While someone else already made the reference to this quote, it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments.
Personally I don't know that there's any watch that would really get me to start wearing watches at all again -- I never liked them that much to begin with. But this knocks down an awful lot of the criticisms I've had of existing smartwatches. The smaller Apple Watch is 38mm, certainly not small but by no means an irrationally huge behemoth. (Even the larger is only 42mm, I believe.) When you consider the three lines, two sizes, and multiple bands, there's dozens of combinations available. You may personally not like the fashion sense, but other than the Moto 360 this is the first smartwatch that's had a fashion sense to criticize. (And guys, the Moto 360 is 46mm, so let's not pretend it's svelte, either.)
But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. Yes, I'm sure every single component has an antecedent you can point to, just like the iPhone's interaction model. Except that nobody put it all together like that before the iPhone. And nobody put it all together like this before the Apple Watch.
I'm not so glib as to say that catcalls when Apple introduces a new product are a sure sign of success (I remember the iPod Hifi, thanks). But again, it's hard not to see a few recurring patterns in the responses: oh, look, it doesn't do everything that it could (or that competitors already do!) and it's too expensive. If it sells well, it'll only because of the Apple faithful buying everything.
And, of course, if it sells well, than within a year all smartwatches will adapt its interaction model. Other manufacturers will come out with variants that Apple isn't making, and we can move onto the evergreen phase of dismissing Apple as a company that just copies everybody else.
But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else.
I strongly disagree.
I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here - they seemed to have approached the problem as "how can we make iOS usable on a smaller screen" and came up with interfaces like the crown and the (albeit pretty) circle-based homescreen UI to access apps to tackle those issues. Which is interesting, because they started off their presentation explicitly saying they didn't want to just scale down iOS.
Google, on the other hand, approached the problem of "how can we make wearables useful as a platform" rather than "how can we scale down Android" and created the intuitive cards interface (which, as a Moto 360 user, is remarkably convenient) and Google Now-based contextual awareness of info you need when you need it. Android Wear doesn't even have an app selector easily accessible, because they don't want you to use the watch that way - it's hard to hunt for apps on a tiny screen, so instead they push contextual information at you as you need it in an easy-to-use way.
I have high hopes for both platforms in the years to come, but I don't find Apple's watch design to be smarter or better thought-out as it is right now (and I'm typing this on a Macbook Air, so I have an appreciation for Apple).
"Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work"
What's interesting to me is the extent to which the Apple Watch is designed to be interacted with, which contrasts strongly with Google's vision of wearables (both Android Wear and Glass) as assistants that are there when you need them, but which otherwise disappear so you can stay immersed in life.
Taco's criticism of the iPod was that it didn't do enough - didn't have enough features, didn't have enough storage etc, and he was rightly panned for getting it wrong. Criticisms of the price or lack of features of Apple products historically have been proved unfounded (it's easy to lower the price and add more features). So I agree if someone says 'but it doesn't do x', they can easily be satisfied by later models.
In contrast, many of the criticisms of this watch centre on the incoherent design, awkward interaction with a physical scroll-wheel AND touch interface (which Apple are not even allowing people to try out in the demos), and the grab-bag of features added to it, apparently without thought about how they all interact. It looks like it does too much, and none of it well.
They can possibly rescue this mess in the time they have before launch by polishing the software, but I'm hesitant about the concept of this scroll wheel (what they call a digital crown), which they have now committed to for the long term, and sounds like it is going to be very awkward when combined with physical touches and on the wrist, and pointless if you also require users to touch the screen. It would have been far nicer just to keep this simpler and use swipes and taps, and not try to hobble it with a traditional 'watch' shape.
It really does feel as if no-one was in charge of the design here, and lots of different teams worked on different features, which were mashed together at the last minute, without someone to force them all to integrate properly. I do believe Apple is entering a new era now - becoming a larger more stable company, and is now led by an operations person (Cook), not someone obsessed with design and willing to take massive risks in pursuit of perfection (Jobs). That is starting to have an effect on the products they make.
I'll make this clear from the start. I'm not an Apple fan (for complex reasons... call it a falling out.)
That said, this is a beautiful piece of design. I think they've outdone themselves with this one, it's a truly wonderful device. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that it will only be a matter of time before we see the usual Samsung vs. Apple patent violation claims being thrown around again (despite any possible prior art etc.).
