Apple announces Apple Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
MIMIC said:
It's a nice looking watch (the more I look at it), but it is seriously a huge waste of money. It's literally a mini-phone for your wrist. And since you are already required to have a REGULAR phone, it's not exactly a substitute for anything.

The only thing this device does differently is sit on your wrist, rather than in your pocket.
Click to expand...
Aren't all watches a waste of money if you have a phone?
 
Angst said:
I find it interesting that people assume that just because it's designed by Apple the design is the smartest and most thought through and that other designs are automatically less good.
Click to expand...

But, evidently, the consensus among designers at other companies is also that a square display makes more sense at the moment.

CrankyJay said:
kind of sad when most of the mockups look better than the actual product
Click to expand...

That's because they don't have to be based in reality.
 
flyover said:
This is my only caveat about buying the first version of the Apple Watch:

GKBSjtK.gif


If you're running or biking or whatever, you still need your iPhone on your person to track where you go. Not a surprise, considering they said you'd need an iPhone with the watch, but I just wondered how essential the iPhone was for all features.

A future version will likely have GPS and/or cellular connectivity built in. That's when it'll be indispensable. (When that happens, tons of parents will slap them on their kids' wrists.)
Click to expand...
Biking yes, running no? Pretty sure that would register the steps?
 
In March about Android Wear:
Jtwo said:
After thinking about this and reading ArsTechnica's coverage I think this smartwatch goosechase needs to end. Its just a waste of time and resources for all involved. Its not the right idea.
Click to expand...

Jtwo said:
There's nothing conceptually appealing going on at all here.
Click to expand...

Jtwo said:
Coming at it from the mini smartphone approach is just the wrong idea. I'm sure we can look forward to decades of strapping sensors and microprocessors to our bodies, I have no doubts about that. But THIS, this isn't it. Theres no miraculous way to design around a flawed concept. And there needs to be a HUGE amount of technological progression for this concept to even be fully realized. With the tech we have now what if I get up to take a piss and my phone is left on my drawer.. my watch just stops working? I can think of a million impracticalities that in my mind signify the absolutely infancy this concept is at.

I saw a poster here uses their pebble to crib notes while they give lectures and I can see the utility there. I'm sure for some fraction of a percentage of people this solution makes sense. However, I am confident 10 years from now 90% of our wrists are gonna look the same as they do now.
Click to expand...


Jtwo said:
All these videos are of people fiddling with a 1 inch screen. You know how often I engage with the UI of my watch? Twice a year at daylight savings. I understand where you're coming from but you're describing something different than what I see in the videos. I'm looking at some of these screens and there are menus and stuff. I do admit I like the dream of a context aware watch that knows everything about me and knows what I need to see before I do but to me that seems as far fetched as it is key to this becoming a something meaningful.


I'm bullish about health sensors though, I have been for a while. Almost bought a red fit.bit bracelet a little while ago.
Click to expand...

In September about AppleWatch:

Jtwo said:
Thought about the watch a bit more this morning. I think I'm into it. I'm surprised at how much of a blank slate it seems to be and am very pleased it will be open to developers from the get go. I honestly did not expect a device this robust. I was certain it'd be more of an inert sensor to compliment the phone.

I already wear a watch. I collect little Swatch brand sport watches that have 13inch arm bands that wrap around the wrist twice like a neuromancer bracelet. So my wrist is spoken for. I picture myself wearing the Apple watch more on my forarm facing inward. That way it may even be covered with rolled up sleeves. I don't really see myself ever wearing it on my wrist like a traditional watch. I'm curious to see how this will interact with the heartrate sensor. Is that like a skin based thing? can it sense your heartrate anywhere? If I press it to my buttcheek will it get a read?

So many questions. I'm also stuck on how they described the mechanism behind the digital crown. It seemed to imply the mechanism itself isn't connected to anything and that instead there are sensor around it that read it's movement not unlike how an optical mouse works. Thats very intriguing to me.

