A $1000 watch is about eff-you status. A watch with exquisite engineering and quality to last many lifetimes can be had for much less.
An iWatch? I'm keeping my expectations low, but Apple could pull a rabbit out of the hat. If it's a useful tool - and some of the rumors suggest it may be an insanely useful tool - then it could create a new market as the iPhone did.
The iPhone didn't create a new market, it redefined one. The average person didn't have much use for a smartphone because of it's then limited capabilities.
Why are people shocked by a $400 price tag? The Suunto Ambit 3 Peak costs $500. $600 if you want a sapphire crystal. Suunto makes great adventure watches, but I can guaranty that the Apple watch will do much more. Frankly, for $400, I'll be shocked if it's even a real watch. I think it will be more like an upscale Nike Fuelband type of bangle, with a focus on HealthKit and HomeKit and maybe even payment transactions. The idea of trying to recreate a small phone on your wrist is pointless.
[image of a Suunto watch]
1) Suunto looks like the watch for me. I can use it for my running, cycling and if I ever pick up on the swimming part I can use it for that too. The v3 is absolutely the best I can find; you can sync the data from the watch over BTLE to your iPhone, and once you have Internet access again it'll sync everything over. That the phone can display all push notifications from your iPhone is simply brilliant. This is actually what a watch from Apple presume it will do, because
2) I don't think a watch from Apple will be a standalone device. Rather, it will work in congruence with your iPhone. It won't make phone calls (good luck on holding your wrist to your ear for prolonged time) but rather display who's calling and declining that call or answer it with your iPhone.
We won't be chatting away on FB or what have you, but the watch can display Likes, Thumbs-Up and what not. Yes, I think it will work as an information relay device to your iPhone.
Why are people shocked by a $400 price tag? The Suunto Ambit 3 Peak costs $500. $600 if you want a sapphire crystal. Suunto makes great adventure watches, but I can guaranty that the Apple watch will do much more. Frankly, for $400, I'll be shocked if it's even a real watch. I think it will be more like an upscale Nike Fuelband type of bangle, with a focus on HealthKit and HomeKit and maybe even payment transactions. The idea of trying to recreate a small phone on your wrist is pointless.
2) This price shocker is no different than comparing the cost of an iPhone or iPad to something larger in size that has some of the basic capacities of an iDevice. "But my Dell laptop has blah RAM and waah-waah CPU for only $400." I bet we'll see people say their $129 fitness band has everything they need so the "iWatch" is then a useless dud of a product. Pretty much follow everything pazuzu has to say.
3) That Suuntu is not what I expect from Apple in terms of looks or style. Even though a simple monochrome display is great for battery life I have to think Apple will need to do something beautiful if and when they decide to enter this market. IMO, I think this is by far the more difficult product Apple will have to create up to this point because of the huge divide between various functionality v. various styles v. various prices v. having to keep the battery life long enough and the size small enough to not negatively affect the user experience. Anyone can focus on one or two of these things, but all of them… well, so far no one has done it.
Ha! And after laughing, quit sad when you realise it.
3) That Suuntu is not what I expect from Apple in terms of looks or style. Even though a simple monochrome display is great for battery life I have to think Apple will need to do something beautiful if and when they decide to enter this market. IMO, I think this is by far the more difficult product Apple will have to create up to this point because of the huge divide between various functionality v. various styles v. various prices v. having to keep the battery life long enough and the size small enough to not negatively affect the user experience. Anyone can focus on one or two of these things, but all of them… well, so far no one has done it.
I don't think they'll go after the sports market. They'd end up with a watch most likely just as thick as what's already on the market:
I think an iWatch will be nothing more than relaying info from your iPhone: no calling on the watch itself, only seeing who's calling, able to decline and if you want to answer get the iPhone out of your pocket. GPS? No, relay it from the iPhone. It'll show Push Notifications, have a built-in kompas, perhaps talk to Siri for creating a Calendar Event. But no full fledged iDevice, waterproof replacement for a dedicated sports watch.
