If it already has a touchscreen then WHY OH WHY did apple add the digital crown?
This has NOTHING to do with the touchscreen. The idea was replacing the obtrusive little wheel for navigation.
I rather like the digital crown, but then again, all my watches have a crown! I don't own any pure digital watches.
That said, I think the digital crown suggests the design language of a watch. I suspect Apple wanted to use that design language to appeal to the high end market. Perhaps their thinking is that well heeled buyers would spend money on an 18K gold/rose gold device that looked like a super modern watch rather than something that looked like a tech device?
They report share. They like more share when they get it. They don't chase share. Any long term apple fan is familiar with this.
They DO NOT CARE THEY CAN ONLY REACH 10% OF THE US SMARTPHONE MARKET. Even if that were a true statement. Because that 10% is the ones with the most disposable income to buy a luxury item.
Because you were whining about Apple only having 40% share in the US. Who has the rest? Android. So if you don't want Android support because it would be garbage what other phone would they have?
And an iPod touch is not a phone.
Why the hell would anyone listen to you anyway since you don't own an iPhone either?
The watch doesn't need touch ID to achieve 2 factor safety. Which you would understand if you had a clue.
And yes, its more important for the phone to have higher security because folks leave their phones behind all the time. So requiring a biometric key to pay is useful because the phone might be unlocked. An object literally attached to your wrist not so much. Even if that happens (you lose your watch) they cannot use your apple pay unless you are standing so close that it still is connected to your phone. Which is why touch ID is not required.
No. It's just there is no record of what you claim. From where I sit you're a concern troll.
STRIKE TWO!!
there is NO way you misread my post twice. You can't be that ignorant.
I DID NOT AND NEVER DID SAY ANDROID SHOULD BE SUPPORTED.
Like others have mentioned needing an iPhone to use the thing is a bad idea. It will be a deal breaker. I just spoke to a woman that was interested in one until I mentioned you need an iPhone to use it.
Misteading my posts and putting words in my mouth? As far as I know YOU are the troll.
EVERYONE knows an iPod is not a phone. but thanks for playing.
It's not the setting up that's the issue. The ?watch is in large part just a proxy display device for the iPhone. The phone contains the WiFi, Cellular and GPS transceivers. I doubt much at all except apps is stored on the watch itself. This thing needs an invisible bluetooth umbilical cord attached to something else otherwise about all it can do on it's own is tell the time and that your heart is still working.
When working out, it would be really nice not to need the iPhone around. It would have been wonderful if the ? Watch had its own GPS and the ability to stream music via BT to wireless headphones.
? Watch (w/built-in GPS) + BT headphones + open road = perfect device for running or biking. There's always ? Watch 2, right?
I rather like the digital crown, but then again, all my watches have a crown! I don't own any pure digital watches.
That said, I think the digital crown suggests the design language of a watch. I suspect Apple wanted to use that design language to appeal to the high end market. Perhaps their thinking is that well heeled buyers would spend money on an 18K gold/rose gold device that looked like a super modern watch rather than something that looked like a tech device?
Natually, this is just my wild guess.
Thanks for actually READING my post.
This was actually the only excuse I could think of for having the crown. Otherwise I prefer forward thinking.
If the iPhone had a phone pad I would have complained back then.
What do you see when you take fat fingers and put them on a tiny display? You don't see crap, because 80% of the display is being hidden and obscured by fat fingers! The Digital Crown eliminates that problem, and users have a choice. When you use the crown, you get to see 100% of what is visible on the display, not just a tiny fraction.
And it's not just a touch screen, but it's also pressure sensitive! Even the iPhone and iPad doesn't have that yet.
Oh Lord. this can't be.
Get Apple fans ticked and their reading comprehension goes to the sh**er!!
For me, the question is whether it can hold the charge long enough for an athlete to get all the way through an endurance race such as a full Ironman(tm) and is it watertight enough for that kind of use?
I don't wear a watch at night because I find that whatever kind of watch it is, it prevents a portion of my skin from breathing and causes irritation, so I prefer one of the sleep tracking apps that lets me put my iPhone (in airplane mode) under my pillow.
I wonder that too. What's the point in health tracking if it dies mid workout.
I was really rooting for some solar power to at least get you through your outdoor endeavors.
Also sleep tracking through pulse sensors sounds like an awesome idea! But if I was a sleep tracking developer I'd be really pissed right now!
I charge my iPhone every night. I charge my iPad every night. If I have to charge my watch every night then no big deal.
I think it's very inexpensive at $349, if Apple bring out a new model each year with additional features/sensors then I'll upgrade every year.
