I like where Apple is headed. My guess is that the digital crown and button concept won't survive the initial contact. Future versions will be buttonless and crownless, with some sort of touch screen strip on the sides of the watch. Doing this makes water resistance easier and it also eliminates the need to create a lefty version for folks that wear their watches on the right arm. The current watch maybe reversible, but at this price I would want the crown and button is the same configuration but on the opposite side.
I like where Apple is headed. My guess is that the digital crown and button concept won't survive the initial contact. Future versions will be buttonless and crownless
Nope - I think the crown is key to the ease of the UIs use. You can't pinch on a watch, and a lot of touch actions don't make sense on a small display like a watch - the crown also provides very precise control - I would love to have something like it on the iPhone.
And you can have a water resistant watch with a crown - traditional watches do it all the time.
I like where Apple is headed. My guess is that the digital crown and button concept won't survive the initial contact. Future versions will be buttonless and crownless
Nope - I think the crown is key to the ease of the UIs use. You can't pinch on a watch, and a lot of touch actions don't make sense on a small display like a watch - the crown also provides very precise control - I would love to have something like it on the iPhone.
And you can have a water resistant watch with a crown - traditional watches do it all the time.
I couldn't disagree more. The crown is an anachronism. It was a mistake of Apple to include it, and it was a mistake that was formed at a very early stage of design, which is why the ?Watch in its current form will fail.
I couldn't disagree more. The crown is an anachronism. It was a mistake of Apple to include it, and it was a mistake that was formed at a very early stage of design, which is why the ?Watch in its current form will fail.
Personally I think the digital crown is brilliant. It's clearly works nothing like crowns on standard watches.
I couldn't disagree more. The crown is an anachronism. It was a mistake of Apple to include it, and it was a mistake that was formed at a very early stage of design, which is why the ?Watch in its current form will fail.
Personally I think the digital crown is brilliant. It's clearly works nothing like crowns on standard watches.
A watch screen that is only accessed with that tiny screen would be a nightmare. I'm pretty sure Apple realized this and then came up with the idea for that slick digital crown.
A watch screen that is only accessed with that tiny screen would be a nightmare. I'm pretty sure Apple realized this and then came up with the idea for that slick digital crown.
I have faith you'll change your mind.
There are two buttons on the side of the watch. They only need one.
How about lefties? Many wear a watch on their right. Does the screen flip?
A user setting, and the fact that the crown and 'contacts' buttons would be reversed as far as which one was top and which was bottom. It would work, and it's so simple. I wonder if they just didn't mention it because they had so very much to pack into the keynote, or if they made the decision that it's a left-arm device.
Oddly enough, I'm a southpaw and I think I would still wear it on my left wrist. Hm. Guess ambidextrous tendencies comes of living left-handed in a right-hand world (I also am incapable of effectively using left-handed scissors).
I wonder if they just didn't mention it because they had so very much to pack into the keynote, or if they made the decision that it's a left-arm device.
I don't think time was a factor. Often these events have some little tidbit that is mentioned for the sake of mentioning. I can easily see Tim Cook saying, "…and it works great for those that like to wear a watch on their right arm," which could be followed by a single slide. That would be nothing to add and I don't think it would spoil the flow, but since they didn't include it I'm guessing they felt differently. If they wanted to go on about it he could saw how it's easy to flip the screen and reverse the bands but I don't think that's necessary.
I don't think they'd have made a decision to make it only a device to be used on the left-wrist because that would alienate many customers. I think this rotation of the display was planned right away. It's a simple thing to do so why not.
The really brilliant part I think is the removable watch bands. Sure, you can remove the bands with most watches, but this one look sturdy and exquisite. You can easily do this yourself without special tools to make it a right-wrist device… and you get the added bonus of getting people to buy additional watch bands to match outfits or events.
I couldn't disagree more. The crown is an anachronism. It was a mistake of Apple to include it, and it was a mistake that was formed at a very early stage of design, which is why the ?Watch in its current form will fail.
Hardly. The function of the physical crown is present on most PCs with the exception of Macs...and the default Mac usability suffers for it. The tactile and precise response of the mouse scroll wheel is poorly replaced in the mighty mouse with touch. Apple decided that gestures was more important than precise and rapid scrolling. With a mouse that's defensible since gestures is very useful. In a watch, where you want to be able to precisely scroll from one item to the next before selection and you don't have space for gestures anyway, it's not.