Personally, I still think the tech isn't quite compact enough yet, but we're only one or two generations away from a slim-line, waterproof, and functionally integrated piece of kit that will actually complement the existing tech. The integration with dive computers / cycling computers / sports cameras / personal drones :-) etc. could be incredible!
Hopefully Apple's entry onto the smart-watch scene doesn't end up mired in too many patent battles... I'd like to see these devices progress as fast as possible!
I believe the iPod HiFi was a success. The purpose of that product was to create a market for iPod docks. At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them. I bet Apple has made more money from "Made for iPod" licensing as a result of the iPod HiFi (which kickstarted that industry) than their gross revenues from the iPod HiFi.
So, maybe a failure as a product, because it stimulated competition that, if it hadn't come about would have left Apple with a %100 share of iPod docks.
But given how many iPod docks have sold, I'm sure that market would have been viable, even if only Apple were making them.
>Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device
How are we measuring "more thought" now? Mega-Turings?
I think this statement is very unfair to Android Wear. A non-biased look shows some pretty innovative aspects at work and a usable design. Its also really unfair to claim that you know all about the Apple Watch when no one has one yet people have been using AW for months.
The idea that Apple is putting out a vision where you can communicate with people nearby in non-verbal ways is really powerful.
You have a company that has managed to deliver an awesome mobile experience on for consumer and enterprise shipping a device that can do everything from payments to health monitoring to door access. That's a ridiculously powerful thing.
What android can or can't do technically doesn't matter. Google, samsung, etc can't make the relationships that Apple can right now.
My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS. A sports watch without GPS, IMHO is a no go at $350. For <$300 I can get GPS, HR, ANT+, waterproof* and +20h battery life. e.g. Garmin Forerunner 910xt.
(I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance).
*Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.
Exactly. I put off buying a GPS watch because I wanted to see what Apple was going to offer. Answer: Nothing.
I really cannot imagine a more useless product than this watch. It requires an iPhone and seems to essentially serve as a small, remote interface for your phone. And how do I navigate that small interface? With an even smaller "digital crown." I hate trying to set the time on my watch, and now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?
Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that.
The only argument for this watch is that it might be helpful for those times when pulling out your phone is just too onerous. I regret that I do not have the type of lifestyle where that is a serious limitation.
As a serious runner, there is no way that I would run for an extended distance without my phone on me. First of all because I would rather not have to drag my injured self out somewhere to ask for help, rather than being able to call for it from my phone. Whenever I do triathlon training, I would also not think of leaving without my phone, as I tend to go for 30-40 mile bike rides into remote areas, and having a way to communicate with the outside world in case the worst happens (equipment malfunction, injury) is preferable. I don't think I have a single watch that can last more than 7 hours of continuous GPS usage, between running and biking, so I'd like to see what the battery life on the Apple Watch looks like before passing judgement.
>My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS.
Yeah, it's for the sligltly LESS serious runners, of which there are millions...
My wife runs long distances with an iPhone AND a watch.
My impression is that Forerunners have fallen out of favor. The GPS doesn't work all that well compared to a phone (I'm guessing because it lacks the AGPS data a phone has access to). Plus if you're running a marathon you probably want some music to listen to, and it sure is nice to have a phone with you even though it's perhaps a bit heavy.
I doubt "people into serious running" run into the 10s of millions that Apple are aiming the watch at though.
(I agree with your point though - I have a 910XT for the battery life - the Apple Watch would be useless as an activity tracker for me since the iPhone 5S doesn't really cope with 5h+ activities.)
"$350!? And it can't even do the things my highly specialized device can do." It's funny you should mention the Forerunner 910, because you know what the 910 can't do? Be a watch. But that's okay because you didn't buy it to be a watch.
Besides, I'm the only runner I know that doesn't bring a phone with me when I run.
They mentioned the low-end model requiring an iPhone, but unless I missed something due to the sporadic live-stream, they seemed to trail-off when it came to what the other two models would be like. I could see GPS being something built in to the higher-end model for instance.
I am a serious runner (have run 3 marathons, running a fourth in a month and a half), and I'm entertaining the possibility of converting over to the iPhone + Apple Watch. For me though, it's more complicated.
I always run with my phone & wallet for emergency reasons. I don't use a sports watch anymore (I do have a Garmin), but largely due to their bulk & wanting to focus less on my time/pace & more on my body.
I also am getting sick of Verizon getting vendors to lock down Android phones AND forcing phone vendors to toss a bunch of crapware onto the phones. The only reason I haven't switched yet is because I am on a legacy $40/month/line family plan. I am not a huge fan of iOS - I love Google's integrations with its services with Android.
