Yes, copy the symbol and create a keyboard shortcut. I use the letters 'aaaa' for '?' and 'aaw'. I also created '?Watch', and 'aap' for '?Pay' because the shortcut will always add a space at the end of the shortcut.
Unfortunately Apple hasn't added that symbol to its typical keyboard, but I wish they would, as well as include an empty Apple symbol that doesn't stand out so dramatically. I don't care if that would show up on every other device as an empty rectangle.
You presume a great deal when you attribute your own vituperative prejudices to "everyone" reading here...
"Paid troll"? Try to stay attached to reality at least a bit, and maybe you'll eventually realize that it's actually possible
to admire and respect Apple, and own many of their products, without assuming everything they do is flawless
and appropriately inspired.
The company has had its occasional "oops", and common sense should tell you it will happen again now and then.
If it never did, it would suggest that perhaps they aren't really trying anymore...
"Vituperative prejudice"—I like that, nice turn of phrase. I've been watching the spectacle of "Benjamin Frost" unfold his persona over many months. At first I just thought he was a crass idiot, not a professional trasher of the forum. Lately , though, he's followed the old Tekstud/Conrad Joe pattern of laying out an improbable fake character, get everyone thinking he's just a jerk, and then start slipping in pure anti-Apple troll FUD under the door.
You aren't expected to agree with this admittedly suspicious interpretation, but you are expected to look at the pure stupidity of the argument he's trying to pass off here. If you don't see that stupidity, I'm wasting my time replying to you.
I think the concept is great, but this doesn't quite get there. Good start.
All our needs are slightly different, but it seems the Apple watch is
a) a sensor device
b) a display device
Most of the attention is on the display of the ?Watch - but really I have no need of having both display and sensor in the same device.
If the real value of the device is in the sensor being on for long periods, then a soft, long-life band is useful (for me, I want it to record my sleep patterns, not be charging). And possibly a cheaper option too for some users.
But maybe the real value is just displaying what your phone gives it. Of course it'll be both...
(I'd like a cheap 'band' MAYBE with minimal display that has several days of batteries, is waterproof, can read UV levels, and be a sleep monitor.)
I didn't choose that because of the word aardvark, the several organizations with AA as their initials. I had tried 'aaa' but I type AAA enough that this became annoying. Of course, in the UK, that isn't likely to come up too often.
I didn't choose that because of the word aardvark, the several organizations with AA as their initials. I had tried 'aaa' but I type AAA enough that this became annoying. Of course, in the UK, that isn't likely to come up too often.
I didn't choose that because of the word aardvark, the several organizations with AA as their initials. I had tried 'aaa' but I type AAA enough that this became annoying. Of course, in the UK, that isn't likely to come up too often.
[VIDEO]
Aardvark was a stumbling block, but I notice that with the predictive typing on, I typed it and it didn't miss a beat.
I think it's a good start. Comfort and improved styling will likely make the second Gen better. The GPS is big point that the Apple Watch is missing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EasyC
Am I wrong in thinking if a device/app communicates with MyFitnessPal and other running Apps like RunKeeper that the app/device shares its info with the App then the App that DOES communicate with HealthKit can then write/read data into HealthKit?
Basically isn't this just a "middle man" work around to get the info you want into HealthKit?
I understand that only certain data from an app is read/written into HealthKit but isn't it a functional work around for now.
Im all down for the Apple Watch but no dedicated GPS is a no go for me until it is included.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AjbDtc826
All I want is:
- GPS
- Bluetooth and music
- time
That's it. That's all I want. Sure I'll even throw in simple text/call notification when my phone is close to me. But seriously, why the hell can't any of these companies make a true running/workout health watch??? Every single one has a crucial missing feature that really negates the whole thing for me.
Just venting my frustration...
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon
A tiny band like this can't even make it a day with GPS, and people want to know why a wrist computer like the AppleWatch doesn't have full cellular and GPS capability?
