky, ...
Basically Apple tries to sell a very tiny computer add-on in a jewelry case.
Currently I'm only using watches for training a Garmin 310xt and now most of the time a Suunto Ambit2 S. The latter is the more modern and it does the training stuff very well. I can swim with it, it has GPS and it has very good heart rate monitoring functionality (it gets the oxygen consumption and energy using heart rate variability data).
For Apple I would hope that the new Apple Watch is the equivalent of the first iPhone, which also wasn't very good on the hardware level (slow, limited connectivity, ...).
I don't know how accurate Apple's method for monitoring the heart rate is but it's definitely cool that I don't need to use a chest strap. That said knowing about my oxygen consumption and heart rate variability during swimming exercises is pretty amazing, I highly doubt the optical Apple sensor would work in that environment. So that Suunto Ambit2 looks neat indeed, thanks for sharing.
Optical sensors currently don't give that data.
So far only chest straps deliver that data.
So far only chest straps deliver that data.
Most oximetry is performed optically, actually[1], and it is the technology Apple is drawing from to determine heart rate[2]. It's not difficult to build an oximeter[3], though reliable and calibrated O2 sat[4] numbers may be more challenging to derive from a device in the form factor of a consumer watch.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoplethysmogram
3. http://www.swharden.com/blog/2013-04-14-simple-diy-ecg-pulse...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_saturation_(medicine)
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulse_oximetry
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoplethysmogram
3. http://www.swharden.com/blog/2013-04-14-simple-diy-ecg-pulse...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_saturation_(medicine)
I'd love it if the first generation Apple Watch had an oximeter. But I don't think it will (despite all the sensors on the back). The reason is the FDA. Measuring your pulse rate is something that has been done for centuries if not millennia. But pulse oximetry is very recent, and the bureaucrats are willy waving to show that they're in charge. See e.g. this article that discusses the topic.
http://mobihealthnews.com/29956/building-the-case-against-ap...
Might be, but none of the training watches on the market with optical pulse sense offer something like that, AFAIK.
If it also would work under training conditions is to be seen.
How is Ambit 2S at monitoring HR in water? Don't you need the strap for this?
The Ambit2 S does not do that. The new Ambit3 does it though. The strap works underwater, too. It buffers the data and sends it later when bluetooth connectivity is back...
From the canonical source of all questions fitness watch related: http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/04/suunto-ambit2-review.html
> Note that the ANT and ANT+ transmission protocols that the Ambit2 utilizes to transmit heart rate don’t transmit well underwater (about 1-2”), thus, you won’t get any heart rate data.
I believe Polar's ultrasonic sound transmission is still the only one which works reliably underwater.
> Note that the ANT and ANT+ transmission protocols that the Ambit2 utilizes to transmit heart rate don’t transmit well underwater (about 1-2”), thus, you won’t get any heart rate data.
I believe Polar's ultrasonic sound transmission is still the only one which works reliably underwater.
"UI for kids"
Haha that's made my day thanks. Very witty.
Haha that's made my day thanks. Very witty.
Great article and photos.
Imagine a man who grew up in the middle class, went do a decent school, got an okay job, lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town, maybe drives a German car and occasionally splurges on something nice for himself. Do you see him wearing the Apple Watch? I don't.
I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with.
Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For
Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
Imagine a man who grew up in the middle class, went do a decent school, got an okay job, lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town, maybe drives a German car and occasionally splurges on something nice for himself. Do you see him wearing the Apple Watch? I don't.
I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with.
Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For
Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
>I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20 year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget to connect to it and play with.
You are exactly right, which is why this is so worrying from an investment perspective.
No matter if you like it or not, the wealthy drive fashion and taste. The reason why we think of BMW, Porsche, Ferrari's as "luxury" is primarily because the rich buy them.
No stock trader is going to trade his Philippe Patek for a $350 watch that his pool-boy wears.
This is something that is not getting talked about. No one buys watches to tell time. They are almost exclusively used as status symbols.
This is the miscalculation in Apple's plan. No one needs a watch anymore. Trying to make one relevant for a purpose other than status symbol is going to be tough.
They should've made a "smart band" that connects to any watch face. That would've been a clever strategy.
You are exactly right, which is why this is so worrying from an investment perspective.
No matter if you like it or not, the wealthy drive fashion and taste. The reason why we think of BMW, Porsche, Ferrari's as "luxury" is primarily because the rich buy them.
No stock trader is going to trade his Philippe Patek for a $350 watch that his pool-boy wears.
This is something that is not getting talked about. No one buys watches to tell time. They are almost exclusively used as status symbols.
This is the miscalculation in Apple's plan. No one needs a watch anymore. Trying to make one relevant for a purpose other than status symbol is going to be tough.
They should've made a "smart band" that connects to any watch face. That would've been a clever strategy.
> No one buys watches to tell time.
I do. I don't go anywhere without my watch (I have two, in fact). I purchased a $300 watch (after numerous Timex watches dying in a year) in high school that I've worn daily for 5+ years; I don't see that changing anytime soon. I hate pulling out my phone just to check the date / time—I always get distracted by something. If I need the time or date quickly, I look at my wrist.
I do. I don't go anywhere without my watch (I have two, in fact). I purchased a $300 watch (after numerous Timex watches dying in a year) in high school that I've worn daily for 5+ years; I don't see that changing anytime soon. I hate pulling out my phone just to check the date / time—I always get distracted by something. If I need the time or date quickly, I look at my wrist.
And if that was the only reason you had a watch, you'd have a $5 casio.
They could get the much much more expensive "edition" watch which their pool-boy couldn't even dream of affording. The watch could act as the controller for a digitally connected house (HomeKit) which is something else the pool-boy probably wouldn't be able to afford.
I don't see it as that different from the iPhone today. BMW drivers and pool-boys both employ them as status symbols and neither lets the other drag that image down.
I don't see it as that different from the iPhone today. BMW drivers and pool-boys both employ them as status symbols and neither lets the other drag that image down.
> No stock trader is going to trade his Philippe Patek for a $350 watch that his pool-boy wears.
And yet, the stock trader has the same phone that his pool boy does...
And yet, the stock trader has the same phone that his pool boy does...
I don't know what country you live in, but basically none of what you describe applies to the US. Young finance workers, for example, are among the least culturally influential groups in urban America. Your notion of class dynamics (as illustrated by the "pool-boy" comment) is similarly inapplicable and sounds like something from a developing country.
>Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
The tablet market has been around for well over a decade, it's just that Apple was the first not to build one totally half-ass and as an afterthought or add-on to some more mature market. Tablets before the iPad were basically just weird laptops, and sold about as well as you'd expect something with that description to sell. Same with smartphones, which really replaced both mobile phones and PDAs: the market was there, and entities were making products, but every effort was half-assed and horribly crippled in some way.
I don't know where this product and market is headed. I lump it, for now, into the same category I lump Glass: very interesting tech, but I don't think I have a use case for it. But that's exactly the opposite of where I put tablets before iPad, and PDAs before iPhone, where I knew I had a use case for this stuff, but all the tech was overpriced garbage.
e: and, just to add, this is typical of an inexplicably common failure mode I seem to notice an awful lot, which is:
1. identify a potential market for X, with few or no participants
2. design shitty product B, in attempt to capture that market
3. when shitty product B fails, declare there is no market for X, move on to something else
One of the strengths of Apple, I think, is that they don't do this very often, i.e. they build good products even if they have no apparent competitor. Thus they can build new markets more easily.
The tablet market has been around for well over a decade, it's just that Apple was the first not to build one totally half-ass and as an afterthought or add-on to some more mature market. Tablets before the iPad were basically just weird laptops, and sold about as well as you'd expect something with that description to sell. Same with smartphones, which really replaced both mobile phones and PDAs: the market was there, and entities were making products, but every effort was half-assed and horribly crippled in some way.