A lot of what I end up doing is taking out my cellphone to check for messages or the time. It's excessive, and quite inconvenient.
Why not one of the existing smartwatches? I haven't yet been convinced that they're built for my desires.
I'm not really in a rush to make a decision here, and likely will wait some before jumping in (probably will try out the Moto 360 in the short term), but the cost isn't really out of the realm of reason necessarily to me.
Maybe during the event but every other day while your out working out and such? I don't know about you, but I don't know any cyclist that leaves home without his phone. Heck it comes down to what not to take beyond a few certain requirements. // 2 tubes, pump, money, id, phone, water, energy gels (yuck), rain cover //
If I am short riding, as in I could walk home, the phone still goes with me. However I see no use for the watch. I have a simple comp on the handlebars, maybe I could stick the watch there?
While I disagree with your premise as the phone is there anyway, I see the watch more as Starbucks wear than anything else.
The fact that the Apple Watch doesn't do everything we can conceive combined with its visual elegance (at least in the videos) suggests to me Apple's target in this first iteration is the luxury market. I expect the athletes using those "crappy" Beats headsets will be popularizing Apple Watches to adoring fans before too long. That will give Apple enough time to make improvements over time.
Well, that's just marketing. Of course it isn't the ultimate device for serious athletes, but it has useful health related features for the broad audience.
No matter how Apple markets its products, it's always intended for a broad spectrum of users, which almost excludes the possibility that you'll ever see a Apple product that is specialized for some kind of niche
Do they have watches, sub 250, that can be used for swimming OR running?
Even just the swimming would be great, cause the price point and being forced to carry an iPhone around kind of defeated the purpose of buying the Apple Watch for me.
This is pretty ridiculous comparison. The Apple watch is clearly not targeted to any serious runners/triathletes. I don't recall anyone claim it's a "sports watch".
I run and this is fine with me. I don't go anywhere without my phone anyway, and I imagine GPS on the Watch would mean shorter battery life or bigger battery/watch.
My impression from the marketing video where Ive speaks is that this is more like a vanity jewelry item, not anything serious and definitely not something that can handle abuse. I don't think they even market it as a sports item.
This is Apple's way: Release a product at a high price initially to capture extra dollars from early adopters with the extra money while also buying time for Apple to work out kinks in there production chain and also reduce costs as efficiency increases. Six to twelve months later cheaper Apple Watches will come out.
> I don't know any person who is into serious running ... who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch
People will spend that much money on the Apple Watch. Because it's Apple.It might seem like a ripoff to you but the price was calculated to maximise Apple profit.
"Maybe if we don't mention lefties, everyone will forget they exist"
Righty watches aren't a big deal for us to use because you only use the crown to set them, and you only set them twice a year. On the Apple Watch, you're going to use it all the time.
It's not even that I couldn't use my right hand, it's that I don't want a bulky $350 gadget permanently strapped to my left hand, which I frequently use for doing things. Great recipe for (best case) being irritating, or (worst case) getting smashed into stuff.
Maybe it can be rotated 180° to go on a right arm? It'd mean the button and crown positions are backward, but it'd be better than nothing. I see no mention of that option anywhere, so for now I assume you can't.
Either way, doesn't support the 4S, costs more than I'm willing to spend, and will hopefully get thinner in future releases. I'll jump on the smartwatch train eventually, but not with this one.
Am I the only one who thinks the available/previewed watch faces don't match the intended goal of the device? This event was all about fashion, inviting all of the fashion journalists and talking about personalization. Not a single one of those watch faces look appealing, and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I think the design has potential when it gets a little bit thinner (v2?), but the previewed watch faces look absolutely awful to me. You'd think that would be the easiest part of building a super computer that fit on your wrist.
My biggest take away is that Apple has failed to advance the state of the art in any meaningful way here. I guess hype is always hype, but people really expected that Apple would do something that would knock this out of the park - a week long battery life, a flexible watch face, or a bracelet style 360 degree screen or something else that would just reset the whole space. It didn't happen. This device may sell well (or not) but it's basically a peer to the current entrants in this space, not a generation ahead like many people expected.
This is an intriguing situation because while the "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." comment will always haunt those that criticise Apple product launches this is the first one in years where the product looks more like it's actually the Nomad being mentioned, and the iPod has yet to arrive.
