'Historical implications' made Apple Watch more difficult to design than original iPhone, Jony Ive s

Posted:
in General Discussion edited November 2014
Speaking at a live event this week, Apple's chief designer Jony Ive said creating the forthcoming Apple Watch was a "humbling" experience that presented an even greater challenge than designing the iPhone, due to the legacy of traditional wrist watches.




In statements made at the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, Ive said that the societal expectations for a wristwatch made designing the Apple Watch a daunting task. Ive's comments were summarized on Friday by The Wall Street Journal.

"Even though Apple Watch does so many things, there are cultural, historical implications and expectations," Ive said. "That's why it's been such a difficult and humbling program."

Ive was present at the museum to accept the 2014 Bay Area Treasure Award, a lifetime achievement award celebrating his "revolutionary" work at Apple. Ive is the 15th recipient of the award, which recognizes artists and creative leaders in the region who have redefined visual art.

In designing the Apple Watch, Ive focused not only on fashion, but also customization. Wearable devices are deeply personal, and both the hardware and software of the Apple Watch will feature levels of personalization not usually seen in Apple products, including different sizes, collections, straps and even watch faces.




In previous comments, Ive has said that the Apple Watch was three years in the making before it was unveiled in September. In that time, the company has brought on a number of fashion experts, including designer Marc Newson and former Burberry CEO Angela Ahrendts, to help ring the product to market.

In addition to fashion, the Apple Watch will also focus on fitness and health tracking. The device will start at $350, and is set to go on sale in early 2015.
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    There's an Ive quote from last night that sums up ?Watch perfectly, I think:

    [QUOTE]"When we se something huge and powerful we aspire to make it small and meaningful."[/QUOTE]
  • Reply 2 of 136
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,746member
    It's Apple hardware that runs iOS - adapted perfectly to a watch form factor.

    It'll be a hit. Just sit back and watch the rest of the industry try to respond. It'll be pure comedy.
  • Reply 3 of 136
    I wonder sometimes if maybe they're trying to to make it do too much. Maybe trying to do what a fitness band does well, and what a fine timepiece does well will compromise both functions. I am buying one anyway, as cheap a setup as I can get. I'm a guy with a small wrist so will go for the small sport series with whatever band comes with. Just want to find out for myself whether this is (or will become) the next leap forward in personal tech.
  • Reply 4 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    quadra 610 wrote: »
    It's Apple hardware that runs iOS - adapted perfectly to a watch form factor.

    It'll be a hit. Just sit back and watch the rest of the industry try to respond. It'll be pure comedy.

    And of course it will have it's naysayers just like ever other Apple product has in the past. Now I'm hearing it's basically doa because it's not "cross platform". That seems to be the new buzzword these days. Do people not know how Apple makes its money? Until the watch can be a stand alone device it won't be "cross platform". The only way I could see that changing is if Apple sees data that more people would buy the watch if it worked with devices beyond iPhone. And even then the data would have to show that ?Watch sales are really being depressed because of iPhone exclusivity. I don't ever see that being the case.
  • Reply 5 of 136
    I am big an Apple fanboy as they come, but, for the first time for an Apple product, I do not feel the desire to purchase an Apple Watch. I have a Fitbit that I use to track my fitness (or lack thereof) and it gets bumped and tugged and crushed almost daily. I am planning on picking up the $250 Fitbit Surge when it is available early next year, $100 less than the lowest end Apple Watch. I just don't see the point in spending, at minimum, $350 for something that will be abused. I also am not a big fan of the UI, although I have obviously not played with one yet.

    Unfortunately, I think many people will buy this just because it's an Apple product and they want to show off the latest sparkle to their friends.
  • Reply 6 of 136
    rogifan wrote: »
    And of course it will have it's naysayers just like ever other Apple product has in the past. Now I'm hearing it's basically doa because it's not "cross platform".

    I'll grant that not being "open-platform" (if that means it won't work with Samsung, Microsoft, Moto, etc phones) limits the target market much more than something like that MS fitness band that just launched. But to say that it's DOA isn't realistic. It'll pair up with anyone with an iPhone 5 and up, right? 4S perhaps? That's a pretty big pool and Apple tends to know its customers next steps before they do.
  • Reply 7 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    I wonder sometimes if maybe they're trying to to make it do too much. Maybe trying to do what a fitness band does well, and what a fine timepiece does well will compromise both functions. I am buying one anyway, as cheap a setup as I can get. I'm a guy with a small wrist so will go for the small sport series with whatever band comes with. Just want to find out for myself whether this is (or will become) the next leap forward in personal tech.