I don't know where this product and market is headed. I lump it, for now, into the same category I lump Glass: very interesting tech, but I don't think I have a use case for it. But that's exactly the opposite of where I put tablets before iPad, and PDAs before iPhone, where I knew I had a use case for this stuff, but all the tech was overpriced garbage.
e: and, just to add, this is typical of an inexplicably common failure mode I seem to notice an awful lot, which is:
1. identify a potential market for X, with few or no participants
2. design shitty product B, in attempt to capture that market
3. when shitty product B fails, declare there is no market for X, move on to something else
One of the strengths of Apple, I think, is that they don't do this very often, i.e. they build good products even if they have no apparent competitor. Thus they can build new markets more easily.
> Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it
Er, no, they didn't. Some people said that. Lots of people said it was stupid but that it would probably sell well nonetheless. Other people said it was a well-conceived product for the market even if it wasn't what the speaker was looking for (which is basically the same as the previous thing, but with less ego.)
Lots of people said it was something they were looking for.
Er, no, they didn't. Some people said that. Lots of people said it was stupid but that it would probably sell well nonetheless. Other people said it was a well-conceived product for the market even if it wasn't what the speaker was looking for (which is basically the same as the previous thing, but with less ego.)
Lots of people said it was something they were looking for.
It took Apple several years to enter the MP3 market, the smartphone market or the tablet market.
However, they are releasing their product just two years after the first real smartwatch came out(the Pebble), and the same year that the first color screen smartwatches started coming out.
This is not the standard Apple procedure. Will the iteration 1 of the Apple watch be successful? I personally don't think so, and I was among the people that predicted the success of the iPad [1]. But, paraphrasing what I said for the iPad, given that the Apple watch is made by Apple and that it's well made, elegant, functional and relatively cheap, it could end up selling very well and prove me wrong.
[1] http://economiauniversitaria.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/el-ipa...
However, they are releasing their product just two years after the first real smartwatch came out(the Pebble), and the same year that the first color screen smartwatches started coming out.
This is not the standard Apple procedure. Will the iteration 1 of the Apple watch be successful? I personally don't think so, and I was among the people that predicted the success of the iPad [1]. But, paraphrasing what I said for the iPad, given that the Apple watch is made by Apple and that it's well made, elegant, functional and relatively cheap, it could end up selling very well and prove me wrong.
[1] http://economiauniversitaria.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/el-ipa...
There is no magic formula that says Apple is successful because it waits.
Apple builds what they believe is a meaningful product, and often this involves assembling many more components than their competitors, so it takes them longer.
Apple builds what they believe is a meaningful product, and often this involves assembling many more components than their competitors, so it takes them longer.
The watch will probably have a dozen configurations of model+band for $350-$600 (similar to iPhone prices), and the gold Edition models could cost 10x that. They're casting a very wide net, style and demographic wise.
There 0% chance the Edition models will cost anything close to $3k
> Which is exactly what the iPad was. Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
You mean the declining year-over-year iPad sales figures? The tablet market is far from proven. Maybe the last year has been a hiccup, or maybe tablets weren't all they were cracked up to be.
You mean the declining year-over-year iPad sales figures? The tablet market is far from proven. Maybe the last year has been a hiccup, or maybe tablets weren't all they were cracked up to be.
To be fair to Apple, I think it's fair to say that their ROI on the iPad has been respectable, even if it doesn't turn out to be a product that's successful in the long term.
He's arguing that there's a market, you're saying that sales are down for a year. (Which is true after 3 years of explosive growth)
For the past three quarters, Apple has sold more than 12 million iPads a quarter, or an annual rate of >48 million units. Is 48 million units a year not proof of a market?
For the past three quarters, Apple has sold more than 12 million iPads a quarter, or an annual rate of >48 million units. Is 48 million units a year not proof of a market?
Personally (I'm no market guy) I think this pretty natural. I haven't found a lifecycle for the ipad yet. I go through iphones every 2 generations (I've skipped each S so far), macbook pro every 3-4 years ..
I got an ipad2, and haven't found a need to replace it yet. The battery's pretty solid, and at this rate, that's likely to define when it's time for a new one.
Most the people I see buying new tablets are essentially buying "my first computer" for a kid. Something to shut them up in the car. And that's not a great market for apple's prices.
So I don't think the tablet is a flash in the pan - but I don't think the initial rush was sustainable either. Now that pretty much everyone who wants one, has one, it'll settle down closer to lifecycle turnover.
And to stray a little closer to on-topic, I'm hoping for the same from the watch. That's really what I'm waiting to find out, and I suspect we won't know any time soon. But that $350 is going to feel much heavier if I feel compelled to replace it as often as my phone. (on that note, I did find it interesting that there was absolutely nothing in the way of tech specs announced on the phone. No mention of resolution, just that it's enough. No mention of speed, or storage. The models are defined by materials, not numbers. Hopefully, this is a good sign that this device isn't meant to fit into a race to double the numbers each year.)
I got an ipad2, and haven't found a need to replace it yet. The battery's pretty solid, and at this rate, that's likely to define when it's time for a new one.
Most the people I see buying new tablets are essentially buying "my first computer" for a kid. Something to shut them up in the car. And that's not a great market for apple's prices.
So I don't think the tablet is a flash in the pan - but I don't think the initial rush was sustainable either. Now that pretty much everyone who wants one, has one, it'll settle down closer to lifecycle turnover.
And to stray a little closer to on-topic, I'm hoping for the same from the watch. That's really what I'm waiting to find out, and I suspect we won't know any time soon. But that $350 is going to feel much heavier if I feel compelled to replace it as often as my phone. (on that note, I did find it interesting that there was absolutely nothing in the way of tech specs announced on the phone. No mention of resolution, just that it's enough. No mention of speed, or storage. The models are defined by materials, not numbers. Hopefully, this is a good sign that this device isn't meant to fit into a race to double the numbers each year.)
I think a lot of analysis misses this fact wrt tablets. I might upgrade my ipad2 this year or next, but it feels like it has another 2 or 3 years of life in it, and it won't go unused. The market was flooded with so many cheap Android tablets that never got their OS upgraded and were underpowered to start with. Even the first gen Nexus 7 had the bad RAM issue that caused them to become unusable after a year. That plus the underpowered ipad1 must have skewed a lot of perception on what the natural life cycle is for a tablet device.
I'll replace my iPad3 when they finally release a touchID version.
Of course, my Mom has bought 2 iPads after I bought my first one - maybe the iPad is really targeted to folks who don't already have iPhones?
Of course, my Mom has bought 2 iPads after I bought my first one - maybe the iPad is really targeted to folks who don't already have iPhones?
I wager you both have it backwards.
I believe that aspirational yuppie will be EXACTLY the type Apple wants to buy the watch to build up brand cachet. They will want the kidults to avoid the watch as much as possible until they've turned into yuppies.
The tweens/kidults sets will gravitate towards the 6+, it'll be their preferred daily device when not touching their Apple laptops.
I believe that aspirational yuppie will be EXACTLY the type Apple wants to buy the watch to build up brand cachet. They will want the kidults to avoid the watch as much as possible until they've turned into yuppies.
The tweens/kidults sets will gravitate towards the 6+, it'll be their preferred daily device when not touching their Apple laptops.
Everybody said it was stupid and nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.
The reception to the iPad was overwhelmingly positive (if we really need to go to archived press and reviews, we can do that, but this revisionist nonsense about the iPad's reception needs to stop). And I don't remember anyone doubting that it would sell, just as I have no doubt that Apple will sell tens of millions of this watch regardless of any defects.
What people criticized was the notion that the iPad killed laptops -- that it was the new vehicle of productivity. And the terrible name which, while it stuck, remains terrible.
And those critics were by and large right. I know people can point to the fringe "productivity" use of an iPad, but overwhelming we use it for casual browsing, watching videos, and playing casual games. Exactly the same sort of stuff that we did on PMPs before. Because the iPad is a biggie-sized PMP, and it was hardly the first to idealize the notion that PMPs were cool, but would be cooler bigger (the "CrunchPad", for instance, was proposed two years before the iPad. The concept was obvious, albeit within a narrow band).