It's an interaction method most people who use computers is already familiar with and allows you to scroll quickly and precisely to navigate the watch UI without using valuable screen real estate.
I read a review of the apple watch that was published by a "watch guy"
from his review; the apple watch is really nice, it's built as well, if not better that most/any $350 and up watches.
Supposedly the watch straps are nicer than even much more expensive watches
it has some really innovative features, like the way watch bands attach (possibly allowing easy swapping of bands to easily change the style depending on the occasion), and the unique ways the bands work, from magnetic clasping, to easy adjustment of the metal link band, to the precision of the cast deployant and how it fits INSIDE of the band, not on top of it
AND, despite what users on AI are saying, this watch IS NOT thick.
Quote:
When evaluating case thickness, the industry defines 6-8 mm as "thin", 8-12 mm as "average", and 14-18 mm as "thick." These ranges are good reference points to remember as you go through our guide.
This watch falls clearly in the middle of the "average" category with plenty of "standard" watches being several mm thicker.
if this were a standard watch it would be a very nice one, if not one of the nicest.
However it's not a standard watch; and this is simultaneously amazing and also troubling.
It's amazing what apple was able to do inside of an average sized standard watch case, with hopefully good/great battery life, with the above mentioned quality.
the trouble is, that a nice $350 watch, though missing all of the fancy electronic features, will last several decades! The Apple watch, though built as nice, will not. It's case and band might, it's electronics also might, but will be uselessly outdated in 5 years!
This is where I'm not sure how this will do in the market.
the trouble is, that a nice $350 watch, though missing all of the fancy electronic features, will last several decades! The Apple watch, though built as nice, will not. It's case and band might, it's electronics also might, but will be uselessly outdated in 5 years!
This is where I'm not sure how this will do in the market.
The large majority of $350 watches are quartz watches with batteries. Even the eco-drive ones. It is not that likely in several decades you'll find that kind of replacement battery anymore.
Automatics and manual will last several decades...if replacement parts are available and you regularly service it.
25-30 years is the rule of thumb for quartz watches with jeweled movements with some notable exceptions like the Grand Seiko who's first service is recommended at 50 years. At which point it's cheaper and easier to just swap out the whole movement for a new one.
?Which is something that non-watch folks don't get. You CAN swap out the whole movement. Which means for the Apple Watch you CAN swap out the 2015 CPU, display and watch back for the 2016 CPU, display and watch back for your $10,000 gold Apple Watch.
The large majority of $350 watches are quartz watches with batteries. Even the eco-drive ones. It is not that likely in several decades you'll find that kind of replacement battery anymore.
Automatics and manual will last several decades...if replacement parts are available and you regularly service it.
25-30 years is the rule of thumb for quartz watches with jeweled movements with some notable exceptions like the Grand Seiko who's first service is recommended at 50 years. At which point it's cheaper and easier to just swap out the whole movement for a new one.
?Which is something that non-watch folks don't get. You CAN swap out the whole movement. Which means for the Apple Watch you CAN swap out the 2015 CPU, display and watch back for the 2016 CPU, display and watch back for your $10,000 gold Apple Watch.
Maybe this is how this will work? perhaps Apple swaps the electronics for you every 2 years for $199 or something? Actually, I think it's brilliant! Apple could guarantee upgrade-ability for 10 years, and that they will support this watch size for that time-frame, which should be easy, because the watch is only going to get smaller so to fit the electronics in the larger case only requires a plastic filler piece.
AND, despite what users on AI are saying, this watch IS NOT thick.
Quote:
When evaluating case thickness, the industry defines 6-8 mm as "thin", 8-12 mm as "average", and 14-18 mm as "thick." These ranges are good reference points to remember as you go through our guide.
This watch falls clearly in the middle of the "average" category with plenty of "standard" watches being several mm thicker.
However it's not a standard watch; and this is simultaneously amazing and also troubling.
It's amazing what apple was able to do inside of an average sized standard watch case, with hopefully good/great battery life, with the above mentioned quality.
the trouble is, that a nice $350 watch, though missing all of the fancy electronic features, will last several decades! The Apple watch, though built as nice, will not. It's case and band might, it's electronics also might, but will be uselessly outdated in 5 years!