This device seems to be the ultimate expression of hardware/software being one in the same. I can't wait to see what the display looks like, it might truly look like an actual object. You can extrapolate feature creep from the watch into future generation iPhones as well.. I can't wait to try out the force touch gesture and haptic feedback.

The directional vibration is also interesting to me. Long ago I read about an experiment that was essentially a waistband full of vibrating motors that would consistently vibrate whereever North was oriented at that moment. Users would describe it as a sort of sixth sense and after weeks with the device they just had the innate ability to determine which way North was even without the vibrating waistband.

Stuff like is incredibly interesting to me. I'm actually surprised most of the wristbands seem to be inert. I feel like there are great oppurtunities to be had with feedback mechanism in the wristband itself. But I can see how thats impractical.

I'm curious. It seems to be incredibly versatile.
Also, It just seems too fat. that thing is thick as hell. I feel Apple will need to directly address the upgrade path for this thing. When the iPhone launched they advertised a 2 lifecycle for software upgrades. They need to guarantee a solid 4 at the very least for this thing.

Its a good direction for Apple, and extrapolating a lot of the material aspects of the watch out to future iPhones makes me incredibly excited about the future.
Click to expand...

What changed?
 
Servbot24 said:
Then the battery life needs to be worked on. At the moment it's just not a viable product as a fitness tracker, which is a huge marketing point for it.
Click to expand...

Make it even thicker? GPS is a huge battery hog. I seriously doubt gen 2 will be much thinner unless you count a new version with less features.

With current technology I think the best feature of a wearable is being a shortcut to your phone. I'm a lazy person, but even I find that appealing all the times I am, you know, doing something :P
 
Ty4on said:
Make it even thicker? GPS is a huge battery hog. I seriously doubt gen 2 will be much thinner unless you count a new version with less features.

With current technology I think the best feature of a wearable is being a shortcut to your phone. I'm a lazy person, but even I find that appealing all the times I am, you know, doing something :P
Click to expand...

Maybe build extra battery into the strap? I don't know. As a consumer it's not my job to create the product. I only determine if the product is useful. Which it might be for some people, but it currently is not for anyone who was hoping to track fitness activities. I'm not sure how accurate it is with tracking steps on runs (seems iffy but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt), and biking and swimming are two huge activities which it is useless for.
 
Monocle said:
Why would I want this when I can buy a decent phone at the same price?
Click to expand...

Can you glance at the phone while doing, anything?

I can't count the times where I'm driving, cleaning, biking, working or even just walking and have to stop dead in my tracks to see what notification my phone got. Personally I'm sad Glass didn't get more attention because a watch is not very useful in winter under my gloves :P
I could also for once know while running to the bus stop if I have time to slow down and start a podcast. That would be my killer feature as I'm always missing something that costs me time out the door.
 
StuBurns said:
Aren't all watches a waste of money if you have a phone?
Click to expand...

You don't have to swipe at anything or fumble around in your pocket to tell the time with a watch. It's performing a primary function: instantly telling the time/date. That simplicity is nice.

But now, you have a watch that costs MORE than your phone that can--for all intents and purposes--only do half as what the phone can do. This isn't a "watch" anymore; it a mini-phone.
 
MIMIC said:
You don't have to swipe at anything or fumble around in your pocket to tell the time with a watch. It's performing a primary function: instantly telling the time/date. That simplicity is nice.

But now, you have a watch that costs MORE than your phone that can--for all intents and purposes--only do half as what the phone can do. This isn't a "watch" anymore; it a mini-phone.
Click to expand...
But you don't need to swipe at anything or fumble around in your pocket to tell the time with an Apple Watch either.

And lots of watches cost more than phones.
 
MIMIC said:
But now, you have a watch that costs MORE than your phone that can--for all intents and purposes--only do half as what the phone can do. This isn't a "watch" anymore; it a mini-phone.
Click to expand...
C'mon, on contract prices aren't real. Haven't we established this ages ago?

