exactly. I don't understand how many times Apple has to do the same thing before people get it. they are the poster boy of iterative improvement.
I think no GPS is all about battery life. Of course Apple could have released a dumbed down fitness band but I guarantee you had they done that Wall Street, tech press, fans etc. would have been screaming "is that it?" and complaining about how underwhelming it is.
That wasn't a guise, he simply didn't state they working on a solution for 3rd-party apps. It's quite possible at that time that they didn't know how long it would all take to work out before Xcode, the frameworks and APIs, all the documentation, and App Store could be put together in a competent solution, which also includes being secure. Look at how mobileSafari's WebKit was able to run lower-level code than the version WebKit they had to use. That was about security.
Considering they mentioned that at the event I would think so. I think that's the more important aspect of ?Watch. The high design and quality are required to enter this market, but 100s of thousands of great apps are going to make it stick.
What's most important right now is they ship a v1 product that is as bug free as possible. That's why I'm perfectly fine with them taking their time on native apps. Actually I'd love it if next years WWDC was all about ?Watch and ?TV and iOS/OS X got the Snow Leoppard treatment.
it doesn't take a brain surgeon to surmise that the watch will one day be untethered from the phone when it's reached more maturity in capabilities.
you're rewriting history by channeling the Jobs ghost. ipod was Mac only, FireWire only, and they had to convince him to release iTunes for windows!
And here come the personal attacks. Lol. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that I was implying that the current Watch is very limited, Dr. Nola. Obviously it will be a much better product in the future. And Steve Jobs grew and learned. He realized his mistakes and that opening up the iPod was the right thing to do. Releasing a phone with built in networking in this case would be the right thing to do. I'll wait a few updates to decide if I want the watch.
Actually I'd love it if next years WWDC was all about ?Watch and ?TV and iOS/OS X got the Snow Leopard treatment.
Getting iOS code to be reduced significantly the way SL was over Leopard would be awesome, but I think a lot of that was removing stuff that usually came on the DVD and was now to be DLed upon request.
That's not to say that I'd want that over faster and more stable code, but thinking of the SL treatment and how much iOS has been grown I'd like to see some reduction.
Does anything expect entire parts of their codebase to be rewritten in Swift for next year?
But then Steve would have nixed it because of the 2 hr battery. A fitness band is a niche product. The time has not come for an independent iWatch which is both a fashion item, health device and fitness device. One day, perhaps, but not yet.
As far as I can see, the three functions are mutually incompatible.
High-end athletes normally don't wear watches during competition. Marathon runners are the exception, but pretty much everyone else leaves wristwatches in the locker room.
For fitness enthusiasts, again a watch is often left in the locker room or gym bag. Tennis, soccer, yoga, etc. The watch is a hindrance. A few surfers wear watches, but they are the ones who need to get out of the water at a certain time to make it to work/school without being late. A diver's watch is a good backup for a dive computer, but most other water sports practitioners don't need anything more than something that tells time.
From my viewpoint, a simple fitness band that tells time, monitors activity and/or pulse rate, and maybe functions as a simple interval timer covers the general needs for fitness activities. This explains clip-on fitness devices like some FitBit models; you don't need to wear them on your wrist.
The fashion aspect is even more troubling for smart watch manufacturers, especially those trying to peddle >$1000 devices. Much of the charm of a premium wristwatch is the timelessness of the design. A watch acquires character from years of use. A brand-new watch is simply a shiny piece of jewelry, just like any other piece in a nice jewelry store. An old watch has history, a story behind it. This can be far more important than the watch's functionality. One of the watches I regularly wear is a family heirloom. It doesn't do anything but tell time (and my iPhone does a better job of that), but grandpa's Omega looks good on my wrist.
It's the same with some leather goods, like briefcases or wallets. A brand-new Louis Vuitton suitcase? Uninteresting. A thirty-year-old Louis Vuitton suitcase? Now we're talking. I've noticed this with leather cases for my notebook computers and iPads. I buy nice leather cases for these devices, but the device form factor changes in a few years, requiring me to buy a new case. You can't have a thirty-year-old MacBook leather case. It's always new or pretty new.