I'm going so far as to say that smartwatches and VR represent the desperate flailing of a tech industry that's run out of ideas that will connect with people. We had a good boom post iPhone, but this kind of thing just doesn't look like there's any point to it.
I spent about 20 minutes reading through some of the now 650+ comments, and I'm a bit surprised how common the arguments are on both sides. It feels like the entire tech community has the same basic argument every time a new 1.0 apple product is released:
Those who don't like the product:
- it is feature incomplete
- the hype doesn't match the actual product
- it doesn't actually look that great
- there are other, better products already on the market
- it is overpriced
- one or two interesting feature doesn't equate to "innovation"
And those who like the product (or love Apple) tend to have counter-points for each argument.
I'm curious if anyone has compiled a list of day zero critiques over the years for Apple successes (Mac, iPod, iPhone) or failures (Mac toaster, hifi, etc.)? It would be fun (and maybe a bit informative) for the community to review.
To those who are concerned about mainstream adoption of a watch like this, I remind you of the Pebble Kickstarter which was one of the most successful in Kickstarter history. And all those contributors had no guarantee that the Pebble would see the light of day. There is serious demand for a watch that does even what the Pebble originally promised, which is still far far less than what the Apple Watch has now proposed to do.
I have been a Pebble watch owner for over a year, after having given up wearing watches around the time I owned my first cellphone. I have come to feel the same NEED of having my Pebble on as I, and everybody else, has with their phone in their pocket. All of the quirks of the Pebble and everything that I have come to realize is missing with the Pebble, is addressed elegantly with the Apple Watch. 'Canned' and voice responses to messages... Huge. A non-obvious alternative to the classic vibration (which is obvious to people nearby when using the Pebble) in the 'tap' technology... also clever and smart.
The main innovation I like is NFC in the Watch. This makes so much sense. What is the big advantage of pulling a phone from your bag instead of a wallet? Paying with a wrist, opening doors with your wrist, entering the metro with your wrist. Can't wait for the next Wear releases from Samsung to have it integrated :)
Super disappointed with this. I was hoping for a bunch of sensors that fed my iPhone. Not something to discretely take meetings during a meeting.
Here is what is missing for me:
1. Sweat sensor.
2. Insulin sensor.
3. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently automatically detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! My iPhone should auto update a fitness tracking app. If I start biking my normal "track" here in Toronto, it should automatically know that! So underwhelmed here.
4. No mention of emergency assistance "stuff", (like detection of heart attacks, or spiking insulin levels).
5. Some really stupid / weird features, although I do kinda like the shared heartbeat one. Would be fun on exercises / first date makeouts :)
Here are my first thoughts (I kind of won't be doing device specific nitpicking as this is the first iteration. We are sure the concept will evolve with time):
Good things:
1.) The Tap-talk feature is an absolute genius for me. This, exactly this, is the perfect non-intrusive yet hyper connected way to intimately stay in touch with someone. Just tap on their wrist, so simple. Make a little scribble to show emotion, so beautiful.
2.) The digital crown seems very interesting. I know the concerns on this thread, but if you see the demo again, the nob is bigger and is fluid enough to rotate by rolling just one finger on it. We hate crowns on our watches not because we have to rotate them, but because they are hard to rotate. This one might be different.
3.) The built. It starts at $349, while Android Wear is at $250-300 range. But then this is sapphire glass with at least steel body. And their is mention of actually how a watch is accurate with time, something 3 other companies didn't do.
4.) Multiple sizes is a good thing. Small people, petite ladies don't like to wear big sizes. I like how adaptive this watch is with the sizes, materials, straps.
Now on to the awkward parts:
1.) They gave developers at least 4-5 months time to implement the tap-talk on Android Wear. By the time this watch actually comes to stores, it would be beaten down concept.
2.) They gave Android Wear manufacturers all the time to step up their game.
3.) The killer app, even in on-stage demos, seems to be the maps app. The Apple maps, unfortunately. That makes it profoundly useless wrist weight for anybody living outside of handful countries it actually works in. That gives Android Wear a terrible advantage.
4.) No GPS on watch. So basically I have to carry my phone in pocket during runs. There is already GPS apps which do that. So that makes this watch essentially a display.
5.) No word on battery.
6.) Apple launched a watch today. A week earlier Moto launched a better looking watch. This is a sentence I never thought I'd say.
Would I have bought it today if Apple launched it? Yes.
Will I now that Apple has given me months to think it over? No.