A new iPhone starts at 649 dollars. You either pay that all at once or bit by bit to your carrier. In a world where the Moto G is 179 that is what we should complain about, but huge margins will never die with today's consumers :/
 
StuBurns said:
But you don't need to swipe at anything or fumble around in your pocket to tell the time with an Apple Watch either.
Click to expand...

That's great. I didn't say you had to. My comment was in response to your statement about ALL watches being a waste of money if you already have a phone. No, they aren't all a waste of money because a watch is meant to tell the time instantly, while a phone is not.

The only distinction I made with the Apple Watch is that it is a mini-phone for your wrist that you have to fumble around with while you already have a regular phone in your pocket that you have to fumble around with. It's a waste of money

And lots of watches cost more than phones.
Click to expand...

Well I'm not a watch connoisseur but you're missing the point. Those watches aren't being marketed as mini-phones; they're expensive for OTHER reasons.
 
One thing that I find novel is tapping your friend through Apple Watch. Instead of writing a text message or calling, or even sending an emoji, you tap the watch a few times and they feel a tap from you.

This is a nice way to get someones attention and fairly discreet as well. Remember that app Yo!, where all they did was send someone a notification that said Yo? This is the next level of that.

Like you could be in a meeting and you need to get someones attention without being a moron, or at an awkward family gathering or date. I think this is something many people will overlook and will eventually find extremely valuable as they continue using it.
 
I know the morse code feels like a gimmick, but [..] I just love the idea that when I'm bored at a party, I can subtlety tap my friend's wrist and quickly write "bored" or something
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think that in some alternate reality mankind had focused on rocket science and space exploration instead of a future of annual updates of iGadgets & phablets.
That thought makes me happy.
Instead of people cheering on another mm smaller bezel depth, 3 more color choices for wristbands, 0.2'' more screenspace or an app that lets you send your heartbeat to your bored buddy, humans would actually do something to make a prosperous future a reality.
Ah well.
 
effingvic said:
One thing that I find novel is tapping your friend through Apple Watch. Instead of writing a text message or calling, or even sending an emoji, you tap the watch a few times and they feel a tap from you.

This is a nice way to get someones attention and fairly discreet as well. Remember that app Yo!, where all they did was send someone a notification that said Yo? This is the next level of that.

Like you could be in a meeting and you need to get someones attention without being a moron, or at an awkward family gathering or date. I think this is something many people will overlook and will eventually find extremely valuable as they continue using it.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think it's one of those things that you aren't going to realize how cool and no brainer it is until you start using it for a while. It is probably the only feature I'm jealous of when comparing to the Android watches at the moment. Hopefully someone comes up with a similar app.
 
MIMIC said:
That's great. I didn't say you had to. My comment was in response to your statement about ALL watches being a waste of money if you already have a phone. No, they aren't all a waste of money because a watch is meant to tell the time instantly, while a phone is not.

The only distinction I made with the Apple Watch is that it is a mini-phone for your wrist that you have to fumble around with while you already have a regular phone in your pocket that you have to fumble around with. It's a waste of money



Well I'm not a watch connoisseur but you're missing the point. Those watches aren't being marketed as mini-phones; they're expensive for OTHER reasons.
Click to expand...
Not once did Apple refer to the watch as a mini-phone, in fact, it's the opposite, it in no way replaces your phone, it augments it. It's a watch, it's just a modern, technologically rich watch with other capabilities.

Why are those other watches expensive for other reasons? There's four pricing things that come to mind, accuracy, which obviously this watch has, given it's sync'd to your phone and to the internet. Build quality, which this will certainly have. Design, this is subjective, but it's also flexible given the watch face is virtual and can be altered. Branding, Apple tax will certainly apply, as does Rolex, Omega, Breitling, IWC, etc.