The other major factor is simplicity. I know my wristwatches aren't going to alert me that there's e-mail, an accident on the freeway, a thunderstorm approaching. It just tells the time. Similarly, I often listen to the radio. Sure, various devices I own can also provide the content feed, but when I am listening to the radio, I know that the device will not be interrupting me with other stuff other than the radio transmission.
But who knows? Maybe the younger generation won't care about having jewelry that has historical/personal significance. Maybe pro athletes start wearing wristwatches because it doesn't bother them anymore. Maybe people will be happy with constant interruptions and distractions.
As far as I can see, the three functions are mutually incompatible.
High-end athletes normally don't wear watches during competition. Marathon runners are the exception, but pretty much everyone else leaves wristwatches in the locker room.
For fitness enthusiasts, again a watch is often left in the locker room or gym bag. Tennis, soccer, yoga, etc. The watch is a hindrance. A few surfers wear watches, but they are the ones who need to get out of the water at a certain time to make it to work/school without being late. A diver's watch is a good backup for a dive computer, but most other water sports practitioners don't need anything more than something that tells time.
From my viewpoint, a simple fitness band that tells time, monitors activity and/or pulse rate, and maybe functions as a simple interval timer covers the general needs for fitness activities. This explains clip-on fitness devices like some FitBit models; you don't need to wear them on your wrist.
[…]
1) Not wanting a fashion device is certainly a reason why I'm still leaning heavily toward Fitbit Charge HR and why I have repeatedly stated that this is extremely market to get right, and why I don't think Apple would do what anyone else is doing. So far I've been proven right.
2) One great aspect of Apple Watch are the removable bands, which are arguably the biggest most people remove their leather-bonded wristwatch before working out. Other reasons are impedance and lack of utility when gyms tend to have plenty of clocks to glance at. They all look interchangeable, even though the materials for each band differs depending on the ?Watch style it's paired with. Assuming they sell all the watch bands separately (how much gold is there is the ?Watch Edition bands?) would it be feasible change out a leather band for a ?Watch Sport band before a work out and then change it back again; or is this something that would be better dealt with by simply buying an additional ?Watch for $350 for workouts? If you pay $5,000 for a gold Watch perhaps that's reasonable but I don't think any of those scenarios are ideal for customers. Has Apple even considered a user having multiple ?Watches that need to be tied to a single iPhone?
Perhaps one day some of this will be of interest to me, but I work out and exercise and have no personal need to track and quantify my performance. If I feel like I got a good workout by the time I'm done, I'm fine with that.
The original iPhone was Edge only and had no native 3rd party apps. Steve Jobs hawked web apps as the way for 3rd parties to develop for iPhone, under the guise of keeping iPhone "reliable and secure". That certainly didn't stop iPhone from becoming massively popular. ?Watch will most likely have native apps sooner than iPhone got them.
Also, what was it again? Four or five years before iOS devices were finally freed from their dependence on computers for syncing/updates?
And here come the personal attacks. Lol. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that I was implying that the current Watch is very limited, Dr. Nola. Obviously it will be a much better product in the future. And Steve Jobs grew and learned. He realized his mistakes and that opening up the iPod was the right thing to do. Releasing a phone with built in networking in this case would be the right thing to do. I'll wait a few updates to decide if I want the watch.
Pointing out the fact that you are ignoring Apples normal strategy, re-writing history, and generally refusing to acknowledge that the Apple Watch has any utility outside of your extremely limited use case does not constitute a personal attack.
Also, what was it again? Four or five years before iOS devices were finally freed from their dependence on computers for syncing/updates?
Pointing out the fact that you are ignoring Apples normal strategy, re-writing history, and generally refusing to acknowledge that the Apple Watch has any utility outside of your extremely limited use case does not constitute a personal attack.
"missing that part of your brain today"
"Doesn't take a rocket scientist"
Those are subtle personal attacks.
and you really think that tracking and logging your running, swimming, biking, weight lifting, and actually any sport are "extremely limited uses?" These market segments are hot right now. So, no, they are not "extremely limited uses." I don't know of any supplier that requires you to have TWO devices on you at all times to get these benefits. The iWatch does.
And in regards to Apple mimicking its earlier steps for the iPod.. You think technology should always start at square one? In that case why doesn't it have a black and white 2 bit screen? Or a spinning disk drive? should it also have a floppy drive? Old Apple hardware used to have them.