It doesn't look bad. But it looks like a $99 device at best. And given the years of bad experiences I've had with Microsoft hardware, I will pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morky
If MS could put GPS in this, Apple could have done it in their watch. I don't want to carry a phone on a run, and I understand it kills battery, but I can recharge as needed. Sad that this is better device for running than Apple's
Quote:
Originally Posted by idrey
I dont see how the gps make it better than apple watch!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Personally, I would prefer my watch always display the time. That's one of the problems with a digital watch. I don't want to have to constantly wave my arm in a certain way, or press a button with a watch. But I guess it's a trade-off.
Frankly, I have little interest in the ?Watch unless it's completely water-proof so I can wear it swimming, surfing, and boating. And secondarily, I would want it to have both GPS and a cellular antenna to receive direct OTA notifications out in the water. Chances of my iPhone being near enough to my watch while I'm exercising to make the notifications feature practical is unlikely. And in the office, it really is kind of pointless -- everyone already lay their phones on the table to begin with. It's not like the watch is improving anything. Now if I could leave my phone in my office (out of range of the current watch), that would be another matter. For me, the watch would be most valuable if it replaced the phone for a few more things, like photos, if it's not going to offer more independence from the phone. I suspect we'll see a camera show up in the 2nd generation, well OK, maybe third ... they need to make it thinner first.
GPS and/or a cellular radio in the Apple Watch would make the Apple Watch bulkier and kill the battery faster - neither of which anyone would want.
The Apple Watch compliments the iPhone and is designed to work with the iPhone as an extension of it, so that when you get a notification or receive a call, you can respond to the notification and answer the phone directly from the Apple Watch.
When it comes to the miniaturization of technology, there will always be tradeoffs; you can either have everything in a bulky device with short battery life, or you can have 80% of everything in a smaller device with longer battery life, that could wirelessly access the features that are missing that would only be used 20% of the time.
Man, it is really ugly though it looks solidly built (which is something at least), even teenage girls who would be in such bands... Wouldn't wear them ;-). It will be for health geeks seemingly.
Am I wrong in thinking if a device/app communicates with MyFitnessPal and other running Apps like RunKeeper that the app/device shares its info with the App then the App that DOES communicate with HealthKit can then write/read data into HealthKit?
Basically isn't this just a "middle man" work around to get the info you want into HealthKit?
I understand that only certain data from an app is read/written into HealthKit but isn't it a functional work around for now.
Im all down for the Apple Watch but no dedicated GPS is a no go for me until it is included.
That's it. That's all I want. Sure I'll even throw in simple text/call notification when my phone is close to me. But seriously, why the hell can't any of these companies make a true running/workout health watch??? Every single one has a crucial missing feature that really negates the whole thing for me.
A tiny band like this can't even make it a day with GPS, and people want to know why a wrist computer like the AppleWatch doesn't have full cellular and GPS capability? :rolleyes:
It doesn't look bad. But it looks like a $99 device at best. And given the years of bad experiences I've had with Microsoft hardware, I will pass.
If MS could put GPS in this, Apple could have done it in their watch. I don't want to carry a phone on a run, and I understand it kills battery, but I can recharge as needed. Sad that this is better device for running than Apple's
Personally, I would prefer my watch always display the time. That's one of the problems with a digital watch. I don't want to have to constantly wave my arm in a certain way, or press a button with a watch. But I guess it's a trade-off.
Frankly, I have little interest in the ?Watch unless it's completely water-proof so I can wear it swimming, surfing, and boating. And secondarily, I would want it to have both GPS and a cellular antenna to receive direct OTA notifications out in the water. Chances of my iPhone being near enough to my watch while I'm exercising to make the notifications feature practical is unlikely. And in the office, it really is kind of pointless -- everyone already lay their phones on the table to begin with. It's not like the watch is improving anything. Now if I could leave my phone in my office (out of range of the current watch), that would be another matter. For me, the watch would be most valuable if it replaced the phone for a few more things, like photos, if it's not going to offer more independence from the phone. I suspect we'll see a camera show up in the 2nd generation, well OK, maybe third ... they need to make it thinner first.