It's not a mini-phone, it's just a feature rich watch that uses miniaturized computer technology to achieve that rather clockwork, or simpler digital timekeeping and displays.
 
effingvic said:
One thing that I find novel is tapping your friend through Apple Watch. Instead of writing a text message or calling, or even sending an emoji, you tap the watch a few times and they feel a tap from you.
Click to expand...

I think this could be cool too. I thought the minute or so they spent talking about customising emoji (and that it has its own button in the communication apps) was weird though.

I think the way you tap longer on the screen to bring up a few buttons specific to the app will be standard in all smart watches a year from now. It just seems so obvious (and I mean that in a "good design should be invisible sort of way.").

Overall, I was disappointed with the reveal though. I was more interested in a wearable (something like the Moment smart watch) than the typical smart watches other companies have been doing and Apple seems to be following the latter. The digital crown seems a weird piece of skeuomorphism that I thought we'd been moving away from these last two years. I can only assume they thought this was necessary because this is a new product category (for the general public) and this would make it easier.

It just seems to really lack focus. I wanted something that did just a few things well. Seeing photos on there was bizarre. I can't see the justification for it being there other than "it's possible." My understanding of how Android Wear works is you swipe down for more info on the notification or you swipe right to respond to it (I might be way off on that though.). This just seemed like shrinking a smart phone onto your wrist. The thing everyone has been criticising Android Wear for and what Tim Cook said they wouldn't be doing.
 
StuBurns said:
Not once did Apple refer to the watch as a mini-phone, in fact, it's the opposite, it in no way replaces your phone, it augments it. It's a watch, it's just a modern, technologically rich watch with other capabilities.

Why are those other watches expensive for other reasons? There's four pricing things that come to mind, accuracy, which obviously this watch has, given it's sync'd to your phone and to the internet. Build quality, which this will certainly have. Design, this is subjective, but it's also flexible given the watch face is virtual and can be altered. Branding, Apple tax will certainly apply, as does Rolex, Omega, Breitling, IWC, etc.

It's not a mini-phone, it's just a feature rich watch that uses miniaturized computer technology to achieve that rather clockwork, or simpler digital timekeeping and displays.
Click to expand...

Features that so-happen to be selling points for the iPhone.

It's a mini-phone
 
Eddie Griffin said:
I can get a rolex for $349 what?!
Click to expand...
No, but they're costing more to make to begin with. Trying to find exact markups on watches is extremely difficult, but the Speedmaster is believed to cost around $400 by the time it leaves the factory. You have to consider the marketing costs, and tax, and transport, etc, but it's still a huge profit margin, which is why those prestigious Swiss watchmakers can afford to be so secure with fairly conservative sales numbers.

Apple aren't going to be running with margins anything close to that high, but people are still going to be paying for the Apple brand. Regardless, branding doesn't seem like a wholly worthy source of cost to the consumer. Certainly to some extent people will want a watch because it's a status symbol, but I imagine lots of people would love Submariners if they could get them for a more reasonable price.

We'll have to see when all the prices are out, but $350 for the cheapest watch doesn't seem surprising to me. I think if Apple had made a normal watch, it wouldn't be drastically cheaper.
 
I was hoping for a few evolutionary steps that other manufacturers could take notes from and improve from, but unfortunately this is one of the worst product unveilings I have seen recently.

Maybe in practice there are a few unique things this watch does that others do not. It's still saddening to see Apple half-ass their entry in the smart wearables category.
 
Do the other smart watches from LG and Motorola require an Android phone?

One weird thing about the presentation was them focusing on how the Crown was a way to interface without covering the screen...then they proceeded to interact with the screen by swiping and tapping, and barely ever using the Crown (and not using it for some things I figured it would be perfect for, like scrolling lists).
 
I don't understand why people are shocked that you would pay more for brand?

2015 Hyundai's have more tech features then their Honda counterparts and are priced cheaper. But Hyundai made absolute shit for 90% of it's existence and Honda is the most reliable quality brand perhaps in the world.