Technology ADVANCES, it's not supposed to regress.
[VIDEO][/VIDEO]
No, I'm on my iPad.theres no Apple logo. I use iWatch and Apple watch interchangeably (check my post history)
iWatch is a nick for Apple Watch.
Now it's clear you're just grasping at straws.
"Someone doesn't agree with me- he hath be a troll!"
:sigh: It has nothing to do with writing iWatch, but saying that the ?Watch does requires you to have TWO devices on you at all times. That's bullshit and I know we've been over it so you still saying it's useless without an iPhone tethered is trolling or you have whatever memory issue Guy Pierce from Momento had.
"missing that part of your brain today"
"Doesn't take a rocket scientist"
Those are subtle personal attacks. The argument then comes off as one by a petulant child.
and you really think that tracking and logging your running, swimming, biking, weight lifting, and actually any sport are "extremely limited uses?" These market segments are hot right now. So, no, they are not "extremely limited uses." I don't know of any supplier that requires you to have TWO devices on you at all times to get these benefits. The iWatch does.
And in regards to Apple mimicking its earlier steps for the iPod.. You think technology should always start at square one? In that case why doesn't it have a black and white 2 bit screen? Or a spinning disk drive? should it also have a floppy drive? Old Apple hardware used to have them.
Technology ADVANCES, it's not supposed to regress.
Stop being an apologist.
Yes, I do consider catering to the needs of a self proclaimed fitness fanatic to be extremely limited. Apple designed the watch to appeal to the average health conscious person. It is not a fitness tracker. It is a health tracker (among other things), and to do that it needs to integrate into day to day life without dedicating itself to fitness to the point that it looses other functionality.
If you want a dedicated fitness tracker then go and buy a dedicated fitness tracker. Either way, stop whining that this product is useless just because it doesn't fit your exact needs.
:sigh: It has nothing to do with writing iWatch, but saying that the ?Watch does requires you to have TWO devices on you at all times. That's bullshit and I know we've been over it so you still saying it's useless without an iPhone tethered is trolling or you have whatever memory issue Guy Pierce from Momento had.
It is not a fitness tracker. It is a health tracker (among other things)...
1) I think that sums it up nicely.
2) One thing I'd like to have seen advertised and demoed is sleep tracking but since that's the time it's reportedly supposed to be charging. I would hope Apple would include that as an option but make it a silent feature because of the reported battery limitations. If it will charge in the 30 minutes between the time it takes me to take a shower and get dressed each day -and- if it has a sleep monitor option I think that will be enough to push me over to ?Watch Sport instead of FitBit Charge HR.
Also, what was it again? Four or five years before iOS devices were finally freed from their dependence on computers for syncing/updates?
And at WWDC 2007 Apple never said anything about 3rd party native apps. Steve didn't say they'd be coming in 2008; he talked up web apps and called them a "sweet solution". That went over like a lead balloon in the room. Fast forward to 2014 and Apple is explicitly telling developers that they will be able to build native apps in 2015.
OT: does anyone know how to turn off shake to undo? It drives me f'ng crazy but I don't know where you turn it off.
There isn't, which is unfortunate. I'd also like to be able to disable the Music album cover view that appears in landscape mode.
I just used the music app for the first time in a long time and boy is it buggy as hell. Lags everywhere, and randomly switches to album cover view with no way to get out. Also I noticed that not all my Beatles songs were showing up in the music app so I went to iTunes and saw they were listed under purchased music "not on this iPhone". I downloaded them but when I go back to the music app they don't show up under their respective album, they show up under an album called "The Beatles Boxed Set" with the "Please Please Me" album as cover art. Good god Apple needs to rethink iTunes and the music app. Thankfully I'm a Spotify user so I'm hardly ever in the music app. If Spotify had the Beatles catalog I'd never use the crappy music app.
I've experienced no such issues. Sounds like you have some deeper issues to deal with as that is surely not common.
And at WWDC 2007 Apple never said anything about 3rd party native apps. Steve didn't say they'd be coming in 2008; he talked up web apps and called them a "sweet solution". That went over like a lead balloon in the room. Fast forward to 2014 and Apple is explicitly telling developers that they will be able to build native apps in 2015.