This is where I'm not sure how this will do in the market.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
5mm is an ultra thin. You have been consistently wrong on this point. The very thinnest watches (which are also in the 5 figure range) are in the 3mm-4mm range. The Piaget Altiplano is 4mm in diameter and 3mm thick and is the thinnest watch in the world with mechanical movement and lists for $33,000. The Jules Audemar Extra Thin is 6mm thick.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
5mm is an ultra thin. You have been consistently wrong on this point. The very thinnest watches (which are also in the 5 figure range) are in the 3mm-4mm range. The Piaget Altiplano is 4mm in diameter and 3mm thick and is the thinnest watch in the world with mechanical movement and lists for $33,000. The Jules Audemar Extra Thin is 6mm thick.
What he quotes is correct.
No, he's wrong. And you contradict yourself in the space of one sentence. Giving anecdotal evidence doesn't help your case.
I've owned watches for thirty years; I know what a thin or thick watch is, thank you. 5mm is average thickness.
A) industry watch thickness categories are not opinions to agree or disagree with. They just are. "5mm is thin" is simply true. "5mm is average" is simply false.
your opinion that the apple watch is too thick is of little merit when you don't know what is considered thick or thin.
Comments
I like where Apple is headed. My guess is that the digital crown and button concept won't survive the initial contact. Future versions will be buttonless and crownless, with some sort of touch screen strip on the sides of the watch. Doing this makes water resistance easier and it also eliminates the need to create a lefty version for folks that wear their watches on the right arm. The current watch maybe reversible, but at this price I would want the crown and button is the same configuration but on the opposite side.
Nope - I think the crown is key to the ease of the UIs use. You can't pinch on a watch, and a lot of touch actions don't make sense on a small display like a watch - the crown also provides very precise control - I would love to have something like it on the iPhone.
And you can have a water resistant watch with a crown - traditional watches do it all the time.
I like where Apple is headed. My guess is that the digital crown and button concept won't survive the initial contact. Future versions will be buttonless and crownless
Nope - I think the crown is key to the ease of the UIs use. You can't pinch on a watch, and a lot of touch actions don't make sense on a small display like a watch - the crown also provides very precise control - I would love to have something like it on the iPhone.
And you can have a water resistant watch with a crown - traditional watches do it all the time.
I couldn't disagree more. The crown is an anachronism. It was a mistake of Apple to include it, and it was a mistake that was formed at a very early stage of design, which is why the ?Watch in its current form will fail.
Personally I think the digital crown is brilliant. It's clearly works nothing like crowns on standard watches.
What would you recommend to replace it?
I couldn't disagree more. The crown is an anachronism. It was a mistake of Apple to include it, and it was a mistake that was formed at a very early stage of design, which is why the ?Watch in its current form will fail.
Personally I think the digital crown is brilliant. It's clearly works nothing like crowns on standard watches.
What would you recommend to replace it?
Nothing; it's not needed.
A watch screen that is only accessed with that tiny screen would be a nightmare. I'm pretty sure Apple realized this and then came up with the idea for that slick digital crown.
I have faith you'll change your mind.
Nothing; it's not needed.
A watch screen that is only accessed with that tiny screen would be a nightmare. I'm pretty sure Apple realized this and then came up with the idea for that slick digital crown.
I have faith you'll change your mind.
There are two buttons on the side of the watch. They only need one.
How about lefties? Many wear a watch on their right. Does the screen flip?
A user setting, and the fact that the crown and 'contacts' buttons would be reversed as far as which one was top and which was bottom. It would work, and it's so simple. I wonder if they just didn't mention it because they had so very much to pack into the keynote, or if they made the decision that it's a left-arm device.
Oddly enough, I'm a southpaw and I think I would still wear it on my left wrist. Hm. Guess ambidextrous tendencies comes of living left-handed in a right-hand world (I also am incapable of effectively using left-handed scissors).