This thing is not just a watch. In fact I kinda wish they left the timekeeping facility off it and didn't call it a watch because as it stands for people like me we care about everything but the timekeeping aspect. I stopped wearing a watch years ago because my iPhone fills that role neatly. This new "watch" can fulfil it too but so what that's almost irrelevant to the many people like me.
I'm looking forward to this wearable that extends my iPhone in new personal and beneficial ways.
Thanks for those links; great to know. I read them really fast cause I'm at work but these articles are only about minimizing charging time; still a good thing. Not surprisingly, in the article the first link points to, the author states "incremental advances in lithium ion battery technology over the past few decades have done little to keep pace with a new generation of "smart" power-hungry mobile devices that now include wearables such as smartwatches and Google Glass."
I have yet to hear anyone mention or ask if the sport version Apple Watch is at the very least water resistant if not waterproof. This is a big deal since many sports will expose you to water or moisture.
I wonder that too. What's the point in health tracking if it dies mid workout.
I was really rooting for some solar power to at least get you through your outdoor endeavors.
Also sleep tracking through pulse sensors sounds like an awesome idea! But if I was a sleep tracking developer I'd be really pissed right now!
Solar power would be amazing, but my guess is that either it wouldn't provide enough power for the watch (the screen and sensors surely consume more power than any other solar watch), or there was a tech issue integrating the photovoltaic layer with display later...or both!
The FitBit tracks sleep by putting the device in "sleep mode". The software then monitors the watch motion during the night to determine restlessness. The idea of adding in pulse tracking is interesting, though!
I don't think this is a deal breaker for anyone. It is kind of the standard today that devices charge over night... when we don't use them anyhow...
Off hand (oh the pun) I think the battery needs to somehow last 48 hours before it can replace any mechanical watch. Ideally getting it to last a month would be nice but I don't think that's practical.
The charge/discharge cycle is of deep concern if it only lasts a day. Lithium batteries only last around 1000 charge cycles, so that means a battery would be worn out a little after 2 and a half years.
This thing is not just a watch. In fact I kinda wish they left the timekeeping facility off it and didn't call it a watch because as it stands for people like me we care about everything but the timekeeping aspect. I stopped wearing a watch years ago because my iPhone fills that role neatly. This new "watch" can fulfil it too but so what that's almost irrelevant to the many people like me.
I partly agree with you. They don't necessarily have to keep timekeeping off of it but this thing is "more" than a watch. Calling it a watch also seems to turn people off and immediately have no interest in it because they've stopped wearing watches years ago and why do they need one now? I'm as you. I care about everything about this "wearable" except for the timekeeping.
This is completely expected. Apple does the best they can to advance technology whenever possible, but ultimately they are constrained by the same limitations everyone else is. They could have waited to launch the iPod until flash memory was smaller and cheaper, they could have waited to launch the iPhone until mobile data networks were faster, and they could have waited to launch the Apple Watch until a standard watch battery could offer a week of power... however, consumers were ready for the devices and willing to accept the limitations. I'll be buying a watch, and charging it nightly next to my iPhone.
WWDC had me pumped!! I couldn't wait for yesterday's keynote but I too was disappointed.
Read my conversation above. This thing seems like a solution in search of a problem. I was telling someone about the watch and she kept referring to her phone, I had a HARD time thinking of features she couldn't get on her crappy android. The only thing I can think of were the fitness features. Apple should have went hard on fitness and showed that off more, because all the other features they showed off are the same you can get on a phone.
Back when I used to collect watches winding them up was the most tedious thing, that little digital crown thing looks obtrusive, unnecessary and annoying.
Here's a concept:
Keep the same face. REMOVE the digital crown and replace it with Touch ID front and center.
The Touch ID button not only reads your fingerprint but is also a track pad. Swipe up to zoom in and swipe down to zoom out. No need to spin a tiny little wheel.
Swipe Touch ID left/right/diagonal to navigate home screen.
Swipe Touch ID in any direction to navigate maps and other apps.
Now THAT would have been impressive!
OMG you can't be serious. Do you know how HUGE that watch face would be if Apple added Touch ID home button? The digital authentication with the watch happens on the backside of the device where the sensors are. As long as that's touching hour skin you're authenticated.
there is NO way you misread my post twice. You can't be that ignorant.
I DID NOT AND NEVER DID SAY ANDROID SHOULD BE SUPPORTED.
Then answer the question:
If not android then who are these other phones you want supported? Feature phones?