The reception to the iPad was overwhelmingly positive (if we really need to go to archived press and reviews, we can do that, but this revisionist nonsense about the iPad's reception needs to stop). And I don't remember anyone doubting that it would sell, just as I have no doubt that Apple will sell tens of millions of this watch regardless of any defects.
What people criticized was the notion that the iPad killed laptops -- that it was the new vehicle of productivity. And the terrible name which, while it stuck, remains terrible.
And those critics were by and large right. I know people can point to the fringe "productivity" use of an iPad, but overwhelming we use it for casual browsing, watching videos, and playing casual games. Exactly the same sort of stuff that we did on PMPs before. Because the iPad is a biggie-sized PMP, and it was hardly the first to idealize the notion that PMPs were cool, but would be cooler bigger (the "CrunchPad", for instance, was proposed two years before the iPad. The concept was obvious, albeit within a narrow band).
Very good point. The iPad really didn't kill laptops, and yet people kept going on how everything needed to be redeveloped for the iPad, or attempted to show an iPad in a productive environment. It's very poor for creating things.
Instead, it clearly is excellent for consuming things, and cleverly pinched that giant segment of the market where people had been buying PCs just to browse the Internet, share photos and go shopping. Consumption.
Instead, it clearly is excellent for consuming things, and cleverly pinched that giant segment of the market where people had been buying PCs just to browse the Internet, share photos and go shopping. Consumption.
Interesting that he assumes all the strap options are available at the "starting price" of $350.
Now in his defense he's a watch guy not an Apple guy. He is just now aware of how the world works.
Yep. First thing I thought of when seeing all those different straps. I have a feeling the elastomer bracelets will come in at $50 and the metal/leather ones will be $100.
Good article. I really agree with his comment:
"It's directly competing for the same real estate (i.e wrist), where as if we had seen a bracelet of some kind announced yesterday, those early adapters, myself included, would be begging Apple to take their pre-pre-pre-order"
I really did want the apple watch to be more of a bracelet and something that could be complimentary to an analog watch with all the messaging, notification, health aspects in tact. More than anything, the health tracking seems to be the most relevant for myself, and for that, I see a JawBone Up or something comparable that I can rest next to my analog watch as a potentially better option.
The design is brilliant, it's just not for me. However, iPhone 6 looks great so not like Apple won't be taking my money :)
"It's directly competing for the same real estate (i.e wrist), where as if we had seen a bracelet of some kind announced yesterday, those early adapters, myself included, would be begging Apple to take their pre-pre-pre-order"
I really did want the apple watch to be more of a bracelet and something that could be complimentary to an analog watch with all the messaging, notification, health aspects in tact. More than anything, the health tracking seems to be the most relevant for myself, and for that, I see a JawBone Up or something comparable that I can rest next to my analog watch as a potentially better option.
The design is brilliant, it's just not for me. However, iPhone 6 looks great so not like Apple won't be taking my money :)
I'm sure the author is very knowledgeable on the watch industry and by no means I'm challenging his taste and feel of fashion.
I'm just curious that when he made claim of "The Apple Watch is by far the best smartwatch", what is this claim based on? Did he try all the other high end smart watch like Moto 360 or G watch R? If not, is it really fair to make a strong public claim like this?
I'm just curious that when he made claim of "The Apple Watch is by far the best smartwatch", what is this claim based on? Did he try all the other high end smart watch like Moto 360 or G watch R? If not, is it really fair to make a strong public claim like this?
A watch is more jewellery than timekeeping appliance. Appearance and provenance/authenticity seem key. (You can tell this is the case, because people will spend thousands of dollars on wind-up watches that stop telling the time entirely after 2 days or whatever - even though they could instead have bought some cheap digital POS for £5, that will require adjusting about once a year.) And there's not much in the way of provenance for a computer-powered wristwatch from Apple... so the review focuses, and quite rightly I think, on what the watch looks like, and how it feels on the wrist.
The timekeeping aspect is purely secondary, since, thanks to modern technology, we know it will keep the time. My phone keeps the time, my laptop keeps the time, my TV keeps the time, my fucking oven keeps the time. Keeping the time is a solved problem.
The timekeeping aspect is purely secondary, since, thanks to modern technology, we know it will keep the time. My phone keeps the time, my laptop keeps the time, my TV keeps the time, my fucking oven keeps the time. Keeping the time is a solved problem.
There are only a couple of options in your list that's synced to a reasonable timekeeping source - keeping accurate time is something we only solved "recently"*
*Although, in the US, wasn't there a timekeeping radio broadcast?
*Although, in the US, wasn't there a timekeeping radio broadcast?
There still is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB
I remember having a cheap Timex in the mid 2000s that synced off this. I found it a great improvement to the watch experience; my synchronization source of choice before that was a wall clock also powered off that same signal. I also have vague memories of a phone number you could call to get the accurate time.
I remember having a cheap Timex in the mid 2000s that synced off this. I found it a great improvement to the watch experience; my synchronization source of choice before that was a wall clock also powered off that same signal. I also have vague memories of a phone number you could call to get the accurate time.
One thing the author is missing: the prices begin at 350$. The milanaise strap he shows might be worth as much alone. For 350$ you probably get the cheap sport watch, while the beautiful ones might cost a good 1000. Which makes the wealth argument less strong. But let's see how this comes out.
Well, keep in mind the author mentions that he saved and bought an Ikepod Hourglass, which according to this link[1] costs $28,500. He also posits (rhetorically) that a 25-years-old would typically want an Omega watch, which typically starts at $2500.
His article makes some great points about the watch itself, as he clearly knows what he's talking about. But I would take his non-strictly-watch-related opinions with a bit of skepticism, as I don't think he's playing in the same league as the rest of us.
[1] http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...
His article makes some great points about the watch itself, as he clearly knows what he's talking about. But I would take his non-strictly-watch-related opinions with a bit of skepticism, as I don't think he's playing in the same league as the rest of us.
[1] http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...
Right. I know the Hodinkee blog well actually, and I agree with you. I was just pinning on the first part of the article, where he compares the Apple Watch with sub-350$ watches.
Apple is a marketing/sales retail machine. This watch is just another thing for them to sell with a high-end, glossy look and feel that fits with their strategy of dominating the sectors they want to control. I'm not surprised it doesn't do all the things HN folks were looking for (e.g. requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps).
On the other hand, I think they delivered a nice product that will fit perfectly in an Apple store, engaging swarms of shoppers with lots of disposable income.
On the other hand, I think they delivered a nice product that will fit perfectly in an Apple store, engaging swarms of shoppers with lots of disposable income.
I know people like to feel clever like acting that Apple's success is solely due to marketing/sales as if they've peeked behind the curtain, but their products are actually good too.
A marketing/sales retail machine, with the best product design and engineering on the planet to supply it.
> requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps
Standalone GPS is fine (even preferred - not replacing a forerunner) but another multi-band cell-radio? Simply sounds like a bad idea - the form factor is too small to make that feasible or interesting - for now.
Standalone GPS is fine (even preferred - not replacing a forerunner) but another multi-band cell-radio? Simply sounds like a bad idea - the form factor is too small to make that feasible or interesting - for now.
Aliexpress is overflowing with Android devices with multi-band cell radios. Some of them even dual-SIMs.
Another site with an always-present header that completely fails keyboard paging. It is really frustrating how many pages break such a basic function. Forcing the user to manually adjust the positioning every time they page is a really great way to make them lose interest and go somewhere else.
You should switch to Firefox. With Firefox, we take those headers into account when keyboard paging and everything "just works."
OT, but I use Firefox and have not found that to be universally the case. But on this website, it definitely does and I really appreciate it!
And I appreciate it. But it would be nice to have some built-in way to nix them. Right now I'm browsing on a MacBook Air 11" which has just 768 pixels of height. Between the menu bar, firefox UI and fixed site header, I'm left with a claustrophobic slit to view the content in.