I don't understand what larger point you're implying. Apple is clearly better equipped for 3rd-party ?Watch apps (and iPad apps back in 2010) than they were for iPhone apps back in 2007. What is [@]iaeen[/@] saying that would argue against that?
Comments
I think no GPS is all about battery life. Of course Apple could have released a dumbed down fitness band but I guarantee you had they done that Wall Street, tech press, fans etc. would have been screaming "is that it?" and complaining about how underwhelming it is.
What's most important right now is they ship a v1 product that is as bug free as possible. That's why I'm perfectly fine with them taking their time on native apps. Actually I'd love it if next years WWDC was all about ?Watch and ?TV and iOS/OS X got the Snow Leoppard treatment.
And here come the personal attacks. Lol. it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that I was implying that the current Watch is very limited, Dr. Nola. Obviously it will be a much better product in the future. And Steve Jobs grew and learned. He realized his mistakes and that opening up the iPod was the right thing to do. Releasing a phone with built in networking in this case would be the right thing to do. I'll wait a few updates to decide if I want the watch.
Getting iOS code to be reduced significantly the way SL was over Leopard would be awesome, but I think a lot of that was removing stuff that usually came on the DVD and was now to be DLed upon request.
That's not to say that I'd want that over faster and more stable code, but thinking of the SL treatment and how much iOS has been grown I'd like to see some reduction.
Does anything expect entire parts of their codebase to be rewritten in Swift for next year?
But then Steve would have nixed it because of the 2 hr battery. A fitness band is a niche product. The time has not come for an independent iWatch which is both a fashion item, health device and fitness device. One day, perhaps, but not yet.
As far as I can see, the three functions are mutually incompatible.
High-end athletes normally don't wear watches during competition. Marathon runners are the exception, but pretty much everyone else leaves wristwatches in the locker room.
For fitness enthusiasts, again a watch is often left in the locker room or gym bag. Tennis, soccer, yoga, etc. The watch is a hindrance. A few surfers wear watches, but they are the ones who need to get out of the water at a certain time to make it to work/school without being late. A diver's watch is a good backup for a dive computer, but most other water sports practitioners don't need anything more than something that tells time.
From my viewpoint, a simple fitness band that tells time, monitors activity and/or pulse rate, and maybe functions as a simple interval timer covers the general needs for fitness activities. This explains clip-on fitness devices like some FitBit models; you don't need to wear them on your wrist.
The fashion aspect is even more troubling for smart watch manufacturers, especially those trying to peddle >$1000 devices. Much of the charm of a premium wristwatch is the timelessness of the design. A watch acquires character from years of use. A brand-new watch is simply a shiny piece of jewelry, just like any other piece in a nice jewelry store. An old watch has history, a story behind it. This can be far more important than the watch's functionality. One of the watches I regularly wear is a family heirloom. It doesn't do anything but tell time (and my iPhone does a better job of that), but grandpa's Omega looks good on my wrist.
It's the same with some leather goods, like briefcases or wallets. A brand-new Louis Vuitton suitcase? Uninteresting. A thirty-year-old Louis Vuitton suitcase? Now we're talking. I've noticed this with leather cases for my notebook computers and iPads. I buy nice leather cases for these devices, but the device form factor changes in a few years, requiring me to buy a new case. You can't have a thirty-year-old MacBook leather case. It's always new or pretty new.
The other major factor is simplicity. I know my wristwatches aren't going to alert me that there's e-mail, an accident on the freeway, a thunderstorm approaching. It just tells the time. Similarly, I often listen to the radio. Sure, various devices I own can also provide the content feed, but when I am listening to the radio, I know that the device will not be interrupting me with other stuff other than the radio transmission.
But who knows? Maybe the younger generation won't care about having jewelry that has historical/personal significance. Maybe pro athletes start wearing wristwatches because it doesn't bother them anymore. Maybe people will be happy with constant interruptions and distractions.
1) Not wanting a fashion device is certainly a reason why I'm still leaning heavily toward Fitbit Charge HR and why I have repeatedly stated that this is extremely market to get right, and why I don't think Apple would do what anyone else is doing. So far I've been proven right.