    I don't think so, I think that same argument could of been applied to the original iPhone, "is it doing too much? it's just a phone".

     

    Apple are interested in a few areas here, all that could deserve something on your wrist. Apple are just putting the few together.



    Much like the iPhone was an iPod, a phone and an internet communication device in one, which could all be separate devices.

     

    The watch is fundamentally a way of viewing notifications and data (glances), looking at the time, and being based around health. All are enough to deserve an area on your wrist with their own device, they are just putting the three together and selling one device.

     

    This makes me question the likelihood of fitness-only devices ever actually being truly successful, like the fitbit, fuelband, microsoft band etc. Sure, fitness nuts are likely to use these, but to sell millions of units? Very unlikely, most people are just not that interested.



    But the Apple Watch on the other hand, it can replace those fitness-nuts current health band, and appeal to the masses with the notifications/watch aspect.

     

    Just my thoughts, anyway.

  • Reply 8 of 136
    Originally Posted by CMoebius View Post

    I am big an Apple fanboy as they come, but...

     

    Blah de fricking blah.

  • Reply 8 of 136
    What a waste of time the Apple Watch is.

    I suppose it gives Ive something to do. Better than twiddling his thumbs.

    It just goes to show that tech is done for the foreseeable future. It's time to get used to the plateau, folks.
  • Reply 10 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post



    I wonder sometimes if maybe they're trying to to make it do too much. Maybe trying to do what a fitness band does well, and what a fine timepiece does well will compromise both functions. I am buying one anyway, as cheap a setup as I can get. I'm a guy with a small wrist so will go for the small sport series with whatever band comes with. Just want to find out for myself whether this is (or will become) the next leap forward in personal tech.

    You could have made the same argument about combining a phone with a iPod (and in some aspects you'd have been correct, i.e. capacity and battery life) when it came to the original iPhone. Ultimately, it won't be for everyone, but it will do both aspects well enough for the majority.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CMoebius View Post



    I am big an Apple fanboy as they come, but, for the first time for an Apple product, I do not feel the desire to purchase an Apple Watch. I have a Fitbit that I use to track my fitness (or lack thereof) and it gets bumped and tugged and crushed almost daily. I am planning on picking up the $250 Fitbit Surge when it is available early next year, $100 less than the lowest end Apple Watch. I just don't see the point in spending, at minimum, $350 for something that will be abused. I also am not a big fan of the UI, although I have obviously not played with one yet.



    Unfortunately, I think many people will buy this just because it's an Apple product and they want to show off the latest sparkle to their friends.

     

  • Reply 11 of 136
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,504member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by CMoebius View Post



    I am big an Apple fanboy as they come, but, for the first time for an Apple product, I do not feel the desire to purchase an Apple Watch. I have a Fitbit that I use to track my fitness (or lack thereof) and it gets bumped and tugged and crushed almost daily. I am planning on picking up the $250 Fitbit Surge when it is available early next year, $100 less than the lowest end Apple Watch. I just don't see the point in spending, at minimum, $350 for something that will be abused. I also am not a big fan of the UI, although I have obviously not played with one yet.



    Unfortunately, I think many people will buy this just because it's an Apple product and they want to show off the latest sparkle to their friends.

    I too am a dedicated Apple product consumer, but I come out differently on the result. The fitness functions are anciliary to me, so a dedicated fitbit, while cheaper, has less value to me. My sole fitness tracking function is cycling, and it isn't terribly important for me to have another device to help me. However, I am quite curious to see how a cycling app will play out. It'll be interesting to see if a pre-planned route can give me accurate turn by turn directions through the taptic engine. Slow taps for turn right; fast taps to turn left or similar.

     

    $350 is substantial, and money is an object for me. But I'll buy 2 when they become available. Not because I crave the latest thing from Apple; but because I see it as a useful tool in my life.

  • Reply 12 of 136
    i think MSFT's band is a bit more impressive. more sensors. more fitness features. double the battery life. 1/2 the cost. smaller profile. cross platform compatible.
  • Reply 13 of 136
    On a happier note, I'm not proud to say that I've bought a 128GB, space grey wifi iPad Air 2 with red Smart Cover. Haven't unboxed it yet, but I hope to see some kind of improvement over my trusty iPad 2.
  • Reply 14 of 136

    That guy is a true geek. 4 months later and he's in the same shirt. I hope he bathed.
  • Reply 15 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by eightzero View Post

     

    I too am a dedicated Apple product consumer, but I come out differently on the result. The fitness functions are anciliary to me, so a dedicated fitbit, while cheaper, has less value to me. My sole fitness tracking function is cycling, and it isn't terribly important for me to have another device to help me. However, I am quite curious to see how a cycling app will play out. It'll be interesting to see if a pre-planned route can give me accurate turn by turn directions through the taptic engine. Slow taps for turn right; fast taps to turn left or similar.

