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

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 136
    mpantonempantone Posts: 1,378member

    I hope lots of people buy smartwatches and fitness bands. They will simply make my old school chronograph look even better. :D

     

    It's like a polished pair of wingtips in a sea of sneakers.

  • Reply 22 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    schlack wrote: »
    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.
    ?Watch isn't just a fitness band. But Apple has hired a lot of people with health/medica backgrounds. I doubt the ?Watch is their be all end all for fitness.
  • Reply 23 of 136
    jakebjakeb Posts: 557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    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? 

     

    Terrible shame how those iPhones aren't cross-platform. Good luck making any money selling those. 

  • Reply 24 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.



    Yeah you're right, you would think the fact the Microsoft Band is smaller, has more sensors, has double battery life and is half the cost their would be some downside somewhere...



    Oh yeah, App support, go figure.

     

    You cannot compare a fitness band to a smart watch.

     

    My Nike FuelBand has a week battery life, is smaller and is less than half the cost, does that make it better than the Apple Watch? Hell no.

  • Reply 25 of 136
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    ?Watch isn't just a fitness band. But Apple has hired a lot of people with health/medica backgrounds. I doubt the ?Watch is their be all end all for fitness.



    Definitely, this is first gen. They have deliberately excluded some interesting sensors and features. It will be interesting to see how the health aspect evolves over time for the Apple Watch.

  • Reply 26 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member

    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.
    Microsoft band is basically a nondescript piece of hardware to collect data. Apple is not a data company. I don't think they think that way. They don't view ?Watch as a data collector. They view it as something fashionable you wear on your wrist that offers cool technology. Just like the AppStore made the iPhone apps will define the watch experience.
  • Reply 27 of 136
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    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 guess if you could put CPU and RAM in there, you would. :roll eyes:

     

    It's different product. MS Band is.. um.. a band. This is a watch, designed for wearing it all day long like a watch, in every events like a normal watch. While the MS Band's spec is impressive. It's also a fail design on simple function since you need to palm up like a girl to read the screen, which is strange to say the least.

  • Reply 28 of 136
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,595member
    cmoebius wrote: »
    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.
    And what's wrong with that? People buy stuff for all sorts of reasons. Why would you care?
  • Reply 29 of 136
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    mazecookie wrote: »

    Definitely, this is first gen. They have deliberately excluded some interesting sensors and features. It will be interesting to see how the health aspect evolves over time for the Apple Watch.

    Nike's CEO made some interesting comments that seemed to indicate they were working with Apple in the wearables space. Two of Apple's recent hires - Ben Shaffer (who and I believe works under Jony Ive now) and Jay Blankin (narrated the health video at the September keynote) both came from Nike. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple and Nike partner on some sort of fitness wearable. Bottom line, I don't think ?Watch is Apple's be all end all to the wearable space. In the ?Watch launch video Jony Ive called it a "beginning".
  • Reply 30 of 136
    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.

     

    That's an interesting perspective.

     

    I'm not an apple fanboy, but I have a perspective on this which is in many ways almost 180 degrees opposed to yours.  I want to buy one of these, and I want to develop for it.  I think it is, thus far, the only 'smartwatch' ever made which I would seriously consider buying.

     

    From my perspective, it is the fact that the watch can do more than a fitbit or Microsoft's new 'band' that makes it compelling; from my perspective, those products are too limited to be useful.  I already wear a watch; I don't want to have to wear yet another thing on my wrist.

     

    At the October iPad / iMac event, the watch was demonstrated controlling a presentation.  I thought that this demonstrated how a sophisticated wearable like this can open up new avenues of interaction and functionality.  And yet I think it really just scratched the surface.  I expect there will be many more.

     

    So what's that add up to?  From my perspective, it's the only truly compelling wearable to emerge from this particular device category, well, ever.

  • Reply 31 of 136
    What a waste of time the Apple Watch is.

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

    It just goes to show that tech is done for the foreseeable future. It's time to get used to the plateau, folks.

    I hope there's some sarcasm in what you're saying. :/ because I don't think that's the case at all. I fail to understand what aspect has given you such a negative connotation towards what's going on in tech right now. And particularly Apple. Just so odd of a comment.
  • Reply 32 of 136
    patsupatsu Posts: 429member
    schlack wrote: »
    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.

    The problem is: an impressive shover is still just a shover.

    The Apple Watch is really more than a Watch like how iPhone is much more than a phone (Point to Apple Pay).
  • Reply 33 of 136
    newbeenewbee Posts: 2,055member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post



    What a waste of time the Apple Watch is.



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



    It just goes to show that tech is done for the foreseeable future. It's time to get used to the plateau, folks.



    There is always a plateau for someone with zero imagination which, judging from the banality of most of your posts, would seem to describe you perfectly. Might be time for a new shtick. Just sayin'.  ;)

  • Reply 34 of 136
    What a waste of time the Apple Watch is.

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

    It just goes to show that tech is done for the foreseeable future. It's time to get used to the plateau, folks.

    I hope there's some sarcasm in what you're saying. :/ because I don't think that's the case at all. I fail to understand what aspect has given you such a negative connotation towards what's going on in tech right now. And particularly Apple. Just so odd of a comment.

    No sarcasm.

    I don't view the watch as a technological revolution on the scale of the iPod, iPhone or iPad. As such, I believe we are in for a long period of consolidation. A large iPad may bump things up a bit.
  • Reply 35 of 136
    I'll give you one example to show you just how far thinking Apple is being with this watch.

    They have already demonstrated it as a heartrate monitor. So who cares about monitoring their, or a loved ones heartrate ? And why would you ?

    The onset of a heart attack is recognised by an irregular heartbeat - likewise a stroke - in fact just looking at links such as this'
    http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/atrial-fibrillation/Pages/Introduction.aspx

    An arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat) can be caused by a number of things. This includes certain conditions such as:

    heart failure
    heart valve disease
    inflammation of your heart (myocarditis)
    thyroid disease
    diabetes
    high blood pressure
    a heart attack
    coronary heart disease
    chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
    Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome – an electrical abnormality in the heart that can cause SVT and atrial fibrillation

    This watch is going to save lives.
  • Reply 36 of 136
    cmoebius wrote: »
    I am big an Apple fanboy as they come, but,... ((((Fitbit loving deleted))))

    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.

    Why would a big "Apple fanboy" find it "unfortunate" that other people would find different reasons to buy an Apple watch? ARE YOUR REASONS THE ONLY VALID ONES? Or are you just shilling for Fitbit?

    Yeah, I thought so.
  • Reply 37 of 136

    Pink socks..?

  • Reply 38 of 136
    rogifan wrote: »
    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.

    I believe Apple makes their money from software as much as hardware since it's sold as a package. AppleWatch is a blank canvas for companies to develop new app suites and new integration with existing apps - all of which Apple will get a slice. Just like iPhone this is will be a medium for companies that don't develop quality hardware to get new products to market faster and cheaper.
  • Reply 39 of 136
    amoradala wrote: »
    This watch is going to save lives.

    Someone is already hard at work on the "I've fallen and I can't get up!" app.

    ;)
  • Reply 40 of 136
    gregquinn wrote: »
    Pink socks..?

    He must be part of the "Save Second Base" campaign
Sign In or Register to comment.