I think an iWatch will be nothing more than relaying info from your iPhone: no calling on the watch itself, only seeing who's calling, able to decline and if you want to answer get the iPhone out of your pocket. GPS? No, relay it from the iPhone. It'll show Push Notifications, have a built-in kompas, perhaps talk to Siri for creating a Calendar Event. But no full fledged iDevice, waterproof replacement for a dedicated sports watch.
1) I don't think they'd do a pure fitness band solution but I think that fitness and health would be key aspects in which to focus. I'd also be surprised if it's not at least IP67 certified, which is the ability to be submersed in water at 1 meter for 30 minutes.
2) I still think that a multiple wrist-worn device solution out-of-the-gate may be the best way for Apple to tackle this market.
I would certainly hope they'll cover many bases with this watch, but I don't see them making it waterproof and have Siri on board. Unless there's a FaceTime camera and they teach Siri to lipread.
I would certainly hope they'll cover many bases with this watch, but I don't see them making it waterproof and have Siri on board. Unless there's a FaceTime camera and they teach Siri to lipread.
BTW: IP68 is 2 meters for 30 min, 1 meter is IP58
According to this Wikipedia page IP67 will be 6 for "Dust tight: No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact" and 7 for "Immersion up to 1 m: Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 meter of submersion). Test duration: 30 minute with immersion at depth of at most 1 m measured at bottom of device, and at least 15 cm measured at top of device" and IP68 would then be 8 for "Immersion beyond 1 m: Test duration: continuous immersion in water with depth specified by manufacturer, generally up to 3 meters."
I'm having trouble seeing a case for IP58 which would be "where ingress of dust is not entirely unprevenbted" but able to stay under 3 meters of water indefinitely.
Is this not correct info? I've seen other smartwatches getting rated at IP67 recently which is why I looked this stuff up as of a couple weeks ago. I hadn't even heard of this rating system before then.
I read in the Wiki article header: "Another example is the Sony Xperia Z Ultra, one of the first cellular phones to be IP-rated; it is rated at IP58 and marketed as "dust resistant" and can be "immersed in 1.5 meters of freshwater for up to 30 minutes".[4] Other examples include the Sonim Technologies XP5560 Bolt,[5] rated IP68: submersible to 2 m (6 ft 7 in) for 30 mins in water"
So you,re right. It was merely the wording in on Wiki that stated it differently.
Summarisation for others:
The first digit is for protection from 'hazardous parts': 5 is dust protected, 6 is dust tight.
Second digit is ingress of water: 7 is 'up to 1 meter' 8 is beyond 1 meter. "Depth specified by manufacturer, generally up to 3 m".
But whatever, you know this already.
Oh, and standards... I love standards; there are so many to choose from.
I heard of the rating system when I was investigating the options for a bike 'computer' (as they call it) some 5 years ago, and it obviously had to be water resistant; in my country you'll never know when you get a surprise rain shower (but that's totally beside the point lol).
Comments
Thanks for the FUD. Why do we care?
The iPhone didn't create a new market, it redefined one. The average person didn't have much use for a smartphone because of it's then limited capabilities.
1) Suunto looks like the watch for me. I can use it for my running, cycling and if I ever pick up on the swimming part I can use it for that too. The v3 is absolutely the best I can find; you can sync the data from the watch over BTLE to your iPhone, and once you have Internet access again it'll sync everything over. That the phone can display all push notifications from your iPhone is simply brilliant. This is actually what a watch from Apple presume it will do, because
2) I don't think a watch from Apple will be a standalone device. Rather, it will work in congruence with your iPhone. It won't make phone calls (good luck on holding your wrist to your ear for prolonged time) but rather display who's calling and declining that call or answer it with your iPhone.
We won't be chatting away on FB or what have you, but the watch can display Likes, Thumbs-Up and what not. Yes, I think it will work as an information relay device to your iPhone.
