You are absolutely right
Yep, I feel the same way. Yesterday was the saddest day for me as an Apple fan since Steve died. Apple Watch is easily the worst product Apple has made in decades.
I can place a bet that Apple will sell more than 4 million units of Apple watch before the refreshment. That will be close to half billion dollars there. Samsung and others would wish to get just a quarter of that number.
not waterproof, and 80% of human beings are comprised of water. What we do everyday involves water. So, it's impossible to track fitness while swimming, heart rate in the hot tub, cold tub, no steam room, no surfing, no standup paddling, no prone paddling, no scuba diving, no water parks, no hot springs, no showering or bathing, etc.
Short battery life. No sleep tracking.
So it's impossible to get a picture of your health with this device unless they make it waterproof at minimum up to 3 meters. Until then, you can send little heartbeats to your buddy.
Horrible design flaw. Almost shocking. See you in a few years AppleWatch...
I will bookmark this quote and come back later. Tim Cook got to go because he disappointed you? even when he led Apple to hit record high in iPhone sale in every release and the stock at all time high? I was disappointed at Apple in every iPhone release after iPhone 4 and predicted the diaster in iPhone sale, but Apple still broke the record every time. So I just shut up and I recommend you too.
Everyone does it with every battery device they own…
Blanket statements like "everyone" are rough. I charge my iPhone every 2-5 days. iPad every 2-3 days. iPod every 1-2 weeks. So not "everyone" charges their battery devices every night...
Your short belittling comments don't give you much credibility.
Why, exactly, is charging it each night a deal breaker?
Perhaps because some people feel devices should be devoted to serving their needs, not vice versa.
And the degree of devotion is measured by how often a device requires connecting to a power source? You must be a complete slave to any wired devices that you own, in that case. What a meaningless, stupid response. I suspect that the OP at least had a practical issue in mind.
I'm kind of surprised Apple didn't introduce inductive charging with the iPhone. After all, there's no real reason to plug in a lightning cable to an iPhone anymore for regular use. Maybe the 6s ...
I'm kind of surprised Apple didn't introduce inductive charging with the iPhone. After all, there's no real reason to plug in a lightning cable to an iPhone anymore for regular use. Maybe the 6s ...
I suspect that the charging times using inductive coupling would be substantially higher - that may be a significant factor in choosing to stick with a conventional wired connection for now.
I'm kind of surprised Apple didn't introduce inductive charging with the iPhone. After all, there's no real reason to plug in a lightning cable to an iPhone anymore for regular use. Maybe the 6s ...
Especially considering that Apple Lightning cables cost about as much as an inductive charger. I'm probably buying six or eight approved aftermarket Lightning cables per year to keep my family's devices running. The cables just keep failing. Luckily, the $12 Monoprice cables last a tiny bit longer than the $30 Apple cables. Absolutely ridiculous design for charging a phone.
Meanwhile, I'm running 6' micro-USB cables for $2 on my phone. All I use the cable for is charging and development, so most users would be fine with just the inductive charger at home.
Glad the Guinee Pigs are lining up to buy one - some even two.
The rule has always been- Never buy a first gen Apple product- ever. You're asking for it. Name one first gen device that didn't get vastly improved in gen2?
Name the first gen Apple products that weren't worth it -- despite being vastly improved in gen2 ...
I can say that I've bought most first gen Apple products since 1978 (except 1989-1997 when we retired and didn't do anything tech) ... There were a few duds, but most were worth it! Most of the first gen products after Steve's return were worth it.
Apple has at least 3 months until the AppleWatch is released. I think, within that timeframe, they could change the case design to support straps containing batteries. That would solve 1 issue.
As currently implemented on the iPhone 5S, TouchID is not active if:
you reboot your phone
you update iOS (requiring a reboot)
you don't use your iPhone for 24 (or is it 48) hours
In the above cases, you must login using your password (pin code) to activate TouchID.