Like others have mentioned needing an iPhone to use the thing is a bad idea. It will be a deal breaker. I just spoke to a woman that was interested in one until I mentioned you need an iPhone to use it.
Oh wait, you're thinking that a watch can have all that functionality without a phone. That's even more funny. You should not have mentioned iPhone share at all if that was your point because it doesn't matter if iPhones own 0% or 100% of the smartphone market or not. Especially since you don't own one anyway. What do you have? An android phone? LOL.
Not this year. Not next year. Maybe in 4-5 generations down the road they'll be enough battery advances and miniaturization to approach cramming the functionality of the original 2007 iPhone into a watch format.
You might as well ask that they include a pony in the watch. It's that level of ridiculous.
Quote:
Misteading my posts and putting words in my mouth? As far as I know YOU are the troll.
LOL. I'm making mountains out of molehills about a product 6 months away or claiming to be some awesome Apple super-defender of the faith from day 1 of the iPhone but don't even have an iPhone.
I have yet to hear anyone mention or ask if the sport version Apple Watch is at the very least water resistant if not waterproof. This is a big deal since many sports will expose you to water or moisture.
Quote:
Originally Posted by longpath
For me, the question is whether it can hold the charge long enough for an athlete to get all the way through an endurance race such as a full Ironman(tm) and is it watertight enough for that kind of use?
I don't wear a watch at night because I find that whatever kind of watch it is, it prevents a portion of my skin from breathing and causes irritation, so I prefer one of the sleep tracking apps that lets me put my iPhone (in airplane mode) under my pillow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cali
I wonder that too. What's the point in health tracking if it dies mid workout.
I was really rooting for some solar power to at least get you through your outdoor endeavors.
Also sleep tracking through pulse sensors sounds like an awesome idea! But if I was a sleep tracking developer I'd be really pissed right now!
I guess I'm not the only one wondering about the water-resistance.
Comments
If it already has a touchscreen then WHY OH WHY did apple add the digital crown?
This has NOTHING to do with the touchscreen. The idea was replacing the obtrusive little wheel for navigation.
I rather like the digital crown, but then again, all my watches have a crown! I don't own any pure digital watches.
That said, I think the digital crown suggests the design language of a watch. I suspect Apple wanted to use that design language to appeal to the high end market. Perhaps their thinking is that well heeled buyers would spend money on an 18K gold/rose gold device that looked like a super modern watch rather than something that looked like a tech device?
Natually, this is just my wild guess.
STRIKE TWO!!
there is NO way you misread my post twice. You can't be that ignorant.
I DID NOT AND NEVER DID SAY ANDROID SHOULD BE SUPPORTED.
Like others have mentioned needing an iPhone to use the thing is a bad idea. It will be a deal breaker. I just spoke to a woman that was interested in one until I mentioned you need an iPhone to use it.
Misteading my posts and putting words in my mouth? As far as I know YOU are the troll.
EVERYONE knows an iPod is not a phone. but thanks for playing.
It's not the setting up that's the issue. The ?watch is in large part just a proxy display device for the iPhone. The phone contains the WiFi, Cellular and GPS transceivers. I doubt much at all except apps is stored on the watch itself. This thing needs an invisible bluetooth umbilical cord attached to something else otherwise about all it can do on it's own is tell the time and that your heart is still working.
When working out, it would be really nice not to need the iPhone around. It would have been wonderful if the ? Watch had its own GPS and the ability to stream music via BT to wireless headphones.
? Watch (w/built-in GPS) + BT headphones + open road = perfect device for running or biking. There's always ? Watch 2, right?
Thanks for actually READING my post.
This was actually the only excuse I could think of for having the crown. Otherwise I prefer forward thinking.
If the iPhone had a phone pad I would have complained back then.
Oh Lord. this can't be.
Get Apple fans ticked and their reading comprehension goes to the sh**er!!
I NEVER MENTIONED THE DAMN SCREEN.
I wonder that too. What's the point in health tracking if it dies mid workout.
I was really rooting for some solar power to at least get you through your outdoor endeavors.
Also sleep tracking through pulse sensors sounds like an awesome idea! But if I was a sleep tracking developer I'd be really pissed right now!
I think it's very inexpensive at $349, if Apple bring out a new model each year with additional features/sensors then I'll upgrade every year.
This thing is not just a watch. In fact I kinda wish they left the timekeeping facility off it and didn't call it a watch because as it stands for people like me we care about everything but the timekeeping aspect. I stopped wearing a watch years ago because my iPhone fills that role neatly. This new "watch" can fulfil it too but so what that's almost irrelevant to the many people like me.