Even though I am an Android developer, I played with the thought of buying the iPhone 6 (the big one) and an Apple Watch, because Swift is kind of a reset for developers and I am very happy with my MacBook.
But now that I've seen the keynote, I've got some issues with the watch:
First of all, I feel it's too expensive, because those smartwatches are basically obsolete after a year. (at least to me)
It would have been good if Apple would allow those watches to be sent in and upgraded, especially for the version that uses a gold casing, which I suspect will be extremely expensive. (probably > $1000)
The design of the watch is not bad, but not good either. I would have no problem wearing it, but I don't like that rectangle look. (the Moto 360 looks better to me)
But on the other hand I like the navigation wheel a lot. I'm pretty sure that this alone will allow for more complex apps than what we see on Android Wear at the moment.
The new types of messages that Apple presented isn't interesting to me, but I can see the younger audience using it a lot.
i can't imagine this selling well, but i also couldn't imagine the ipad selling well and history showed i don't know what i'm talking about, so it'll probably be a huge hit.
It may be that Google did a pretty good job of preemptively responding to the Apple Watch, but I don't find this that much more interesting than the already not very interesting Android Wear devices.
The fact that this requires me to bring my iPhone on a run kills it as a sport watch. I can get a high quality GPS watch for $150 that doesn't require me to bring my iPhone.
Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it.
It's a little thick isn't it? But it's got a design that I can see evolving over time. Not bad for a square-ish watch.
Except I don't see any features that I need to plop over $350 for. In terms of health-related metrics the Basis watch is more feature-complete, and over half the price http://www.mybasis.com/
In terms of personal assistant features, Google Now takes the lead along with any smart-watch that takes advantage of it and Android-wear.
When the iPhone released, I believe the market was primed for a next-generation smartphone. I don't think this is true for wearables now. The Apple Watch will have a much touger climb than the iPhone ever did.
[+] [-] chipotle_coyote|11 years ago|reply
Personally I don't know that there's any watch that would really get me to start wearing watches at all again -- I never liked them that much to begin with. But this knocks down an awful lot of the criticisms I've had of existing smartwatches. The smaller Apple Watch is 38mm, certainly not small but by no means an irrationally huge behemoth. (Even the larger is only 42mm, I believe.) When you consider the three lines, two sizes, and multiple bands, there's dozens of combinations available. You may personally not like the fashion sense, but other than the Moto 360 this is the first smartwatch that's had a fashion sense to criticize. (And guys, the Moto 360 is 46mm, so let's not pretend it's svelte, either.)
But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. Yes, I'm sure every single component has an antecedent you can point to, just like the iPhone's interaction model. Except that nobody put it all together like that before the iPhone. And nobody put it all together like this before the Apple Watch.
I'm not so glib as to say that catcalls when Apple introduces a new product are a sure sign of success (I remember the iPod Hifi, thanks). But again, it's hard not to see a few recurring patterns in the responses: oh, look, it doesn't do everything that it could (or that competitors already do!) and it's too expensive. If it sells well, it'll only because of the Apple faithful buying everything.
And, of course, if it sells well, than within a year all smartwatches will adapt its interaction model. Other manufacturers will come out with variants that Apple isn't making, and we can move onto the evergreen phase of dismissing Apple as a company that just copies everybody else.
[+] [-] dkulchenko|11 years ago|reply
I strongly disagree.
I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here - they seemed to have approached the problem as "how can we make iOS usable on a smaller screen" and came up with interfaces like the crown and the (albeit pretty) circle-based homescreen UI to access apps to tackle those issues. Which is interesting, because they started off their presentation explicitly saying they didn't want to just scale down iOS.
Google, on the other hand, approached the problem of "how can we make wearables useful as a platform" rather than "how can we scale down Android" and created the intuitive cards interface (which, as a Moto 360 user, is remarkably convenient) and Google Now-based contextual awareness of info you need when you need it. Android Wear doesn't even have an app selector easily accessible, because they don't want you to use the watch that way - it's hard to hunt for apps on a tiny screen, so instead they push contextual information at you as you need it in an easy-to-use way.
I have high hopes for both platforms in the years to come, but I don't find Apple's watch design to be smarter or better thought-out as it is right now (and I'm typing this on a Macbook Air, so I have an appreciation for Apple).
[+] [-] msabalau|11 years ago|reply
What's interesting to me is the extent to which the Apple Watch is designed to be interacted with, which contrasts strongly with Google's vision of wearables (both Android Wear and Glass) as assistants that are there when you need them, but which otherwise disappear so you can stay immersed in life.