GPS and/or a cellular radio in the Apple Watch would make the Apple Watch bulkier and kill the battery faster - neither of which anyone would want.
The Apple Watch compliments the iPhone and is designed to work with the iPhone as an extension of it, so that when you get a notification or receive a call, you can respond to the notification and answer the phone directly from the Apple Watch.
When it comes to the miniaturization of technology, there will always be tradeoffs; you can either have everything in a bulky device with short battery life, or you can have 80% of everything in a smaller device with longer battery life, that could wirelessly access the features that are missing that would only be used 20% of the time.
So Apple have gone for the bulky device with low battery life; go figure.
So Apple have gone for the bulky device with low battery life; go figure.
1 day of intense use for the smallest device (40% smaller in volume than the Moto 360) is a low battery life? I'm taking the only real info we have for now, what Cook said, and not some imaginary crap.
If Apple is "bulky", how monstrous do you think the other much bigger watches are?
We do know that you like to say inane things....
BTW, the large one (still 10-15% smaller than the Moto 360) by this standard would last 1.5 days under intense use.
A phone under intense use barely lasts 6h. Your phone would probably need charging while your watch goes on those days...
GPS and/or a cellular radio in the Apple Watch would make the Apple Watch bulkier and kill the battery faster - When it comes to the miniaturization of technology, there will always be tradeoffs;
Nah, look what's happened in 7 short years ... We have low-power bluetooth chips that allow wireless devices to access each other at any time, all without draining the battery unnecessarily. We have bigger screens and more pixels with smaller batteries in cases half the size of the original ... All without sacrificing power. You're not being realistic when you suggest the ?Watch will never have GPS nor cellular antennas, even if not today. Looking at where the iPhone alone started and where it is today suggests you are wrong.
Nah, look what's happened in 7 short years ... We have low-power bluetooth chips that allow wireless devices to access each other at any time, all without draining the battery unnecessarily. We have bigger screens and more pixels with smaller batteries in cases half the size of the original ... All without sacrificing power. You're not being realistic when you suggest the ?Watch will never have GPS nor cellular antennas, even if not today. Looking at where the iPhone alone started and where it is today suggests you are wrong.
It will have those things, but it will be hard to do in the smaller watch until quite some time. I can see eventually when SOC and com efficiency improves and before battery life improves a lot, splitting this into two models.
I see for the 2019 model if batteries don't improve:
The basic functionality model (essentially what we have now) would be :
- Smaller one 6 mm thick (that's 40% smaller than now)
- Bigger one 5mm thick (50% smaller than now, so 20% smaller than current smallest watch)
It would last slightly longer than the model we have now and be much smaller.
Battery would fill 80-85% of the internals.
The full cell phone model (not exactly the same functionality as a Iphone, but getting there) :
- Both would be the same size as what we have now.
Added GPS/WIFI/GPS function
Battery would fill 95% of the internals.
Possibly the way of building the watches would be different to save weight, increase the size of the internals without changing the outside size too much. I see composites and Titanium alloys used in the mid range Apple watch in both cases. Material sciences is were Apple could really differentiate itself from others.
I dont see how the gps make it better than apple watch!
He said better running watch. For any athlete or someone who wants accuracy, GPS watch>>>>>>than any wearable without it. As an early poster noted, the ideal workout piece will have GPS, music storage, Bluetooth, and health sensors. Still, nobody that has created that.
So Apple have gone for the bulky device with low battery life; go figure.
I know the GPS would kill the battery faster, but that could be handled by requiring more deliberate user interaction to enable it, like say, just before a run.
I can't imagine how it won't keep lighting up, as we constantly move our arms, but maybe Apple have found an ingenious solution, and it is my imagination that is lacking.
It's the act of turning your wrist to face up towards your eyes. Your wrist and arms are on a mouse, swinging and moving all day but they are rarely doing that specific flip motion so it's easy for any watch to sense.