1) Great first post.
2) This price shocker is no different than comparing the cost of an iPhone or iPad to something larger in size that has some of the basic capacities of an iDevice. "But my Dell laptop has blah RAM and waah-waah CPU for only $400." I bet we'll see people say their $129 fitness band has everything they need so the "iWatch" is then a useless dud of a product. Pretty much follow everything pazuzu has to say.
3) That Suuntu is not what I expect from Apple in terms of looks or style. Even though a simple monochrome display is great for battery life I have to think Apple will need to do something beautiful if and when they decide to enter this market. IMO, I think this is by far the more difficult product Apple will have to create up to this point because of the huge divide between various functionality v. various styles v. various prices v. having to keep the battery life long enough and the size small enough to not negatively affect the user experience. Anyone can focus on one or two of these things, but all of them… well, so far no one has done it.
Agreed!
Good point!
Ha! And after laughing, quit sad when you realise it.
I don't think they'll go after the sports market. They'd end up with a watch most likely just as thick as what's already on the market:
I think an iWatch will be nothing more than relaying info from your iPhone: no calling on the watch itself, only seeing who's calling, able to decline and if you want to answer get the iPhone out of your pocket. GPS? No, relay it from the iPhone. It'll show Push Notifications, have a built-in kompas, perhaps talk to Siri for creating a Calendar Event. But no full fledged iDevice, waterproof replacement for a dedicated sports watch.
This is not what I think it is:
1) I don't think they'd do a pure fitness band solution but I think that fitness and health would be key aspects in which to focus. I'd also be surprised if it's not at least IP67 certified, which is the ability to be submersed in water at 1 meter for 30 minutes.
2) I still think that a multiple wrist-worn device solution out-of-the-gate may be the best way for Apple to tackle this market.
I would certainly hope they'll cover many bases with this watch, but I don't see them making it waterproof and have Siri on board. Unless there's a FaceTime camera and they teach Siri to lipread.
BTW: IP68 is 2 meters for 30 min, 1 meter is IP58
According to this Wikipedia page IP67 will be 6 for "Dust tight: No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact" and 7 for "Immersion up to 1 m: Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 meter of submersion). Test duration: 30 minute with immersion at depth of at most 1 m measured at bottom of device, and at least 15 cm measured at top of device" and IP68 would then be 8 for "Immersion beyond 1 m: Test duration: continuous immersion in water with depth specified by manufacturer, generally up to 3 meters."
I'm having trouble seeing a case for IP58 which would be "where ingress of dust is not entirely unprevenbted" but able to stay under 3 meters of water indefinitely.
Is this not correct info? I've seen other smartwatches getting rated at IP67 recently which is why I looked this stuff up as of a couple weeks ago. I hadn't even heard of this rating system before then.
I read in the Wiki article header: "Another example is the Sony Xperia Z Ultra, one of the first cellular phones to be IP-rated; it is rated at IP58 and marketed as "dust resistant" and can be "immersed in 1.5 meters of freshwater for up to 30 minutes".[4] Other examples include the Sonim Technologies XP5560 Bolt,[5] rated IP68: submersible to 2 m (6 ft 7 in) for 30 mins in water"
So you,re right. It was merely the wording in on Wiki that stated it differently.
Summarisation for others:
The first digit is for protection from 'hazardous parts': 5 is dust protected, 6 is dust tight.
Second digit is ingress of water: 7 is 'up to 1 meter' 8 is beyond 1 meter. "Depth specified by manufacturer, generally up to 3 m".
But whatever, you know this already.
Oh, and standards... I love standards; there are so many to choose from.
Australian IP rating
US IP rating
I heard of the rating system when I was investigating the options for a bike 'computer' (as they call it) some 5 years ago, and it obviously had to be water resistant; in my country you'll never know when you get a surprise rain shower (but that's totally beside the point lol).