And then I love to browse many websites by zooming in and leaning back; but once you zoom in a few steps these headers magnify to the point of absurdity.
And then I love to browse many websites by zooming in and leaning back; but once you zoom in a few steps these headers magnify to the point of absurdity.
That's a good point. But besides my undying love for Chrome Dev Tools, I'm kinda bugged by the idea of hacking a permanent workaround into the browser to accommodate broken sites.
I like this, because it dispenses with the "Apple lover" angle and instead focuses on the existing watch market at the $350 price point. It should be clarified, though, that $350 is the base price and some configurations are probably going to go up to double and triple that.
Here's something that's different from the existing watch market and Apple's watch. Most people who pay $350 or more for a watch will wear it for years and years.
The Apple Watch, as beautiful as it is -- is still an electronics/computing device that has obsolescence built into its life cycle (I'm also curious if the battery can be replaced).
Unlike an analog watch, people will want to upgrade to watches with faster CPUs and other new technology. And if you use mobile phones and tablets as a model, that could translate to every couple of years.
While I believe that initial sales will be impressive, it'll be interesting to see how a premium product like this will perform in the long term.
The Apple Watch, as beautiful as it is -- is still an electronics/computing device that has obsolescence built into its life cycle (I'm also curious if the battery can be replaced).
Unlike an analog watch, people will want to upgrade to watches with faster CPUs and other new technology. And if you use mobile phones and tablets as a model, that could translate to every couple of years.
While I believe that initial sales will be impressive, it'll be interesting to see how a premium product like this will perform in the long term.
Yeah, that is a big difference. Dropping $600-ish on a watch (figure pulled from thin air) is one thing, but usually when people do that, it's gonna be their watch for many years.
It'll do well, considering how other premium products from apple sell. All those who buy an Apple product every time they release one...big enough market
I know many people who will happily spend $350 on an iWatch who wouldn't even consider a mechanical watch at any price. I think this watch is for them.
I also think mechanical watch makers are going to wake up one day and realize their market is getting old and dead.
I also think mechanical watch makers are going to wake up one day and realize their market is getting old and dead.
I myself, and many of my friends, fall into that category. I realize for some that a mechanical watch may be a fashion icon or status symbol but for most, it's utterly useless. It tells time and my phone already does that.
Ironically, when you get your phone out to check it, you're doing exactly the same as people did 100 years ago with pocketwatches,
Pocketwatches were replaced by wristwatches the instant it became possible to do so.
Pocketwatches were replaced by wristwatches the instant it became possible to do so.
"and in fact, to my left is an Ikepod Hourglass (designed by Marc Newson) that I wanted from the minute I laid eyes on it. I saved up and bought it because it's a perfect object, and even those people who don't care about time, or design, agree that it's beautiful."
By "watch guy" he means someone who dropped $28,500 on a hourglass.
By "watch guy" he means someone who dropped $28,500 on a hourglass.
I cannot understand this "Watch lover" crowd. That hourglass looks ridiculous, I wouldn't buy that at a garage sale. And even with all the things he didn't "love" about the watch, he still is going to buy one (but might not daily wear). I'd say that's a win for Apple with version 1.0.
That said, I am not the market for a smart watch at all. I don't wear jewelry, and my phone already does a great job of telling time and showing me messages.
That said, I am not the market for a smart watch at all. I don't wear jewelry, and my phone already does a great job of telling time and showing me messages.
I think the point about Swiss makers being in trouble with the younger generation is valid. I'm 28, and have always had a great appreciation for fine watches. This is mainly because I grew up seeing my dad appreciate them, and many of the people I'd classify as successful were appreciating them. I wonder though, how many in my generation will teach their children - intentionally or not - that a reasonably successful individual owns the best smartwatch to control their Tesla and their smart home, and not a Rolex? It isn't a stretch to think Rolex could partner with someone to be that brand of smartwatches. Today, smartwatches aren't competing with classic timepieces. In 10 years, there's a real chance that they will.
A Rolex is a complete waste of money. For less than a very small fraction of the price of a Rolex you can get a watch that will perform just as good or possibly even better.
The only reason Rolex owners have Rolexes is to show they can afford one. And they can't wait to tell you about it.
Parents that teach their children that successful people buy overpriced trinkets are losing an opportunity to teach their kids the difference between 'good enough' and conspicuous consumption.
The only reason Rolex owners have Rolexes is to show they can afford one. And they can't wait to tell you about it.
Parents that teach their children that successful people buy overpriced trinkets are losing an opportunity to teach their kids the difference between 'good enough' and conspicuous consumption.
I see many other high end watches as waste of money, but not rolex. If you buy a Gold Rolex they actually appreciate with time or at the least you won't loose much value when you do sell it. I agree the reasons you have suggested are primary reasons people do buy high end watches.
why then, whenever a movie hero tries to sell his Rolex to get some money, he gets $20-50 max?
Tell that to every girl wearing ear rings or a diamond ring or a guy wearing a necklace. People accessorize. Get over it. For less tha the price of a mid range rolex you can also buy a rubidium atomic oscillator. I'm failing to see your point?
The point is, to the point of being pointless: that you can buy stuff because it has utility or that you can buy stuff for signalling purposes.
A Rolex is signalling stuff masquerading as utility stuff.
The utility value of a Rolex is approximately $50 (the price of a half-decent watch that will tell the time accurately for many years to come, assuming your phone doesn't already do that for you). The rest is signalling value (and in the case of a gold one some intrinsic value).
I'm perfectly ok with you not seeing my point. In the end the guy with the jeans and the t-shirt is quite possibly a lot wealthier than the guy with the Ferrari and the Rolex. (Especially when they're not bought with cash.)
A Rolex is signalling stuff masquerading as utility stuff.
The utility value of a Rolex is approximately $50 (the price of a half-decent watch that will tell the time accurately for many years to come, assuming your phone doesn't already do that for you). The rest is signalling value (and in the case of a gold one some intrinsic value).
I'm perfectly ok with you not seeing my point. In the end the guy with the jeans and the t-shirt is quite possibly a lot wealthier than the guy with the Ferrari and the Rolex. (Especially when they're not bought with cash.)
I'm not sure it's always just about utility vs. signalling. I have no care for social signalling at all, but if I had money to throw away I would probably buy some things which you classify as signalling devices. For sure, though, I certainly wouldn't buy a blinged out gold Rolex (hideous) but rather something like a Speedmaster (on which I'd probably put a NATO or a velcro strap), and certainly not a sports car you can drive on public roads. Sure, both of these machines don't have that much practical utility, but they are engineering works of art. Just as some people collect art to show off their money, or store capital, some collect it because they appreciate good taste and amazing craftsmanship. It's still irrational but I wouldn't put it in the same bag as signalling.
I thought Apple would say: the market ain't ready for a smartwatch. Nobody wants to pay for a watch that has to charge every 24 hours (or less).
That's immediatly the biggest mistake from the Moto360, the watch looks awesome... But the battery life is too short :(
That's immediatly the biggest mistake from the Moto360, the watch looks awesome... But the battery life is too short :(
I only ever charge my iPhone at night next to my bed, if I just have to put the watch on the charging stand (or whatever) at the same time as my phone I don't think people are going to care too much.
They will need enough battery life though to go from morning to the next morning I would say, as you don't exactly want to have your watch stop working after a night of drinks after work...
They will need enough battery life though to go from morning to the next morning I would say, as you don't exactly want to have your watch stop working after a night of drinks after work...
you do not want your watch run out of juice around midnight, at the nightclub, or on the dark road
In one of the photos I could see a reflection in the Apple Watch of the camera man taking the photo. I can't help but think that that big honking camera will be replaced one day by the very thing he's taking the photo of.
Seems unlikely if you know anything at all about optics.
The same would have been said about vacuum tubes...
No it wouldn't. There are fundamental laws of optics that require certain sizes in order to get a quality image.