I don't think time was a factor. Often these events have some little tidbit that is mentioned for the sake of mentioning. I can easily see Tim Cook saying, "…and it works great for those that like to wear a watch on their right arm," which could be followed by a single slide. That would be nothing to add and I don't think it would spoil the flow, but since they didn't include it I'm guessing they felt differently. If they wanted to go on about it he could saw how it's easy to flip the screen and reverse the bands but I don't think that's necessary.
I don't think they'd have made a decision to make it only a device to be used on the left-wrist because that would alienate many customers. I think this rotation of the display was planned right away. It's a simple thing to do so why not.
The really brilliant part I think is the removable watch bands. Sure, you can remove the bands with most watches, but this one look sturdy and exquisite. You can easily do this yourself without special tools to make it a right-wrist device… and you get the added bonus of getting people to buy additional watch bands to match outfits or events.
I couldn't disagree more. The crown is an anachronism. It was a mistake of Apple to include it, and it was a mistake that was formed at a very early stage of design, which is why the ?Watch in its current form will fail.
Hardly. The function of the physical crown is present on most PCs with the exception of Macs...and the default Mac usability suffers for it. The tactile and precise response of the mouse scroll wheel is poorly replaced in the mighty mouse with touch. Apple decided that gestures was more important than precise and rapid scrolling. With a mouse that's defensible since gestures is very useful. In a watch, where you want to be able to precisely scroll from one item to the next before selection and you don't have space for gestures anyway, it's not.
It's an interaction method most people who use computers is already familiar with and allows you to scroll quickly and precisely to navigate the watch UI without using valuable screen real estate.
For all they naysayers here:
I read a review of the apple watch that was published by a "watch guy"
from his review; the apple watch is really nice, it's built as well, if not better that most/any $350 and up watches.
Supposedly the watch straps are nicer than even much more expensive watches
it has some really innovative features, like the way watch bands attach (possibly allowing easy swapping of bands to easily change the style depending on the occasion), and the unique ways the bands work, from magnetic clasping, to easy adjustment of the metal link band, to the precision of the cast deployant and how it fits INSIDE of the band, not on top of it
AND, despite what users on AI are saying, this watch IS NOT thick.
This watch falls clearly in the middle of the "average" category with plenty of "standard" watches being several mm thicker.
if this were a standard watch it would be a very nice one, if not one of the nicest.
However it's not a standard watch; and this is simultaneously amazing and also troubling.
It's amazing what apple was able to do inside of an average sized standard watch case, with hopefully good/great battery life, with the above mentioned quality.
the trouble is, that a nice $350 watch, though missing all of the fancy electronic features, will last several decades! The Apple watch, though built as nice, will not. It's case and band might, it's electronics also might, but will be uselessly outdated in 5 years!
This is where I'm not sure how this will do in the market.
the trouble is, that a nice $350 watch, though missing all of the fancy electronic features, will last several decades! The Apple watch, though built as nice, will not. It's case and band might, it's electronics also might, but will be uselessly outdated in 5 years!
This is where I'm not sure how this will do in the market.
The large majority of $350 watches are quartz watches with batteries. Even the eco-drive ones. It is not that likely in several decades you'll find that kind of replacement battery anymore.
Automatics and manual will last several decades...if replacement parts are available and you regularly service it.
25-30 years is the rule of thumb for quartz watches with jeweled movements with some notable exceptions like the Grand Seiko who's first service is recommended at 50 years. At which point it's cheaper and easier to just swap out the whole movement for a new one.
?Which is something that non-watch folks don't get. You CAN swap out the whole movement. Which means for the Apple Watch you CAN swap out the 2015 CPU, display and watch back for the 2016 CPU, display and watch back for your $10,000 gold Apple Watch.
The large majority of $350 watches are quartz watches with batteries. Even the eco-drive ones. It is not that likely in several decades you'll find that kind of replacement battery anymore.
Automatics and manual will last several decades...if replacement parts are available and you regularly service it.
25-30 years is the rule of thumb for quartz watches with jeweled movements with some notable exceptions like the Grand Seiko who's first service is recommended at 50 years. At which point it's cheaper and easier to just swap out the whole movement for a new one.
?Which is something that non-watch folks don't get. You CAN swap out the whole movement. Which means for the Apple Watch you CAN swap out the 2015 CPU, display and watch back for the 2016 CPU, display and watch back for your $10,000 gold Apple Watch.