     

    $350 is substantial, and money is an object for me. But I'll buy 2 when they become available. Not because I crave the latest thing from Apple; but because I see it as a useful tool in my life.




    Pretty much. I really haven't had a huge interest in a fitness band (sleep tracker, perhaps), I'm buying the Watch because I can't wait to see what devs do with it, and because I expect it to be a competent device that will probably improve my life in several ways. I also wear a watch when I can, so it won't be a huge adjustment for me.

  • Reply 16 of 136
    I just finished Steve Jobs biography, and it really put a new perspective on Apple, a company that I already loved. For them, it's the complete opposite of Android, ying to yang. People get upset that Apple does not do "cross platform", but that is a choice to offer to less people, but also, control the entire design, software to hardware, in house. Being able to do that has allowed Apple to create and support beautifully crafted products, while maintaining system performance without having to worry about patches for other operating systems. In the end, people will always complain that Apple will not offer support for their products on other operating systems and ecosystems, however, this is the main reason they are able to consistently create products that are not compromised, watered down, or diluted throughout the market as a whole. In this, they are able to create products that the rest of the market has to continually strive for. Blame Apple all you want because your PC isn't compatible with iOS, but the very reason your PC can do half of the things that iOS and Yosemite can do is because they are chasing after Apple, who continues to lead the way.

    For me, I will proudly buy my AppleWatch, as it is another great innovation that will continue to lead the market in innovation, both in software and hardware. Apple didn't invent the first smartphone, they just made it significantly better than anyone else could have dreamt of, as will be the case for the AppleWatch next year.
  • Reply 17 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    christophb wrote: »
    I'll grant that not being "open-platform" (if that means it won't work with Samsung, Microsoft, Moto, etc phones) limits the target market much more than something like that MS fitness band that just launched. But to say that it's DOA isn't realistic. It'll pair up with anyone with an iPhone 5 and up, right? 4S perhaps? That's a pretty big pool and Apple tends to know its customers next steps before they do.

    The difference is Apple makes most of its money off hardware. That's not the case with Microsoft so it's easy for them to make a nondescript band cross platform.
  • Reply 18 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    i think MSFT's band is a bit more impressive. more sensors. more fitness features. double the battery life. 1/2 the cost. smaller profile. cross platform compatible.



    I have been burned or disappointed by MS hardware so many times that even though I think they make nice stuff, it's a nonstarter. Not to mention it's not a nice timepiece, it's a cheap band with a screen. But some will enjoy the product, and that's fine.

  • Reply 19 of 136
    On a happier note, I'm not proud to say that I've bought a 128GB, space grey wifi iPad Air 2 with red Smart Cover. Haven't unboxed it yet, but I hope to see some kind of improvement over my trusty iPad 2.

    I'm picking up my Air 2 later today. Not nearly the jump from my Air as yours will be. I picked up a friends iPad 2 recently and it startled me how heavy and awkward it felt. You're gonna love the speed. Snappier just doesn't do it justice.
  • Reply 20 of 136

    I just finished Steve Jobs biography, and it really put a new perspective on Apple, a company that I already loved. For them, it's the complete opposite of Android, ying to yang. People get upset that Apple does not do "cross platform", but that is a choice to offer to less people, but also, control the entire design, software to hardware, in house. Being able to do that has allowed Apple to create and support beautifully crafted products, while maintaining system performance without having to worry about patches for other operating systems. In the end, people will always complain that Apple will not offer support for their products on other operating systems and ecosystems, however, this is the main reason they are able to consistently create products that are not compromised, watered down, or diluted throughout the market as a whole. In this, they are able to create products that the rest of the market has to continually strive for. Blame Apple all you want because your PC isn't compatible with iOS, but the very reason your PC can do half of the things that iOS and Yosemite can do is because they are chasing after Apple, who continues to lead the way. 

    For me, I will proudly buy my AppleWatch, as it is another great innovation that will continue to lead the market in innovation, both in software and hardware. Apple didn't invent the first smartphone, they just made it significantly better than anyone else could have dreamt of, as will be the case for the AppleWatch next year. 

Sign In or Register to comment.