Comments
I just use 'aa' as a shortcut.
"Vituperative prejudice"—I like that, nice turn of phrase. I've been watching the spectacle of "Benjamin Frost" unfold his persona over many months. At first I just thought he was a crass idiot, not a professional trasher of the forum. Lately , though, he's followed the old Tekstud/Conrad Joe pattern of laying out an improbable fake character, get everyone thinking he's just a jerk, and then start slipping in pure anti-Apple troll FUD under the door.
You aren't expected to agree with this admittedly suspicious interpretation, but you are expected to look at the pure stupidity of the argument he's trying to pass off here. If you don't see that stupidity, I'm wasting my time replying to you.
I think the concept is great, but this doesn't quite get there. Good start.
All our needs are slightly different, but it seems the Apple watch is
a) a sensor device
b) a display device
Most of the attention is on the display of the ?Watch - but really I have no need of having both display and sensor in the same device.
If the real value of the device is in the sensor being on for long periods, then a soft, long-life band is useful (for me, I want it to record my sleep patterns, not be charging). And possibly a cheaper option too for some users.
But maybe the real value is just displaying what your phone gives it. Of course it'll be both...
(I'd like a cheap 'band' MAYBE with minimal display that has several days of batteries, is waterproof, can read UV levels, and be a sleep monitor.)
I didn't choose that because of the word aardvark, the several organizations with AA as their initials. I had tried 'aaa' but I type AAA enough that this became annoying. Of course, in the UK, that isn't likely to come up too often.
[VIDEO]
One of the all time classic series of comedy.
That's all one needs- not some big clunky Casio-like bauble.
Aardvark was a stumbling block, but I notice that with the predictive typing on, I typed it and it didn't miss a beat.
I think it's a good start. Comfort and improved styling will likely make the second Gen better. The GPS is big point that the Apple Watch is missing.
Am I wrong in thinking if a device/app communicates with MyFitnessPal and other running Apps like RunKeeper that the app/device shares its info with the App then the App that DOES communicate with HealthKit can then write/read data into HealthKit?
Basically isn't this just a "middle man" work around to get the info you want into HealthKit?
I understand that only certain data from an app is read/written into HealthKit but isn't it a functional work around for now.
Im all down for the Apple Watch but no dedicated GPS is a no go for me until it is included.
All I want is:
- GPS
- Bluetooth and music
- time
That's it. That's all I want. Sure I'll even throw in simple text/call notification when my phone is close to me. But seriously, why the hell can't any of these companies make a true running/workout health watch??? Every single one has a crucial missing feature that really negates the whole thing for me.
Just venting my frustration...
A tiny band like this can't even make it a day with GPS, and people want to know why a wrist computer like the AppleWatch doesn't have full cellular and GPS capability?
It doesn't look bad. But it looks like a $99 device at best. And given the years of bad experiences I've had with Microsoft hardware, I will pass.
If MS could put GPS in this, Apple could have done it in their watch. I don't want to carry a phone on a run, and I understand it kills battery, but I can recharge as needed. Sad that this is better device for running than Apple's
I dont see how the gps make it better than apple watch!
Personally, I would prefer my watch always display the time. That's one of the problems with a digital watch. I don't want to have to constantly wave my arm in a certain way, or press a button with a watch. But I guess it's a trade-off.
Frankly, I have little interest in the ?Watch unless it's completely water-proof so I can wear it swimming, surfing, and boating. And secondarily, I would want it to have both GPS and a cellular antenna to receive direct OTA notifications out in the water. Chances of my iPhone being near enough to my watch while I'm exercising to make the notifications feature practical is unlikely. And in the office, it really is kind of pointless -- everyone already lay their phones on the table to begin with. It's not like the watch is improving anything. Now if I could leave my phone in my office (out of range of the current watch), that would be another matter. For me, the watch would be most valuable if it replaced the phone for a few more things, like photos, if it's not going to offer more independence from the phone. I suspect we'll see a camera show up in the 2nd generation, well OK, maybe third ... they need to make it thinner first.