True true, but remember if you are willing to assume sparsity and use reconstruction algorithms, there are by now well-established ways to get around Shannon-Nyquist with high probability (ie the whole compressed sensing stuff). Just sayin'...
I believe one day software will be advanced enough to reduce the number of necessary lenses for quality photos.. "Software eating DSLR".
Is that belief in any way based on physics?
No. It is based on the advancement of software that can de-blur images.
For example: http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/leojia/deblurring.htm.
For example: http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/leojia/deblurring.htm.
The hourglass referenced in the article costs $28,000, here's the start of his review about it:
Let's begin this post by letting you know, right from the start, that this hourglass costs $28,500. Now, as you continue to read, you will notice how that number becomes more and more rational in your mind.
Not quite for me. It's still seeming absurd.
http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...
Let's begin this post by letting you know, right from the start, that this hourglass costs $28,500. Now, as you continue to read, you will notice how that number becomes more and more rational in your mind.
Not quite for me. It's still seeming absurd.
http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-...
A lot of the high end watch world is focused on craftsmanship. Think of it like buying a painting, but instead of oil & canvas you get steel, gears & springs (or glass and...nanoballs in this case).
Anyone can buy a clock - you have one in the corner of your computer right now. People who spend this level of money are more interested in time keeping sculpture.
Anyone can buy a clock - you have one in the corner of your computer right now. People who spend this level of money are more interested in time keeping sculpture.
Both watches and the hourglass seem closer to a lithograph than an original piece of art, and I wouldn't pay $28k for a lithograph.
If you're incredibly wealthy, what else are you going to spend the money on after all possible material needs are more than satisfied? After all, you can have multiple homes, but you still only stay in one at a time; wear one pair of shirt and pants per day; etc.
I'll bet 5 bucks with someone here that it will flop (as in, won't become a regular product). My reasons for winning the bet:
-Although it looks great, it doesn't look like a great watch, it just looks like a beautiful Apple product. The thing is, on this specific product, as opposed to all their other products, Apple is competing with an established design lineage that goes back for decades, and wristwatches have always been about good taste and good design, so the competition on the aesthetics front is not so easy for Apple as it was on their other products (meaning computer hardware/software makers suck tremendously in regards to design, but watchmakers are champions of it).
-Extending on previous reason: it's as if Apple decided to go the eyeglass route and take on Google. Easy, because Glass is downright ugly and too geeky. So Apple makes its own beautiful glass, which is still a little geeky, and then they have to compete with Ray-Ban, Gucci, Prada, wathever.
-Short battery life sucks for a wristwatch.
-People already have the functionality on the iPhone, and the iPhone is already pretty portable.
-Short battery life sucks a lot for a wristwatch, come to think of it.
edit: formatting.
-Although it looks great, it doesn't look like a great watch, it just looks like a beautiful Apple product. The thing is, on this specific product, as opposed to all their other products, Apple is competing with an established design lineage that goes back for decades, and wristwatches have always been about good taste and good design, so the competition on the aesthetics front is not so easy for Apple as it was on their other products (meaning computer hardware/software makers suck tremendously in regards to design, but watchmakers are champions of it).
-Extending on previous reason: it's as if Apple decided to go the eyeglass route and take on Google. Easy, because Glass is downright ugly and too geeky. So Apple makes its own beautiful glass, which is still a little geeky, and then they have to compete with Ray-Ban, Gucci, Prada, wathever.
-Short battery life sucks for a wristwatch.
-People already have the functionality on the iPhone, and the iPhone is already pretty portable.
-Short battery life sucks a lot for a wristwatch, come to think of it.
edit: formatting.
You might want to define "flop" and specify a timeframe if you're offering a bet like this
Some suggestions:
* will sell less than x units in the y months after it becomes available
* is discontinued within y months
* will not make it to version n
* will bring in less than $x revenue/profit in [timeframe]
* will lose its link at the top of the apple website within y months
It's also hard to tell what Apple's internal expectations are. They may expect to only sell 100, or they may be expecting to sell 100 million. My guess is it's a "feeler" product to guage demand while they work on v2
Some suggestions:
* will sell less than x units in the y months after it becomes available
* is discontinued within y months
* will not make it to version n
* will bring in less than $x revenue/profit in [timeframe]
* will lose its link at the top of the apple website within y months
It's also hard to tell what Apple's internal expectations are. They may expect to only sell 100, or they may be expecting to sell 100 million. My guess is it's a "feeler" product to guage demand while they work on v2
Is apple trying to sell this to people that already wear a watch?
Tim cook knows that younger generations dont care about wearing a watch because the time is on their phone. They want a product that convinces people that have NEVER worn a watch that they want something on their wrist...
I think this is going to be explosively successful.
Of course the sheer fact that you will actually be able to BUY an apple watch will be great for its success (see: every android watch perpetually being unavailable when they launch)
Tim cook knows that younger generations dont care about wearing a watch because the time is on their phone. They want a product that convinces people that have NEVER worn a watch that they want something on their wrist...
I think this is going to be explosively successful.
Of course the sheer fact that you will actually be able to BUY an apple watch will be great for its success (see: every android watch perpetually being unavailable when they launch)
High status individuals will probably view this as a toy for the 'plebs'. Of course they might buy one because of a passing interest, but in order to impress their investment banker buddies, they'll still go for Patek Philippe, IWC, Audemar Piguet etc.
I also don't think that the Apple watch will convince 'normal' people to suddenly start buying watches again. Why on earth do you need this if you already have an smart phone? Maybe as some kind of mini iPod? If you remember the gimmicky 'smart watches' of the 80's and 90's, everything they offered has been solved by smart phones a thousand times. Calendar, birthday reminders, calculator, moon phases and so on. What does the Apple watch bring to the table compared to an iPhone? The only thing the Apple watch might be somewhat useful for is as an unreliable sports / health sensor for people who don't want to buy into Polar or Garmin's ecosystem.
To me, the thing looks entirely ridiculous. Sending your heart beat? What a fucking gimmick. Having to recharge a watch every other day? Are you kidding me?
A lot of people will still buy it. Apple is good at marketing. But this won't be a new iPhone success story.
I also don't think that the Apple watch will convince 'normal' people to suddenly start buying watches again. Why on earth do you need this if you already have an smart phone? Maybe as some kind of mini iPod? If you remember the gimmicky 'smart watches' of the 80's and 90's, everything they offered has been solved by smart phones a thousand times. Calendar, birthday reminders, calculator, moon phases and so on. What does the Apple watch bring to the table compared to an iPhone? The only thing the Apple watch might be somewhat useful for is as an unreliable sports / health sensor for people who don't want to buy into Polar or Garmin's ecosystem.
To me, the thing looks entirely ridiculous. Sending your heart beat? What a fucking gimmick. Having to recharge a watch every other day? Are you kidding me?
A lot of people will still buy it. Apple is good at marketing. But this won't be a new iPhone success story.
Forgot to add: check out Apple's 80s clothing line. Probably looked way better than clothes from Microsoft.
Personally I dont want any watch with at least 1 week of battery time with heavy use.
My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less working indefinitely.
I like that my watch looks nice, but I also like that its functional. Running, on a bike, what not, its actually much more convenient than grabbing a smartphone.
What I don't get, is why current watch makers don't make a smartwatch from their point of view:
a regular watch, with connectivity to the phones, that can do a couple of things like vibrate in a variety of ways - OK - citizen actually tried that and it sort of work but there is no attention to details.
You want the watch to reliably vibrate if u get a msg or notification that you setup. You want it to vibrate differently for navigation depending if you gotta go right or left according to your phone (so you dont need to grab the phone while on a bike for example!).
Neither work well on the citizen, and the connection eventually times out, that sort of stuff. Too bad.
My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less working indefinitely.
I like that my watch looks nice, but I also like that its functional. Running, on a bike, what not, its actually much more convenient than grabbing a smartphone.