2) One great aspect of Apple Watch are the removable bands, which are arguably the biggest most people remove their leather-bonded wristwatch before working out. Other reasons are impedance and lack of utility when gyms tend to have plenty of clocks to glance at. They all look interchangeable, even though the materials for each band differs depending on the ?Watch style it's paired with. Assuming they sell all the watch bands separately (how much gold is there is the ?Watch Edition bands?) would it be feasible change out a leather band for a ?Watch Sport band before a work out and then change it back again; or is this something that would be better dealt with by simply buying an additional ?Watch for $350 for workouts? If you pay $5,000 for a gold Watch perhaps that's reasonable but I don't think any of those scenarios are ideal for customers. Has Apple even considered a user having multiple ?Watches that need to be tied to a single iPhone?
Perhaps one day some of this will be of interest to me, but I work out and exercise and have no personal need to track and quantify my performance. If I feel like I got a good workout by the time I'm done, I'm fine with that.
Also, what was it again? Four or five years before iOS devices were finally freed from their dependence on computers for syncing/updates?
Pointing out the fact that you are ignoring Apples normal strategy, re-writing history, and generally refusing to acknowledge that the Apple Watch has any utility outside of your extremely limited use case does not constitute a personal attack.
"missing that part of your brain today"
"Doesn't take a rocket scientist"
Those are subtle personal attacks.
and you really think that tracking and logging your running, swimming, biking, weight lifting, and actually any sport are "extremely limited uses?" These market segments are hot right now. So, no, they are not "extremely limited uses." I don't know of any supplier that requires you to have TWO devices on you at all times to get these benefits. The iWatch does.
And in regards to Apple mimicking its earlier steps for the iPod.. You think technology should always start at square one? In that case why doesn't it have a black and white 2 bit screen? Or a spinning disk drive? should it also have a floppy drive? Old Apple hardware used to have them.
Technology ADVANCES, it's not supposed to regress.
Now it's clear you're just trolling.
No, I'm on my iPad.theres no Apple logo. I use iWatch and Apple watch interchangeably (check my post history)
iWatch is a nick for Apple Watch.
Now it's clear you're just grasping at straws.
"Someone doesn't agree with me- he hath be a troll!"
You Smell of Dell.
Ok, now I AM just trolling.
:sigh: It has nothing to do with writing iWatch, but saying that the ?Watch does requires you to have TWO devices on you at all times. That's bullshit and I know we've been over it so you still saying it's useless without an iPhone tethered is trolling or you have whatever memory issue Guy Pierce from Momento had.
Yes, I do consider catering to the needs of a self proclaimed fitness fanatic to be extremely limited. Apple designed the watch to appeal to the average health conscious person. It is not a fitness tracker. It is a health tracker (among other things), and to do that it needs to integrate into day to day life without dedicating itself to fitness to the point that it looses other functionality.
If you want a dedicated fitness tracker then go and buy a dedicated fitness tracker. Either way, stop whining that this product is useless just because it doesn't fit your exact needs.
What did you just say?
1) I think that sums it up nicely.
2) One thing I'd like to have seen advertised and demoed is sleep tracking but since that's the time it's reportedly supposed to be charging. I would hope Apple would include that as an option but make it a silent feature because of the reported battery limitations. If it will charge in the 30 minutes between the time it takes me to take a shower and get dressed each day -and- if it has a sleep monitor option I think that will be enough to push me over to ?Watch Sport instead of FitBit Charge HR.
And at WWDC 2007 Apple never said anything about 3rd party native apps. Steve didn't say they'd be coming in 2008; he talked up web apps and called them a "sweet solution". That went over like a lead balloon in the room. Fast forward to 2014 and Apple is explicitly telling developers that they will be able to build native apps in 2015.
There isn't, which is unfortunate. I'd also like to be able to disable the Music album cover view that appears in landscape mode.
I've experienced no such issues. Sounds like you have some deeper issues to deal with as that is surely not common.
I don't understand what larger point you're implying. Apple is clearly better equipped for 3rd-party ?Watch apps (and iPad apps back in 2010) than they were for iPhone apps back in 2007. What is [@]iaeen[/@] saying that would argue against that?
Made my day. Lol
Really by far the most un-Apple guy I have seen on stage. Even worse than Scott.