[+] [-] grey-area|11 years ago|reply
In contrast, many of the criticisms of this watch centre on the incoherent design, awkward interaction with a physical scroll-wheel AND touch interface (which Apple are not even allowing people to try out in the demos), and the grab-bag of features added to it, apparently without thought about how they all interact. It looks like it does too much, and none of it well.
They can possibly rescue this mess in the time they have before launch by polishing the software, but I'm hesitant about the concept of this scroll wheel (what they call a digital crown), which they have now committed to for the long term, and sounds like it is going to be very awkward when combined with physical touches and on the wrist, and pointless if you also require users to touch the screen. It would have been far nicer just to keep this simpler and use swipes and taps, and not try to hobble it with a traditional 'watch' shape.
It really does feel as if no-one was in charge of the design here, and lots of different teams worked on different features, which were mashed together at the last minute, without someone to force them all to integrate properly. I do believe Apple is entering a new era now - becoming a larger more stable company, and is now led by an operations person (Cook), not someone obsessed with design and willing to take massive risks in pursuit of perfection (Jobs). That is starting to have an effect on the products they make.
[+] [-] Intermernet|11 years ago|reply
That said, this is a beautiful piece of design. I think they've outdone themselves with this one, it's a truly wonderful device. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that it will only be a matter of time before we see the usual Samsung vs. Apple patent violation claims being thrown around again (despite any possible prior art etc.).
Personally, I still think the tech isn't quite compact enough yet, but we're only one or two generations away from a slim-line, waterproof, and functionally integrated piece of kit that will actually complement the existing tech. The integration with dive computers / cycling computers / sports cameras / personal drones :-) etc. could be incredible!
Hopefully Apple's entry onto the smart-watch scene doesn't end up mired in too many patent battles... I'd like to see these devices progress as fast as possible!
Bravo Apple design team!
[+] [-] MCRed|11 years ago|reply
So, maybe a failure as a product, because it stimulated competition that, if it hadn't come about would have left Apple with a %100 share of iPod docks.
But given how many iPod docks have sold, I'm sure that market would have been viable, even if only Apple were making them.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|11 years ago|reply
How are we measuring "more thought" now? Mega-Turings?
I think this statement is very unfair to Android Wear. A non-biased look shows some pretty innovative aspects at work and a usable design. Its also really unfair to claim that you know all about the Apple Watch when no one has one yet people have been using AW for months.
[+] [-] Spooky23|11 years ago|reply
The idea that Apple is putting out a vision where you can communicate with people nearby in non-verbal ways is really powerful.
You have a company that has managed to deliver an awesome mobile experience on for consumer and enterprise shipping a device that can do everything from payments to health monitoring to door access. That's a ridiculously powerful thing.
What android can or can't do technically doesn't matter. Google, samsung, etc can't make the relationships that Apple can right now.
[+] [-] antr|11 years ago|reply
(I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance).
*Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.
[+] [-] bobochan|11 years ago|reply
I really cannot imagine a more useless product than this watch. It requires an iPhone and seems to essentially serve as a small, remote interface for your phone. And how do I navigate that small interface? With an even smaller "digital crown." I hate trying to set the time on my watch, and now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?
Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that.
The only argument for this watch is that it might be helpful for those times when pulling out your phone is just too onerous. I regret that I do not have the type of lifestyle where that is a serious limitation.
[+] [-] aioprisan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|11 years ago|reply
Yeah, it's for the sligltly LESS serious runners, of which there are millions...
[+] [-] eli|11 years ago|reply
My impression is that Forerunners have fallen out of favor. The GPS doesn't work all that well compared to a phone (I'm guessing because it lacks the AGPS data a phone has access to). Plus if you're running a marathon you probably want some music to listen to, and it sure is nice to have a phone with you even though it's perhaps a bit heavy.
[+] [-] zimpenfish|11 years ago|reply
(I agree with your point though - I have a 910XT for the battery life - the Apple Watch would be useless as an activity tracker for me since the iPhone 5S doesn't really cope with 5h+ activities.)
[+] [-] ajju|11 years ago|reply
I think Garmin forerunner will be to the future of wearables what Nomad was to the future of music in 2002.
[+] [-] aioprisan|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikestew|11 years ago|reply
Besides, I'm the only runner I know that doesn't bring a phone with me when I run.