GPS and/or a cellular radio in the Apple Watch would make the Apple Watch bulkier and kill the battery faster - neither of which anyone would want.
The Apple Watch compliments the iPhone and is designed to work with the iPhone as an extension of it, so that when you get a notification or receive a call, you can respond to the notification and answer the phone directly from the Apple Watch.
When it comes to the miniaturization of technology, there will always be tradeoffs; you can either have everything in a bulky device with short battery life, or you can have 80% of everything in a smaller device with longer battery life, that could wirelessly access the features that are missing that would only be used 20% of the time.
Man, it is really ugly though it looks solidly built (which is something at least), even teenage girls who would be in such bands... Wouldn't wear them ;-). It will be for health geeks seemingly.
So Apple have gone for the bulky device with low battery life; go figure.
So Apple have gone for the bulky device with low battery life; go figure.
1 day of intense use for the smallest device (40% smaller in volume than the Moto 360) is a low battery life? I'm taking the only real info we have for now, what Cook said, and not some imaginary crap.
If Apple is "bulky", how monstrous do you think the other much bigger watches are?
We do know that you like to say inane things....
BTW, the large one (still 10-15% smaller than the Moto 360) by this standard would last 1.5 days under intense use.
A phone under intense use barely lasts 6h. Your phone would probably need charging while your watch goes on those days...
Nah, look what's happened in 7 short years ... We have low-power bluetooth chips that allow wireless devices to access each other at any time, all without draining the battery unnecessarily. We have bigger screens and more pixels with smaller batteries in cases half the size of the original ... All without sacrificing power. You're not being realistic when you suggest the ?Watch will never have GPS nor cellular antennas, even if not today. Looking at where the iPhone alone started and where it is today suggests you are wrong.
It will have those things, but it will be hard to do in the smaller watch until quite some time. I can see eventually when SOC and com efficiency improves and before battery life improves a lot, splitting this into two models.
I see for the 2019 model if batteries don't improve:
The basic functionality model (essentially what we have now) would be :
- Smaller one 6 mm thick (that's 40% smaller than now)
- Bigger one 5mm thick (50% smaller than now, so 20% smaller than current smallest watch)
It would last slightly longer than the model we have now and be much smaller.
Battery would fill 80-85% of the internals.
The full cell phone model (not exactly the same functionality as a Iphone, but getting there) :
- Both would be the same size as what we have now.
Added GPS/WIFI/GPS function
Battery would fill 95% of the internals.
Possibly the way of building the watches would be different to save weight, increase the size of the internals without changing the outside size too much. I see composites and Titanium alloys used in the mid range Apple watch in both cases. Material sciences is were Apple could really differentiate itself from others.
He said better running watch. For any athlete or someone who wants accuracy, GPS watch>>>>>>than any wearable without it. As an early poster noted, the ideal workout piece will have GPS, music storage, Bluetooth, and health sensors. Still, nobody that has created that.
No.
So, let me be clear on this, you don't think it is a good idea to have a phone with you when out running?
Correct. Those phone armbands are uncomfortable and I was hoping the Apple watch would free me from wearing one.
So Apple have gone for the bulky device with low battery life; go figure.
I know the GPS would kill the battery faster, but that could be handled by requiring more deliberate user interaction to enable it, like say, just before a run.
No.
They did. Apple Watch and keep the phone in a pocket. You'll have gps, heart rate, Music, and the ability to make a call in case of emergency.
I had been wondering this, too.
I can't imagine how it won't keep lighting up, as we constantly move our arms, but maybe Apple have found an ingenious solution, and it is my imagination that is lacking.
It's the act of turning your wrist to face up towards your eyes. Your wrist and arms are on a mouse, swinging and moving all day but they are rarely doing that specific flip motion so it's easy for any watch to sense.