Maybe this is how this will work? perhaps Apple swaps the electronics for you every 2 years for $199 or something? Actually, I think it's brilliant! Apple could guarantee upgrade-ability for 10 years, and that they will support this watch size for that time-frame, which should be easy, because the watch is only going to get smaller so to fit the electronics in the larger case only requires a plastic filler piece.
AND, despite what users on AI are saying, this watch IS NOT thick.
This watch falls clearly in the middle of the "average" category with plenty of "standard" watches being several mm thicker.
However it's not a standard watch; and this is simultaneously amazing and also troubling.
It's amazing what apple was able to do inside of an average sized standard watch case, with hopefully good/great battery life, with the above mentioned quality.
the trouble is, that a nice $350 watch, though missing all of the fancy electronic features, will last several decades! The Apple watch, though built as nice, will not. It's case and band might, it's electronics also might, but will be uselessly outdated in 5 years!
This is where I'm not sure how this will do in the market.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
5mm is an ultra thin. You have been consistently wrong on this point. The very thinnest watches (which are also in the 5 figure range) are in the 3mm-4mm range. The Piaget Altiplano is 4mm in diameter and 3mm thick and is the thinnest watch in the world with mechanical movement and lists for $33,000. The Jules Audemar Extra Thin is 6mm thick.
What he quotes is correct.
In case there is any doubt - the worlds thinnest watches:
Jaeger-LeCoultre Master Ultra-Thin Minute Repeater Flying Tourbillon - 4.8 mm
Vacheron Constantin Calibre 1731 - 3.9 mm
Piaget Altiplano 900P - 3.65 mm
Arnold & Son Ultra Thin Tourbillon Escapement - 2.97 mm
http://www.watchtime.com/blog/5-record-setting-ultra-thin-watches/
5mm is an ultra-thin.
Those thickness guidelines you quote are nonsense. My watch is 5mm thick and that's an average thickness. 11mm is very thick indeed. 18mm? That's just silly. Even 8mm is thick.
5mm is an ultra thin. You have been consistently wrong on this point. The very thinnest watches (which are also in the 5 figure range) are in the 3mm-4mm range. The Piaget Altiplano is 4mm in diameter and 3mm thick and is the thinnest watch in the world with mechanical movement and lists for $33,000. The Jules Audemar Extra Thin is 6mm thick.
What he quotes is correct.
No, he's wrong. And you contradict yourself in the space of one sentence. Giving anecdotal evidence doesn't help your case.
I've owned watches for thirty years; I know what a thin or thick watch is, thank you. 5mm is average thickness.
No he is not. The VERY thinnest watches are 3mm. They cost more than many cars. Very thin watches are 5mm.
I've owned watches for 40 years. So what?
Here are links that say the same thing he does:
http://www.watchstation.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?storeId=34054&page=customerCare_sizeCharts&nav=leftNav_CustomerCare&catalogId=23503&langId=-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/b?ie=UTF8&node=345146031
http://www.fossil.com/wcsstore/Fossil/html/en_US/sizeguide/watches.html
Find one source that says the average men's watch is 5mm.
You are so stupidly arrogant about something it would take 2 minutes of googling to confirm.
No, he's wrong. And you contradict yourself in the space of one sentence. Giving anecdotal evidence doesn't help your case.
I've owned watches for thirty years; I know what a thin or thick watch is, thank you. 5mm is average thickness.
No he is not. The VERY thinnest watches are 3mm. They cost more than many cars. Very thin watches are 5mm.
I've owned watches for 40 years. So what?
Here are links that say the same think he does:
http://www.watchstation.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ContentView?storeId=34054&page=customerCare_sizeCharts&nav=leftNav_CustomerCare&catalogId=23503&langId=-1
http://www.amazon.co.uk/b?ie=UTF8&node=345146031
http://www.fossil.com/wcsstore/Fossil/html/en_US/sizeguide/watches.html
Find one source that says the average men's watch is 5mm.
You are so stupidly arrogant about something it would take 2 minutes of googling to confirm.
We'll have to agree to disagree.
Regardless, the ?Watch is much too thick.
Lol.
A) industry watch thickness categories are not opinions to agree or disagree with. They just are. "5mm is thin" is simply true. "5mm is average" is simply false.