Agreed. Everyone who keeps saying the second generation Apple Watch is going to be miles better should explain what they expect in the second version. Granted, it'll probably be thinner and lighter, have a faster processor, and possibly improve battery life. But considering Apple is more likely to forego battery life improvements in favor of slimmer design, I wouldn't hold my breath on the last option. Especially since the reviews say that the battery life is very good on the current model, provided you buy into the "need to charge every night" approach.
The biggest changes in terms of performance are probably going to come through software, and this version of the Watch will get those updates as well. Just like the iPhone, much of the functionality will be updated with improvements to the OS.
Considering the chipsets that are going into the Apple Watch day 1 when it's mostly just handling Bluetooth handoffs from the phone? Yeah, this thing was made to not obsolesce at the same rate as some other personal electronics. I've been saying it for a while, yearly hardware revisions are not terribly likely, and if they happen, it likely won't be the sort of game-changing revision that people seem to be expecting for no discernible reason.
Aside from the teenage romance tangent he went on, this was a great review. It wasn't trying to sell you on the device like others have (which is fine, considering what a piss-poor job they did while trying to), it was just simply "Here's the features, here's what they do, here's the true differentiators of the product." It's that last point that the bulk of reviews just aren't giving. They aren't telling anyone what's legitimately different about it from other smartwatches. Because just like with iPhone, it looks similar feature-for-feature with other devices, but the way those features present themselves to the user are why people buy iPhones over an Android device. Gruber tells us what those important little touches are.
Apple's done it before though. And I wager that they sold more of the $500+ iPad 3 during those 6 months than they will sell of the $350+ iWatch before holiday season
You're assuming that people who were buying iPad 3 were doing so because of whatever spec bump it had and not because it was what was available at the time they went to buy an iPad. If we see a new model in that timeframe, the difference will be so modest as to be a pointless revision for 1st gen owners, just like the vast majority of iPad 2 owners weren't raging over the pittance of a difference between it and the 3rd model.
It's funny because Gruber doesn't realize that teenagers will be sending dick pics with their Apple watch, not taps and smiley faces.
I thought people didn't want to use an Apple Watch for photo browsing?
Besides, a dick pic on such a tiny screen is probably not terribly flattering.
Glad to see hands on are out! Gruber seems pretty unimpressed, gonna read j.tops when I get home.
I don't see how you get that impression from Gruber's writing on the subject.
How often are you wanting to look at your wrist to justify the beautiful screen? That's why you have a phone. The pebble display is more than adequate.
After retina displays, I can't go back to reading pixelated text. I simply can't.
I went in to the Genius Bar at the Apple store for Macbook service and as I was talking to the service guy I noticed him look down and read his watch. He had an Apple watch on.
It was like someone pulling out and using their phone in the middle of a conversation.
My feeling towards wearable technology has changed.
I understand he was working and maybe it was a work related update, but is this going to be the norm from now on?
If you can get your Twitter feed, emails and texts on your wrist, when WON'T you be looking at it?
(In a few years from now I will probably look back at this post and wonder how I even functioned without a smartwatch.)
I would have to disagree. Taking out of a phone usually ends up with someone looking at it much longer and getting sucked into it more readily. It's easily more obtrusive than glancing at a watch. I know which I'd rather have.
I feel like the Verge and Bloomberg reviews brought this up a lot too in the context of "THING IS TAPPING ME I HAVE TO LOOK AT IT NOW NOW NOW. OH IT IS JUST AN INSTAGRAM LIKE. WE CAN RETURN TO MEETING."
I understand the lure/desire but if it's just a tap on the wrist type nudge (the strength is configurable) why do you have to look at it immediately at all? It's different if the notifications are set to only be important apps/people/things but it doesn't seem like many reviewers did any of that filtering.
It's these parts of the reviews that really illustrate how addicted we are to being immediately informed. I mean, why does ANYONE need to be notified of every social media like that they get? Aside from narcissists, that is.
More to the point, I don't see how it's any different from having vibrate on with the phone in your pants pocket. Aside from the phone's vibrate function being louder and more physically obtrusive, of course.
Apple Watch is almost assuredly going to make granular notification options the norm for apps. We simply haven't had a need to be concerned about notification overload before, we just let our phones rattle incessantly on desks around the world. Now that it's on our wrists, people will definitely become more mindful of what they need to know, as opposed to having apps try to keep you engaged every second of the day with pings and almost violent device shaking.