I'm looking forward to this wearable that extends my iPhone in new personal and beneficial ways.
In usage, the ?Watch uses the ?iPhone as an accessory that provides storage, services and communication.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/This-Battery-Could-Charge-Your-Smartphone-In-30-Seconds-180951116/?no-ist
From zero to fully-charged in 30 seconds.
Even teens are getting in on the battery inventiveness.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/20/tech/whiz-kid/
or how about charging an electric-car in 12 minutes instead of 4+ hours?
http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/japanese-researchers-invent-dual-carbon-battery-that-lets-you-charge-laptops-electric-cars-in-minutes
There's lots of new battery tech on the way.
Thanks for those links; great to know. I read them really fast cause I'm at work but these articles are only about minimizing charging time; still a good thing. Not surprisingly, in the article the first link points to, the author states "incremental advances in lithium ion battery technology over the past few decades have done little to keep pace with a new generation of "smart" power-hungry mobile devices that now include wearables such as smartwatches and Google Glass."
I wonder that too. What's the point in health tracking if it dies mid workout.
I was really rooting for some solar power to at least get you through your outdoor endeavors.
Also sleep tracking through pulse sensors sounds like an awesome idea! But if I was a sleep tracking developer I'd be really pissed right now!
Solar power would be amazing, but my guess is that either it wouldn't provide enough power for the watch (the screen and sensors surely consume more power than any other solar watch), or there was a tech issue integrating the photovoltaic layer with display later...or both!
The FitBit tracks sleep by putting the device in "sleep mode". The software then monitors the watch motion during the night to determine restlessness. The idea of adding in pulse tracking is interesting, though!
Off hand (oh the pun) I think the battery needs to somehow last 48 hours before it can replace any mechanical watch. Ideally getting it to last a month would be nice but I don't think that's practical.
The charge/discharge cycle is of deep concern if it only lasts a day. Lithium batteries only last around 1000 charge cycles, so that means a battery would be worn out a little after 2 and a half years.
Lock Gary Sinise in a simulator until he finds enough electrical savings to save the day.
This thing is not just a watch. In fact I kinda wish they left the timekeeping facility off it and didn't call it a watch because as it stands for people like me we care about everything but the timekeeping aspect. I stopped wearing a watch years ago because my iPhone fills that role neatly. This new "watch" can fulfil it too but so what that's almost irrelevant to the many people like me.
I partly agree with you. They don't necessarily have to keep timekeeping off of it but this thing is "more" than a watch. Calling it a watch also seems to turn people off and immediately have no interest in it because they've stopped wearing watches years ago and why do they need one now? I'm as you. I care about everything about this "wearable" except for the timekeeping.
This is completely expected. Apple does the best they can to advance technology whenever possible, but ultimately they are constrained by the same limitations everyone else is. They could have waited to launch the iPod until flash memory was smaller and cheaper, they could have waited to launch the iPhone until mobile data networks were faster, and they could have waited to launch the Apple Watch until a standard watch battery could offer a week of power... however, consumers were ready for the devices and willing to accept the limitations. I'll be buying a watch, and charging it nightly next to my iPhone.
They call them batteries for a reason.
Yeah, because it's a collection of cells. I don't think "battery" means what you think it means.
Watch the keynote.
STRIKE TWO!!
there is NO way you misread my post twice. You can't be that ignorant.
I DID NOT AND NEVER DID SAY ANDROID SHOULD BE SUPPORTED.
Then answer the question:
If not android then who are these other phones you want supported? Feature phones?
LOL. I'm making mountains out of molehills about a product 6 months away or claiming to be some awesome Apple super-defender of the faith from day 1 of the iPhone but don't even have an iPhone.
I have yet to hear anyone mention or ask if the sport version Apple Watch is at the very least water resistant if not waterproof. This is a big deal since many sports will expose you to water or moisture.
For me, the question is whether it can hold the charge long enough for an athlete to get all the way through an endurance race such as a full Ironman(tm) and is it watertight enough for that kind of use?
I don't wear a watch at night because I find that whatever kind of watch it is, it prevents a portion of my skin from breathing and causes irritation, so I prefer one of the sleep tracking apps that lets me put my iPhone (in airplane mode) under my pillow.
I wonder that too. What's the point in health tracking if it dies mid workout.
I was really rooting for some solar power to at least get you through your outdoor endeavors.
Also sleep tracking through pulse sensors sounds like an awesome idea! But if I was a sleep tracking developer I'd be really pissed right now!
I guess I'm not the only one wondering about the water-resistance.