[+] [-] gdubs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Bahamut|11 years ago|reply
I always run with my phone & wallet for emergency reasons. I don't use a sports watch anymore (I do have a Garmin), but largely due to their bulk & wanting to focus less on my time/pace & more on my body.
I also am getting sick of Verizon getting vendors to lock down Android phones AND forcing phone vendors to toss a bunch of crapware onto the phones. The only reason I haven't switched yet is because I am on a legacy $40/month/line family plan. I am not a huge fan of iOS - I love Google's integrations with its services with Android.
A lot of what I end up doing is taking out my cellphone to check for messages or the time. It's excessive, and quite inconvenient.
Why not one of the existing smartwatches? I haven't yet been convinced that they're built for my desires.
I'm not really in a rush to make a decision here, and likely will wait some before jumping in (probably will try out the Moto 360 in the short term), but the cost isn't really out of the realm of reason necessarily to me.
[+] [-] Shivetya|11 years ago|reply
If I am short riding, as in I could walk home, the phone still goes with me. However I see no use for the watch. I have a simple comp on the handlebars, maybe I could stick the watch there?
While I disagree with your premise as the phone is there anyway, I see the watch more as Starbucks wear than anything else.
[+] [-] jolohaga|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DominikR|11 years ago|reply
No matter how Apple markets its products, it's always intended for a broad spectrum of users, which almost excludes the possibility that you'll ever see a Apple product that is specialized for some kind of niche
[+] [-] JonLim|11 years ago|reply
Even just the swimming would be great, cause the price point and being forced to carry an iPhone around kind of defeated the purpose of buying the Apple Watch for me.
[+] [-] Shad0w59|11 years ago|reply
Heart monitoring and GPS is a nice to have for me. Seriously, all I need is my old $75 16GB iPod nano 6th generation square.
[+] [-] akfanta|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] euske|11 years ago|reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|11 years ago|reply
Did they comment on water resistance? I thought they had a photo of someone pouring water over it...
[+] [-] bnjs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbesto|11 years ago|reply
It looks nice though...
[+] [-] return0|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eevilspock|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aikah|11 years ago|reply
People will spend that much money on the Apple Watch. Because it's Apple.It might seem like a ripoff to you but the price was calculated to maximise Apple profit.
[+] [-] wlesieutre|11 years ago|reply
Righty watches aren't a big deal for us to use because you only use the crown to set them, and you only set them twice a year. On the Apple Watch, you're going to use it all the time.
It's not even that I couldn't use my right hand, it's that I don't want a bulky $350 gadget permanently strapped to my left hand, which I frequently use for doing things. Great recipe for (best case) being irritating, or (worst case) getting smashed into stuff.
Maybe it can be rotated 180° to go on a right arm? It'd mean the button and crown positions are backward, but it'd be better than nothing. I see no mention of that option anywhere, so for now I assume you can't.
Either way, doesn't support the 4S, costs more than I'm willing to spend, and will hopefully get thinner in future releases. I'll jump on the smartwatch train eventually, but not with this one.
[+] [-] georgemcbay|11 years ago|reply
Shame about the battery life, though. Please fix that Motorola, I want to give you my money so bad, but cannot do it until you fix the battery life.
[+] [-] rebel|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zmmmmm|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fidotron|11 years ago|reply
I'm going so far as to say that smartwatches and VR represent the desperate flailing of a tech industry that's run out of ideas that will connect with people. We had a good boom post iPhone, but this kind of thing just doesn't look like there's any point to it.
[+] [-] wiremine|11 years ago|reply
Those who don't like the product:
- it is feature incomplete
- the hype doesn't match the actual product
- it doesn't actually look that great
- there are other, better products already on the market
- it is overpriced
- one or two interesting feature doesn't equate to "innovation"
And those who like the product (or love Apple) tend to have counter-points for each argument.
I'm curious if anyone has compiled a list of day zero critiques over the years for Apple successes (Mac, iPod, iPhone) or failures (Mac toaster, hifi, etc.)? It would be fun (and maybe a bit informative) for the community to review.
Edit: fixed spacing and wording.
[+] [-] leoc|11 years ago|reply
* The product pages for the individual Watch lines, especially http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-sport/ , are the first time I can recall Apple using sex or (literal) sexiness in its advertising. (We'll pass over the "Rip. Mix. Burn." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECN4ZE9-Mo cringefest ...)
* I await Gruber's reaction with considerable interest...