As I understand the AppleWatch, it uses the TouchID from your iPhone:
You must enter your password (pin code) when you first put on the watch. You do not need to re-enter the password code as long as the watch remains in contact with the skin.
What is unclear, at this point:
does entering the password on your watch activate TouchID on your iPhone
does this count as the equivalent of activating the watch as TouchID approved/enabled
does the watch need to contact the iPhone TouchID for each transaction
or, does the watch remain TouchID approved/enabled until taken off or explicitly disabled
I suspect that Apple has given this a lot of thought and combined their efforts with those of major merchants and banks/cc providers -- to provide the greatest amount of security at the least inconvenience.
Who's to say that Apple hasn't put a safe enclave on the S1 chip equivalent to that on the A8 -- and that the watch, once TouchID approved/enabled, can generate TouchID secured transactions the same as the iPhone?
If the order of secure priority is:
TouchID/token
password/token
password/encrypted cc data
hand over the cc for swipe
The AppleWatch would provide level 2 or, at worst, level 3 security without requiring the customer to re-enter the password for each transaction.
I like the car analogy. It charges as you drive.
The smart watch should charge as you walk or move.
Ok, let's see this technology that you have and Apple doesn't. The car analogy is the worst ever. The car is big enough to house components like 200+ horsepower engines and alternators in order to charge 550 amp/hour batteries.
You misread my post. I know as much as everyone else does. I couldn't think of a feature that people can't get on the crappiest of androids.
Turn by turn navigation? I remember that too.
iPhone/Androids/Windows phone/iPad/Tablets/GPS systems can do that. NEXT!!
Good lord. You don't read. What phone taps you in different places to tell you to turn left or right?
No more looking at your directions as you walk down the street like you have no idea where you are going with your phone in you
Or: no more looking away from the road or trying to listen over/through your car radio as it picks up the last bit of directions due to the delay in voice overriding the system.
The smart watch should charge as you walk or move.
It sounds nice, but a watch-based generator runs at around 5µW (Seiko AGS). If the Apple Watch has about 25% (?) the power requirements of an iPhone, then...
1.2A (current wall charger) at 5V = 6W. So 25% is 1.5W for an hour to fully charge the watch. To keep it charged while wearing it, say 16 hours/day, you need an average continuous 0.94W of energy. We are several orders of magnitude short at 0.000005W from our Seiko AGS through motion. Maybe the 5g mass on the generator goes up to 50g, but that only takes care of one of the zeroes, and adds half the weight of a normal watch.
To generate 1W continuously for 16 hours, through moving your wrist, you would notice it, as it would be about as much training stress as carrying around a full Coke can all day.
Then we have to fit one of these in there (or whatever the next evolution of this generator looks like):
Maybe what we need is a system to use many muscles a very tiny amount, so tiny that the burn rate could be fueled by fat (and oxygen). Finally, a fitness watch.
It sounds nice, but a watch-based generator runs at around 5µW (Seiko AGS). If the Apple Watch has about 25% (?) the power requirements of an iPhone, then...
1.2A (current wall charger) at 5V = 6W. So 25% is 1.5W for an hour to fully charge the watch. To keep it charged while wearing it, say 16 hours/day, you need an average continuous 0.94W of energy. We are several orders of magnitude short at 0.000005W from our Seiko AGS through motion. Maybe the 5g mass on the generator goes up to 50g, but that only takes care of one of the zeroes, and adds half the weight of a normal watch.
To generate 1W continuously for 16 hours, through moving your wrist, you would notice it, as it would be about as much training stress as carrying around a full Coke can all day.
Then we have to fit one of these in there (or whatever the next evolution of this generator looks like):
If the watch is OLED and with processor not doing too much, basically displaying time, measuring pulse etc..., you might get the nominal continuous current consumption down to say 100mA. but lets say you wanted to keep that watch on (OLED) lit for all 16 hours, and assuming the OLED / processor runs 3V, then you still need 5 Watt-hours. If you found a perfect movement to electrical converter, that would be 4000 calories!!