What I don't get, is why current watch makers don't make a smartwatch from their point of view:
a regular watch, with connectivity to the phones, that can do a couple of things like vibrate in a variety of ways - OK - citizen actually tried that and it sort of work but there is no attention to details.
You want the watch to reliably vibrate if u get a msg or notification that you setup. You want it to vibrate differently for navigation depending if you gotta go right or left according to your phone (so you dont need to grab the phone while on a bike for example!).
Neither work well on the citizen, and the connection eventually times out, that sort of stuff. Too bad.
> Personally I dont want any watch with at least 1 week of battery time with heavy use. My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less working indefinitely.
Fair enough, though the same could be said about smartphones.. i.e.
Personally I don't want any cell phone that has less than a week of battery time with heavy use. My current dumb phone has weeks of battery time, even when used heavily. I'll never get a smartphone until battery life is....
While that statement makes sense, it doesn't appear to have stopped many from moving to a smartphone.
Fair enough, though the same could be said about smartphones.. i.e.
Personally I don't want any cell phone that has less than a week of battery time with heavy use. My current dumb phone has weeks of battery time, even when used heavily. I'll never get a smartphone until battery life is....
While that statement makes sense, it doesn't appear to have stopped many from moving to a smartphone.
Do you take your watch off at night.. leave it on a bedstand?
How much harder with it be to tap the magnetic power thingie on? Not at all.
When Apple Watch 2.0 comes out, will battery life be longer? Quite probably.
This is just the beginning. If people can get used to charging their phone 1-3x a/day, they can plug their Watch in at night. Not perfect, but I don't think this is a deal breaker.
How much harder with it be to tap the magnetic power thingie on? Not at all.
When Apple Watch 2.0 comes out, will battery life be longer? Quite probably.
This is just the beginning. If people can get used to charging their phone 1-3x a/day, they can plug their Watch in at night. Not perfect, but I don't think this is a deal breaker.
And when you go on a trip, you have to take one more charger...
Presumably the inductive part of the charger will be accessible as an adapter to a lightning cable.
There were mentions at the event that the gold/rose gold version of the watch come in a 'charger stand' box that takes a lightning cable at the back.
There were mentions at the event that the gold/rose gold version of the watch come in a 'charger stand' box that takes a lightning cable at the back.
Personally all I need is a full day. I don't sleep with my watch. So putting it on a stand to recharge it isn't an issue with me.
And current watch makers can't make a smartwatch. Just like Apple couldn't make a mechanical watch. Completely different worlds that just happened to meet in the middle.
And current watch makers can't make a smartwatch. Just like Apple couldn't make a mechanical watch. Completely different worlds that just happened to meet in the middle.
No, a full day just isn't enough. What about the time when you come home wasted from too much work/partying and you just forget to charge the thing. Then you wake up, decide you don't want to wear it because you just want to chill on the beach/park/anywhere, and then you put it on on the next day, and it is dead. And to use it you need to charge it for an hour or so, so you can't wear it on that day.
With the risk of sounding like an elitist prick (not the intention, and I'm really not) that photo of a Patek Phillipe and Apple Watch side by side on his wrist to me screams: This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a digital picture of a fake butterfly. A masterpiece of craftsmanship, good taste and skill, side by side with a mass market simulation of those all those things sporting a tacky, pointless image of an animal.
I'm not an Apple fan but I do appreciate their mostly good taste and design. However, this watch is hideous. It's the first object they produced since their resurrection in 1997 that I instantly find ugly. Really, really ugly. If it was an aeroplane it wouldn't fly well. I wouldn't bet it will be unsuccessful though, there's a lot of people with bad taste out there.
I'm not an Apple fan but I do appreciate their mostly good taste and design. However, this watch is hideous. It's the first object they produced since their resurrection in 1997 that I instantly find ugly. Really, really ugly. If it was an aeroplane it wouldn't fly well. I wouldn't bet it will be unsuccessful though, there's a lot of people with bad taste out there.
While I have only a few watches I certainly am not on the level of a collector nor do I own any beyond the five hundred range. I appreciate a good watch but I appreciate good design and great function as well and I just don't see it here.
I do not need a slaved device. To me that is a redundant device. If anything I would love a wrist mounted phone and would willingly give up much of the smart phone functionality I have now. Simple text messages, voice mail, gps, and similar would be needed. Full on email, taking pictures, and browsing not so.
Besides being boring, ugly, whatever, the worst offense here is that you cannot buy it. Apple should go back to announcing products you can buy today, not next year.
Slaved device, I guess we should be thankful it isn't cable attached
I do not need a slaved device. To me that is a redundant device. If anything I would love a wrist mounted phone and would willingly give up much of the smart phone functionality I have now. Simple text messages, voice mail, gps, and similar would be needed. Full on email, taking pictures, and browsing not so.
Besides being boring, ugly, whatever, the worst offense here is that you cannot buy it. Apple should go back to announcing products you can buy today, not next year.
Slaved device, I guess we should be thankful it isn't cable attached
Looks like this is not a fight just between Apple and Android. So many players, so much history, so much subjectivity that...
Apple and Android are sure to win! :)
But seriously, only these two have the tech. We never wanted those old watches these smart watches are being compared with. And we sure as hell are not going to buy them now!
None of these so called watch makers make phones. Or tablets. Touch screens. Voice recognition. They are clueless about ecosystems. Watch companies have managed to have a strap ecosystem, that's all. That's laughable and lazy for a "big" business. I continue to believe watch incumbents are obsolete. If anything, this is their last chance to jump onto the bandwagon now that tech companies have put our interests back into watches.
Apple and Android are sure to win! :)
But seriously, only these two have the tech. We never wanted those old watches these smart watches are being compared with. And we sure as hell are not going to buy them now!
None of these so called watch makers make phones. Or tablets. Touch screens. Voice recognition. They are clueless about ecosystems. Watch companies have managed to have a strap ecosystem, that's all. That's laughable and lazy for a "big" business. I continue to believe watch incumbents are obsolete. If anything, this is their last chance to jump onto the bandwagon now that tech companies have put our interests back into watches.
I think you underestimate watch makers. The watch industry already survived the 'quartz crisis' back in the late 70s and early 80s. Companies like the Swatch Group own semiconductor subsidiaries specialized in ultra-low power integrated circuits, micro controllers, lcd displays, sensors, tablets and so on. They also own battery manufacturers and have years of know how in this field.
Thanks I didn't know this
My only question with those watches is the screen, i.e does it look like one ? I have a friend with a LG watch and the back light is annoying.
Years ago I thought digital photo frames were an excellent (and still relevant) idea but ultimately a failure because they looked like screens. And screens are distracting, eyes are drawn to them.
I hate TVs in bars, people unconsciously watched them even if they don't care about what is broadcast and forgot they are with people.
Years ago I thought digital photo frames were an excellent (and still relevant) idea but ultimately a failure because they looked like screens. And screens are distracting, eyes are drawn to them.
I hate TVs in bars, people unconsciously watched them even if they don't care about what is broadcast and forgot they are with people.
A specific-purpose accessory can't be as big or as revolutionary as Apple ][e, Mac, iPhone or iPad.
More like apple TV, iPod, console, kindle. Still scope for a multi-billion dollar market though.
Just the kind of thing Sony might have made in its heyday, and Apple can dramatically improve it iteratively, limited only by the wrist-space form-factor. Replace your wallet (payments, ID, memberships), car keys, TV remote; monitor blood sugar, home-automation etc.
More like apple TV, iPod, console, kindle. Still scope for a multi-billion dollar market though.
Just the kind of thing Sony might have made in its heyday, and Apple can dramatically improve it iteratively, limited only by the wrist-space form-factor. Replace your wallet (payments, ID, memberships), car keys, TV remote; monitor blood sugar, home-automation etc.
My thought after reading this—a great product would be an actual analog watch (quartz or mechanical) with the same styling and finishes that the Apple Watch has, with a much thinner case, that customers would use with Apple's bands. Take advantage of the immense design effort that went into the watch, but set aside the smart watch idea.