[+] [-] phirschybar|11 years ago|reply
I have been a Pebble watch owner for over a year, after having given up wearing watches around the time I owned my first cellphone. I have come to feel the same NEED of having my Pebble on as I, and everybody else, has with their phone in their pocket. All of the quirks of the Pebble and everything that I have come to realize is missing with the Pebble, is addressed elegantly with the Apple Watch. 'Canned' and voice responses to messages... Huge. A non-obvious alternative to the classic vibration (which is obvious to people nearby when using the Pebble) in the 'tap' technology... also clever and smart.
[+] [-] julianpye|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3pt14159|11 years ago|reply
Here is what is missing for me:
1. Sweat sensor.
2. Insulin sensor.
3. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently automatically detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! My iPhone should auto update a fitness tracking app. If I start biking my normal "track" here in Toronto, it should automatically know that! So underwhelmed here.
4. No mention of emergency assistance "stuff", (like detection of heart attacks, or spiking insulin levels).
5. Some really stupid / weird features, although I do kinda like the shared heartbeat one. Would be fun on exercises / first date makeouts :)
[+] [-] arihant|11 years ago|reply
Good things:
1.) The Tap-talk feature is an absolute genius for me. This, exactly this, is the perfect non-intrusive yet hyper connected way to intimately stay in touch with someone. Just tap on their wrist, so simple. Make a little scribble to show emotion, so beautiful.
2.) The digital crown seems very interesting. I know the concerns on this thread, but if you see the demo again, the nob is bigger and is fluid enough to rotate by rolling just one finger on it. We hate crowns on our watches not because we have to rotate them, but because they are hard to rotate. This one might be different.
3.) The built. It starts at $349, while Android Wear is at $250-300 range. But then this is sapphire glass with at least steel body. And their is mention of actually how a watch is accurate with time, something 3 other companies didn't do.
4.) Multiple sizes is a good thing. Small people, petite ladies don't like to wear big sizes. I like how adaptive this watch is with the sizes, materials, straps.
Now on to the awkward parts:
1.) They gave developers at least 4-5 months time to implement the tap-talk on Android Wear. By the time this watch actually comes to stores, it would be beaten down concept.
2.) They gave Android Wear manufacturers all the time to step up their game.
3.) The killer app, even in on-stage demos, seems to be the maps app. The Apple maps, unfortunately. That makes it profoundly useless wrist weight for anybody living outside of handful countries it actually works in. That gives Android Wear a terrible advantage.
4.) No GPS on watch. So basically I have to carry my phone in pocket during runs. There is already GPS apps which do that. So that makes this watch essentially a display.
5.) No word on battery.
6.) Apple launched a watch today. A week earlier Moto launched a better looking watch. This is a sentence I never thought I'd say.
Would I have bought it today if Apple launched it? Yes.
Will I now that Apple has given me months to think it over? No.
[+] [-] DominikR|11 years ago|reply
But now that I've seen the keynote, I've got some issues with the watch:
First of all, I feel it's too expensive, because those smartwatches are basically obsolete after a year. (at least to me)
It would have been good if Apple would allow those watches to be sent in and upgraded, especially for the version that uses a gold casing, which I suspect will be extremely expensive. (probably > $1000)
The design of the watch is not bad, but not good either. I would have no problem wearing it, but I don't like that rectangle look. (the Moto 360 looks better to me)
But on the other hand I like the navigation wheel a lot. I'm pretty sure that this alone will allow for more complex apps than what we see on Android Wear at the moment.
The new types of messages that Apple presented isn't interesting to me, but I can see the younger audience using it a lot.
[+] [-] jroseattle|11 years ago|reply
I'm sure there are interesting use cases, but my summary view is this seems like a current-generation iPod with a wristband.
No prediction of how successful it will be, but I kind of think this will be more niche than mainstream.
[+] [-] oldmanjay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] agscala|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] psbp|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ebbv|11 years ago|reply
Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it.
Dumb, dumb move on Apple's part.
[+] [-] mladenkovacevic|11 years ago|reply
Except I don't see any features that I need to plop over $350 for. In terms of health-related metrics the Basis watch is more feature-complete, and over half the price http://www.mybasis.com/
In terms of personal assistant features, Google Now takes the lead along with any smart-watch that takes advantage of it and Android-wear.
When the iPhone released, I believe the market was primed for a next-generation smartphone. I don't think this is true for wearables now. The Apple Watch will have a much touger climb than the iPhone ever did.