Well, yes, but so did phones...
before and including the portable family.
Not as fashion accessories. Watches represent a very personal item as well as the importance throughout history of an accurate timepiece; something we take for granted these days.
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.
I definitely want to get one eventually. I just can't justify the cost at the moment. The only thing that really interests me is Apple Pay. I'm not a very active guy but I like to keep tabs on my health. I can't justify spending $350 minimum on a heart rate monitor. Once it gets more sensors it will grab my attention more. I'll also have plenty of money saved for one by then :-)
As a (long-time) AAPL investor, I'm ok with that. But I also expect that just like the iPod and iPad, we'll be pleasantly surprised about the product itself.
Also I'm interested to see what developers do with it. If they can add worthy add-ons using WatchKit to their iPhone apps I'll reconsider my decision not to buy one for now.
benjamin frost wrote: »
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.
640K is all you'll ever need.
pazuzu wrote: »
Why isn't he wearing one?
Time will tell.
Some of us didn't see the iPhone as that big of a deal. "I mean, typing on a screen? My current phone works just fine."
Who knows, but the watch won't gain traction for a couple of years. There has to also be the killer apps that make it indispensable. And it has to be iPhone-independent. And it needs to last longer than a day on a battery.
Suppose most people will keep their $25 watches that do what they do for what they want them to do and last for several years on the same battery.
The first Apple laptop with a trackpad was a game-changer. And the iMac and iPod, then the iPhone.
suddenly newton wrote: »
If he was, you'd declare it obvious promotion, and therefore a meaningless gesture.
Perhaps learn to read and comprehend things before posting?
Wifi only. My iPad 2 was cellular, but I hardly needed it because I could tether my iPhone.
$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.
Uh, what? I'm missing the logic of getting two of them.
I wear a watch every day, all day and even I think wearing a watch and an Apple Watch at the same time would be weird. Which one would go on your "normal" wrist and which would go on on your formerly unencumbered wrist? I'm guessing the Rolex gets to stay wear it belongs and the Apple gets the new wrist?
Maybe too much, but I wouldn't complain. I think it will set standard for the rest of wearable devices. The only complaint now is battery life. can it last 2-3 days/charge?
I don't compare Apple Watch with other smart watch, but with traditional Chronographic Seiko Kinetics or Citizen EcoDrive which is in the same price range, and I would say Apple Watch blow these out of the water by design, usability and functionality.
I believe the color word you're both looking for is "red." (I just discovered that the crayon box in the color picker was hit with the "flat" stick in Yosemite; it's not an improvement.)
Rolex is for the party where you will show it off. It's a jewelry. Apple Watch is a functional piece of modern microcomputer on the wrist which is capable to tell time too...precisely.
Pink's for breast cancer month. Please respect that.
That's why I feel confident to put my credit/debit cards in there. Otherwise, like Android open source, I woudn't.