I'd buy that watch today for the same price as the Apple Watch.
I'd buy that watch today for the same price as the Apple Watch.
I wouldnt be surprised if deal extreme has a 'watch body' that will be compatible with apple watch bands before the apple watch even hits the market
Isn't anyone else bothered by the lousy typography of both the logo (<apple>WATCH) and the typography on the screen?
The fonts are too loosely spaced, and the screen layouts looked amateurish, no better than the Android-based wearables.
I know this sounds like a nit-pick, but it's not. It's not like Apple to blow it at this level. They need to get it right at every level, especially the UI (and the brand).
The fonts are too loosely spaced, and the screen layouts looked amateurish, no better than the Android-based wearables.
I know this sounds like a nit-pick, but it's not. It's not like Apple to blow it at this level. They need to get it right at every level, especially the UI (and the brand).
Literally everyone I have seen remarking on the typography has said the exact opposite. And I concur with them, I think the type and the new typeface is one of the best parts.
Dear mankind:
I don't want a smartwatch to be the complement of a smartphone.
I want a smartphone to be the a complement of a smartwatch... actually, a smartphone sans the phone, like an ipod touch or a tablet.
My idea for a smartwatch is to have the modules that make a smartphone possible there: cellular antenna, gps, bluetooth, fitness tracking, etc. Baterry-unfriendly modules like Wi-Fi must be discarded.
The use case for a smartwatch as a standalone device would be the following one:
- Connect a Bluetooth headset to listen to music (extra points, if a micro sd slot is included)
- Receive messages and answer to them with predefined text (ex. I'm on my watch, I'll text you later)
- Receive calls and call to existing contacts/emergency numbers, a proper dialer is not required at all
- Basic GPS directions to predefined locations (ex. Home/Work/Gym/School)
- Fitness tracking
- Wireless charging
For the rest of features, and to enjoy a proper dialer, proper texting, proper navigation, etc., just connect the ipod/tablet/whatever to it via bluetooth.
The killer feature: Having to carry no smartphone at all.
You can use the multimedia system of the car to take advantage of the watch, the steering wheel could have a wireless charging module next to it.
Another accessory could be a desktop keyboard with a wireless charging module.
And at home, you could have a proper charging dock.
I don't want a smartwatch to be the complement of a smartphone.
I want a smartphone to be the a complement of a smartwatch... actually, a smartphone sans the phone, like an ipod touch or a tablet.
My idea for a smartwatch is to have the modules that make a smartphone possible there: cellular antenna, gps, bluetooth, fitness tracking, etc. Baterry-unfriendly modules like Wi-Fi must be discarded.
The use case for a smartwatch as a standalone device would be the following one:
- Connect a Bluetooth headset to listen to music (extra points, if a micro sd slot is included)
- Receive messages and answer to them with predefined text (ex. I'm on my watch, I'll text you later)
- Receive calls and call to existing contacts/emergency numbers, a proper dialer is not required at all
- Basic GPS directions to predefined locations (ex. Home/Work/Gym/School)
- Fitness tracking
- Wireless charging
For the rest of features, and to enjoy a proper dialer, proper texting, proper navigation, etc., just connect the ipod/tablet/whatever to it via bluetooth.
The killer feature: Having to carry no smartphone at all.
You can use the multimedia system of the car to take advantage of the watch, the steering wheel could have a wireless charging module next to it.
Another accessory could be a desktop keyboard with a wireless charging module.
And at home, you could have a proper charging dock.
Man, the sense of entitlement. They can't fit all that stuff in there yet. Give it a few years, man. It's amazing what they can fit in there already.
Few years? The Chinese already have done it since many years ago, although pre-2014 models were bulky:
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2014-New-Design-GPS-Tr...
http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2014-New-Design-GPS-Tr...
include GPS in battery-unfriendly list
What about privacy? There's something reassuring about putting an iPhone into one's pocket. Messages showing up for anyone to see doesn't really appeal to me.
I ran this page through NLTK's Sentiment Analysis and the the score is NEGATIVE 0.8, Stanford's never finished!
I ran this page through NLTK's Sentiment Analysis and the the score is NEGATIVE 0.8, Stanford's never finished!
This is not a watch, it's a communication accessory's accessory.
If Motorola were able to release iteration 2 of the Moto 360 by the time the Apple Watch comes out, and make it iOS compatible, they could single-handedly kill the Apple Watch.
There's zero evidence so far that Motorola can even last 12 months in this market, and lots of evidence to say they can't, like their abject failure in the cellphone market. Ludicrous to say that their lukewarm Moto 360 effort, featuring a CPU that's 4 years old, terrible performance, cheap look-and-feel, and extremely poor battery life, could even be a serious threat to Apple's engineering efforts.
Regardless of whether or not it's a better watch, unless it has an Apple logo on it somewhere and they hide the Motorola logo, then I doubt very much that that would ever happen.
How could they make it iOS compatible ? They won't have the ability to integrate with third party applications which is really the killer feature of the device.
The Apple Watch looks beautiful when photographed by itself. It looks absurd to me when photographed on someone's arm.
In time perhaps history will prove me wrong.
In time perhaps history will prove me wrong.
this watch is an add-on to a phone when people are extending their contracts (you know "extend your contract with a new iphone and you get an apple watch for free" kind of deal) to get some of android base back, other than that it's useless.
I would not wear one even if it was given to me for free in every configuration possible.
I would not wear one even if it was given to me for free in every configuration possible.
Was the battery life announced? Cannot find a reference anywhere which makes me wonder...
No, but the keynote made a mention of how easy it is to charge every night. Rumor is that it's about a day and Apple is trying to optimize it before release.
Gotcha, did not see it due to technical issues. Apple brags about battery life in every other product they release. IMO reviewers need to hold off until real life battery life is released.
I'm still not sure what kind of information I want to be delivered via my watch...
meh, Why are all this kind of watch reviews focusing on the looks rather than what you can do with it. Dunno I would be far more interested in what you can do with how you want to use it rather than how incredible wonderful it looks.
The digital crown will snap off, and people will be pissed.
This is the best ad ever for a Patek Philippe 3940G.
now we just need a dumb seiko 5 or casio g-shock with a dim LED to do 'less intrusive' notifications..
Nice photos of the watch in there
[deleted]
I think I was too initally hard on the watch, or expected too much? After they thin it out it might just get younger
people wearing watches again?
[deleted](3)
Apple Watch is not a watch.
It's a computer on your wrist that will be used for special tasks where little but precise information is required.
It's all about presence, NFC, iBeacon, sensors, iTags, etc.
It's a computer on your wrist that will be used for special tasks where little but precise information is required.
It's all about presence, NFC, iBeacon, sensors, iTags, etc.
Yes, let's just completely ignore the aesthetics of the device and focus only on the technology. It's almost as if you didn't read the article and the finer points about the design of the face, straps, etc. that the author went into such painstaking detail about.
He didn't even mention _any_ of the things you just talked about, instead deferred it to another article.
He didn't even mention _any_ of the things you just talked about, instead deferred it to another article.
I understand how a watch guy would have strong feelings about the emotions and ideas behind a watch. But I think he is missing the greater context.
When an object has a permanence in utility and form, we have a certain relationship with it. This is the kind of emotion and relationship we have with watches. But the world changes, and very soon it will be competing against a different type of relationship. Our relationship with wearables may be skewed more to utility than heirloom. But that's OK because wearables represent the mesh of software with hardware, and software gives the ability to evolve. We will no longer have the singular relationship with one watch, but a broad relationship with a series of evolving wearables that slowly become more and more essential to our lives.
So no, we won't have the same emotions and same relationship with wearables as we did with watches. But that's just where the universe will be going.