If the watch is OLED and with processor not doing too much, basically displaying time, measuring pulse etc..., you might get the nominal continuous current consumption down to say 100mA. but lets say you wanted to keep that watch on (OLED) lit for all 16 hours, and assuming the OLED / processor runs 3V, then you still need 5 Watt-hours. If you found a perfect movement to electrical converter, that would be 4000 calories!!
maybe a great health watch.... /s
Hmm... 5Wh would be 18kJ, which is like 16 or 17 calories at 23% human efficiency? I'm better at math than arithmetic... so no bets here.
Comments
Aw gee, I dunno. iPod Hifi has to be up there.
Why, exactly, is charging it each night a deal breaker?
Perhaps because some people feel devices should be devoted to serving their needs, not vice versa.
Please show me where someone has tested the Apple Watch and confirmed it gets the same battery life as other smart watches.
Read the article. Please don't invent some nonsense about Apple understating the battery life of their own product.
Short battery life. No sleep tracking.
So it's impossible to get a picture of your health with this device unless they make it waterproof at minimum up to 3 meters. Until then, you can send little heartbeats to your buddy.
Horrible design flaw. Almost shocking. See you in a few years AppleWatch...
Joe Schmo doesn't need to stick actually electronics inside their design and build tens of millions of them though.
Blanket statements like "everyone" are rough. I charge my iPhone every 2-5 days. iPad every 2-3 days. iPod every 1-2 weeks. So not "everyone" charges their battery devices every night...
Your short belittling comments don't give you much credibility.
And the degree of devotion is measured by how often a device requires connecting to a power source? You must be a complete slave to any wired devices that you own, in that case. What a meaningless, stupid response. I suspect that the OP at least had a practical issue in mind.
I suspect that the charging times using inductive coupling would be substantially higher - that may be a significant factor in choosing to stick with a conventional wired connection for now.
I'm kind of surprised Apple didn't introduce inductive charging with the iPhone. After all, there's no real reason to plug in a lightning cable to an iPhone anymore for regular use. Maybe the 6s ...
Especially considering that Apple Lightning cables cost about as much as an inductive charger. I'm probably buying six or eight approved aftermarket Lightning cables per year to keep my family's devices running. The cables just keep failing. Luckily, the $12 Monoprice cables last a tiny bit longer than the $30 Apple cables. Absolutely ridiculous design for charging a phone.
Meanwhile, I'm running 6' micro-USB cables for $2 on my phone. All I use the cable for is charging and development, so most users would be fine with just the inductive charger at home.
Name the first gen Apple products that weren't worth it -- despite being vastly improved in gen2 ...
I can say that I've bought most first gen Apple products since 1978 (except 1989-1997 when we retired and didn't do anything tech) ... There were a few duds, but most were worth it! Most of the first gen products after Steve's return were worth it.
Apple has at least 3 months until the AppleWatch is released. I think, within that timeframe, they could change the case design to support straps containing batteries. That would solve 1 issue.
As currently implemented on the iPhone 5S, TouchID is not active if:
In the above cases, you must login using your password (pin code) to activate TouchID.
As I understand the AppleWatch, it uses the TouchID from your iPhone:
You must enter your password (pin code) when you first put on the watch. You do not need to re-enter the password code as long as the watch remains in contact with the skin.
What is unclear, at this point:
I suspect that Apple has given this a lot of thought and combined their efforts with those of major merchants and banks/cc providers -- to provide the greatest amount of security at the least inconvenience.
Who's to say that Apple hasn't put a safe enclave on the S1 chip equivalent to that on the A8 -- and that the watch, once TouchID approved/enabled, can generate TouchID secured transactions the same as the iPhone?