Apple said they spent 3 years working on this watch - meanwhile Samsung has released 6 watches in about a year. And Samsung is probably the most reputable Android company - Moto makes total crap.

The engineering quality difference between an apple phone and your average Moto phone is like the difference between a BMW and a Sonata if the BMW lasted longer and gave you fewer headaches 10 years from now.

Who the hell has a Galaxy S2 anymore? There are tons and tons of IPhone 4's still on the market.

Edit: the iPad 1 that people talk so much shit about I bought when it came out. And I still use it everyday to do what it's designed to do, consume media, browse the net, watch Netflix, listen to music, read. etc. still has great battery life, still looks and feels great.
 
someone posted this on macrumors, brilliant

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Apple has created a solution to a problem that never really was a problem in the first place and so has created a new problem. Instead of not having to pull out your ohone to tell the time. Now. You can carry TWO devices around instead if one.

Keeping in mind that ironically it was Apples own iPHONE that killed the traditional wristwatch in the first place.

This is the day that Apple messed up.

You don't have to go to Antartica to find out that it's f@@@ing freezing over there. Equally, you don't have to be a soothsayer to realise that this is going to be one humongous faux pas.

It's a white elephant.

Lovely engineering. Beautiful realisation. Totally useless.

Now run that Jony Ive promo video again so I can try to believe the hype a bit more....:-o
Click to expand...

and this

Battery life is not the biggest problem with the Apple Watch.

The biggest issue I see is that, for most functions, it must be tethered to your iPhone to work. Whats the point of being able to use Maps, Messages, etc when you could just pull your phone out of your pocket and get a better experience on a bigger screen? It has no GPS chip so you can't even use it to track your hiking/running route like most GPS watches.

Clearly, it's been designed with untethered use in mind. But current GPS chips and cellular radios couldn't fit in to the Watch without unacceptable battery drain.

Buying this version of the Apple Watch will be a bit like buying the first generation iPad: There's some cool technology there, and a lot of potential - but you know that in a year or so there'll be a second generation that's thinner, has better battery life, and has built-in cellular data and GPS.
Click to expand...
 
My Jawbone UP died, and I don't know if they're going to replace it this time. As a result, I'm in the market for a new fitness tracker. A new UP would cost between 125-150 depending on sales and retailers, so for 200-ish more I could get a watch. I'm considering it.
 
mattiewheels said:
Do the other smart watches from LG and Motorola require an Android phone?

One weird thing about the presentation was them focusing on how the Crown was a way to interface without covering the screen...then they proceeded to interact with the screen by swiping and tapping, and barely ever using the Crown (and not using it for some things I figured it would be perfect for, like scrolling lists).
Click to expand...
Yeah that was a pretty stand-out statement to make when they followed it up with a ton of screen-swiping. As for the other smart watches, if they're running Android Wear then yes those will require an Android phone to pair up with -- for now. Similar to Glass and Chromecast, there's an Android Wear app that the phone uses to communicate with the device. Presumably, at some point, they may make an iOS version of the app.
 
I'm surprised so many people were planning on leaving their smartphones at home. Were they planning on talking and typing texts or browse on a watch?
 
after seeing the pictures and specs, I really want to like this, but its just way to bulky. I know Apple probably is already having issues with battery life, but they have to find a way to make this thing 1/2 as thick as it is now. The Watch Guy's thoughts made it very clear this thing wont even easily fit under a sleeve, thats a problem. Very surprised they would reveal an item like this as bulky as it it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Tim Apple announces Season 3 of Severance
36
3K
kapshin replied
Recommended Smart Watches (not Apple)
5
437
Connificent replied
Murderbot is an excellent Apple TV+ show
15
350
Valonquar replied
Apple to rename all of its operating systems
23
439
Drew1440 replied
Tim Apple got stitched up the Courts
39
790
winjer replied
Top Bottom