When an object has a permanence in utility and form, we have a certain relationship with it. This is the kind of emotion and relationship we have with watches. But the world changes, and very soon it will be competing against a different type of relationship. Our relationship with wearables may be skewed more to utility than heirloom. But that's OK because wearables represent the mesh of software with hardware, and software gives the ability to evolve. We will no longer have the singular relationship with one watch, but a broad relationship with a series of evolving wearables that slowly become more and more essential to our lives.
So no, we won't have the same emotions and same relationship with wearables as we did with watches. But that's just where the universe will be going.
This article is just falling over itself to praeise the Apple Watch.
The Apple Watch doesn't look particularly sleek or modern, instead it looks like someone shrunk the iPhone 3GS and put a strap on it.
The author picks up random watches that do not look nice as a comparision for the Apple Watch, but ignores watches in roughly the same price range that do look better?
For instance, look at [1] or [2], both are from Tissot, both look elegant and classy, and both are the same price as the Apple Watch.
The article obssesses over Apple's decision making regarding straps, but uses really, really biased sounding words. For instance:
> The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it.
Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a dime a dozen.
Further evidence of Apple fanboyism can be found later on in the article, when the author states that the new iPhone 6, which is not available for use yet, as "the absolute best offering in the category in both form and function".
I am not implying that liking Apple products makes one a fanboy (I own and really like my MBPr), but this article isn't of any really journalistic standard, and yet has reached the top of HN.
The Apple Watch doesn't look particularly sleek or modern, instead it looks like someone shrunk the iPhone 3GS and put a strap on it.
The author picks up random watches that do not look nice as a comparision for the Apple Watch, but ignores watches in roughly the same price range that do look better?
For instance, look at [1] or [2], both are from Tissot, both look elegant and classy, and both are the same price as the Apple Watch.
The article obssesses over Apple's decision making regarding straps, but uses really, really biased sounding words. For instance:
> The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it.
Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a dime a dozen.
Further evidence of Apple fanboyism can be found later on in the article, when the author states that the new iPhone 6, which is not available for use yet, as "the absolute best offering in the category in both form and function".
I am not implying that liking Apple products makes one a fanboy (I own and really like my MBPr), but this article isn't of any really journalistic standard, and yet has reached the top of HN.
I for one am impressed by your categorisation of the 1957 Speedmaster and Patek 3940G as "random watches that do not look nice". You're probably not the target audience for Hodinkee.
The article acknowledges some of the shortcomings of the watch, but one thing should be obvious: this author is someone that understands the little differences in quality that differentiate a $350 watch from a $35,000 one. When it comes to the points he makes about build quality, I believe him. I'm also quite impressed by what I've seen of the bracelets, especially the ultra-thin deployant. If you've ever worn a deployant strap you'll understand what a big deal that is.
I do not think Apple has got everything right with this, but I'm increasingly realising they've done again what they always do well: completely ignore conventional wisdom about what makes a good product and focus on the "ownership experience".
As with other new Apple products, the first gen isn't very good. By the time it hits 3rd gen, all the initial complaints will have been resolved. They just need to find a market in the meantime, which is neither the Casio owner nor the Rolex owner, but I have confidence the market exists and this will do well enough to survive and evolve.
The article acknowledges some of the shortcomings of the watch, but one thing should be obvious: this author is someone that understands the little differences in quality that differentiate a $350 watch from a $35,000 one. When it comes to the points he makes about build quality, I believe him. I'm also quite impressed by what I've seen of the bracelets, especially the ultra-thin deployant. If you've ever worn a deployant strap you'll understand what a big deal that is.
I do not think Apple has got everything right with this, but I'm increasingly realising they've done again what they always do well: completely ignore conventional wisdom about what makes a good product and focus on the "ownership experience".
As with other new Apple products, the first gen isn't very good. By the time it hits 3rd gen, all the initial complaints will have been resolved. They just need to find a market in the meantime, which is neither the Casio owner nor the Rolex owner, but I have confidence the market exists and this will do well enough to survive and evolve.
>> The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it.
>Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a dime a dozen.
Re-read the bit about tech company, not watch company
Re-read the bit about tech company, not watch company
Call me cynical but how do we know that Apple didn't secretly just pay him to write this review?
Call me cynical, but how do I know that Samsung didn't secretly just pay you to cast doubt on positive articles about the watch?
Cynical!
Well, there is evidence of Samsung astroturfing blog authors. One fellow I followed had a rather obscure blog, and then one day he talked about samsung and suddenly had hundreds of negative comments (and not of the american pro-android kind you see here.) So, he checked his logs and found they were coming from a limited IP range in Korea.
Anecdote, of course.
But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought.
Anecdote, of course.
But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought.
> But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily bought.
That was, in a roundabout way, my point; it seems silly to cry "omg, Apple shill!" with no evidence beyond "he said something nice about the iWatch" (and it is equally as silly for me to cry "omg, Samsung shill!" on nothing but the basis of "he said something unkind about Apple"). I'm afraid absurd tone doesn't come through well on the internet.
This is precisely the kind of article I'd expect from a watch aficionado. One can look at it with a suspicious eye, but unless there's something to indicate that they were bought, it's silly to call them out as such.
That was, in a roundabout way, my point; it seems silly to cry "omg, Apple shill!" with no evidence beyond "he said something nice about the iWatch" (and it is equally as silly for me to cry "omg, Samsung shill!" on nothing but the basis of "he said something unkind about Apple"). I'm afraid absurd tone doesn't come through well on the internet.
This is precisely the kind of article I'd expect from a watch aficionado. One can look at it with a suspicious eye, but unless there's something to indicate that they were bought, it's silly to call them out as such.
They invited him to the Keynote. They wanted him to be there. It's his profession to write reviews on the watch industry. All signs point to this being a mutual agreement, but of course, we question whether money was exchanged? We can ask that question of any and all reviews for products, no matter the company or the author. I guess what I'm driving at is... Why are you cynical about this particular article?
Right, they paid the guy to write about how Apple's new product has no emotion. I wonder how much you have to pay for that?
It's interesting to me that there has been very little mention of the fact that the Apple Watches (at least the watches we've seen so far) are purely for right handed people who wear watches on their left hand. If you tried wearing these on your right hand, you'd be reaching across the face to use the digital crown.
There are two logical solutions for this:
1) Sell a left handed model as well. You can expect there to be a 90/10 skew for righties just because of genetics, but that can be accounted for in manufacturing runs.
2) Allow the watch to be flipped upside down for the right wrist. While technically this would work, I highly doubt Apple would design something to be worn upside down.
Or they can just say fuck it and only make watches that make sense for right handed people. I guess we'll find out in a few months.
There are two logical solutions for this:
1) Sell a left handed model as well. You can expect there to be a 90/10 skew for righties just because of genetics, but that can be accounted for in manufacturing runs.
2) Allow the watch to be flipped upside down for the right wrist. While technically this would work, I highly doubt Apple would design something to be worn upside down.
Or they can just say fuck it and only make watches that make sense for right handed people. I guess we'll find out in a few months.
We already know – they went with #2. http://www.iclarified.com/43778/apples-iwatch-is-reversible-...
[deleted]
On an emotional level, you can't compare [Apple Watch and mechanical watches], and that is why I don't believe many serious watch lovers (who, again, would normally be racing to spend their cash on an Apple release) will go for this.
I suspect that the "serious watch lover" market is one that doesn't really figure in Apple's market estimates at all. On the contrary, Apple has traditionally tried to go contrary to the expectations of the archetypal "serious lover of X" user when entering the market of X.
The Macintosh was not for "serious microcomputer lovers". The iPod was not for "serious MP3 lovers". The iPhone was not for "serious smartphone lovers". (Those did exist back in early 2007 -- they were the rare people who actually knew how to install stuff on their geeked-out Nokia N95 devices, or were in love with the BlackBerry keyboard. They hated the iPhone almost unanimously.)
Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy little electronic snoop.
But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that. I think the Apple Watch will be a hit, but maybe about 1 year after the launch once the price of the low-end model comes down and a few millimetres get trimmed off.