If the order of secure priority is:
The AppleWatch would provide level 2 or, at worst, level 3 security without requiring the customer to re-enter the password for each transaction.
No kidding. I charge my iPhone, iPad, Cordless toothbrush every night.
Charge or die.
They call them batteries for a reason.
Think about your car. If it didn't charge as you drove, you would be calling AAA every day.
Charge or die.
I like the car analogy. It charges as you drive.
The smart watch should charge as you walk or move.
Ok, let's see this technology that you have and Apple doesn't. The car analogy is the worst ever. The car is big enough to house components like 200+ horsepower engines and alternators in order to charge 550 amp/hour batteries.
You misread my post. I know as much as everyone else does. I couldn't think of a feature that people can't get on the crappiest of androids.
Turn by turn navigation? I remember that too.
iPhone/Androids/Windows phone/iPad/Tablets/GPS systems can do that. NEXT!!
Good lord. You don't read. What phone taps you in different places to tell you to turn left or right?
No more looking at your directions as you walk down the street like you have no idea where you are going with your phone in you
Or: no more looking away from the road or trying to listen over/through your car radio as it picks up the last bit of directions due to the delay in voice overriding the system.
I like the car analogy. It charges as you drive.
The smart watch should charge as you walk or move.
It sounds nice, but a watch-based generator runs at around 5µW (Seiko AGS). If the Apple Watch has about 25% (?) the power requirements of an iPhone, then...
1.2A (current wall charger) at 5V = 6W. So 25% is 1.5W for an hour to fully charge the watch. To keep it charged while wearing it, say 16 hours/day, you need an average continuous 0.94W of energy. We are several orders of magnitude short at 0.000005W from our Seiko AGS through motion. Maybe the 5g mass on the generator goes up to 50g, but that only takes care of one of the zeroes, and adds half the weight of a normal watch.
To generate 1W continuously for 16 hours, through moving your wrist, you would notice it, as it would be about as much training stress as carrying around a full Coke can all day.
Then we have to fit one of these in there (or whatever the next evolution of this generator looks like):
Maybe what we need is a system to use many muscles a very tiny amount, so tiny that the burn rate could be fueled by fat (and oxygen). Finally, a fitness watch.
It sounds nice, but a watch-based generator runs at around 5µW (Seiko AGS). If the Apple Watch has about 25% (?) the power requirements of an iPhone, then...
1.2A (current wall charger) at 5V = 6W. So 25% is 1.5W for an hour to fully charge the watch. To keep it charged while wearing it, say 16 hours/day, you need an average continuous 0.94W of energy. We are several orders of magnitude short at 0.000005W from our Seiko AGS through motion. Maybe the 5g mass on the generator goes up to 50g, but that only takes care of one of the zeroes, and adds half the weight of a normal watch.
To generate 1W continuously for 16 hours, through moving your wrist, you would notice it, as it would be about as much training stress as carrying around a full Coke can all day.
Then we have to fit one of these in there (or whatever the next evolution of this generator looks like):
If the watch is OLED and with processor not doing too much, basically displaying time, measuring pulse etc..., you might get the nominal continuous current consumption down to say 100mA. but lets say you wanted to keep that watch on (OLED) lit for all 16 hours, and assuming the OLED / processor runs 3V, then you still need 5 Watt-hours. If you found a perfect movement to electrical converter, that would be 4000 calories!!
maybe a great health watch.... /s
If the watch is OLED and with processor not doing too much, basically displaying time, measuring pulse etc..., you might get the nominal continuous current consumption down to say 100mA. but lets say you wanted to keep that watch on (OLED) lit for all 16 hours, and assuming the OLED / processor runs 3V, then you still need 5 Watt-hours. If you found a perfect movement to electrical converter, that would be 4000 calories!!
maybe a great health watch.... /s
Hmm... 5Wh would be 18kJ, which is like 16 or 17 calories at 23% human efficiency? I'm better at math than arithmetic... so no bets here.