Short shelf life based on what? I'll bet one of the biggest reasons people upgrade their phones so frequently is camera improvements. ?Watch doesn't have a camera. I doubt ?Watch will be running really complex native apps that will require frequent SoC upgrades. I just don't see what will make gen 1 obsolete that quickly. And by obsolete I mean unusable.
Having worked with the API a lot now, I think we'll see the first generation phased out very quickly. A lot of the effort is going towards the optimization of WatchOS (OS and apps) to keep pressure light on the device. As it starts to reach the rich-development platform they've achieved with iOS these days, I think we'll see development of hardware similar to the early iPhone era (double every time, a triple increase in performance here and there) quickly making the original, underpowered, and market-'prototype' quickly obsolete. Many of the reasons the ? Watch won't have these 'complex apps' is because the hardware can't support it, or at the very least hinders that kind of creativity.
Also, the reason I compare it to the iPod upgrade cycle is because of the style of improvements we will most likely see. They won't be essential to the experience, but the increasing set of features, polish, new-ness, will be attractive to potential buyers. My original iPod is still usable, however, it has it's limitations that cap it's experience.
The key will be low end price in imo. Apple has to get the price of the watch down to under $199. That will compete with highly functional feature watches, and at the same time, integrate into the apple ecosystem. Much like the iPhone dropped dramatically in price it's first year, I see the entry price on the phone dropping as well. $349 can easily be year one price, but it has to drop for adoption to ramp. and Adoption is key for app adoption, and app adoption is key for user lockin, and then the revenue circle spirals wildly upward.
And I think the next key is 'inline upgradeability,' esp in batteries, but just as much in chipset. If I buy a $2000 fashion watch, I expect it to last at least 10 years. This can be done by in shop upgrades/or ship/replace modes, but it will have to be done. Spending $100 every other year or so is not unusual for cleaning a Rolex, and wandering in for a chip/battery replacement would be the same (chip performance and OS are about 1/2 of the power performance envelope, so I see getting a next gen chipset, OS, and battery swap out as critical). This comes with the tradeoff of designing packaging to support upgradeability, or having the machines distributed to Apple Stores to execute such an operation 'while you wait'
I can see the aluminum and rubber strap watch coming down in price but no way will a stainless steel ?Watch ever be $199. Go to Apple's website and look at how the describe the watch bands. Right or wrong it seems Apple decided to go the luxury route with ?Watch. Personally I don't have an issue with that strategy because they can play up the unique strengths of ?Watch compared to other players that are using commodity hardware and software (and not coming close to ?Watch in build quality/precision manufacturing).
You are right if you view it as a watch. But it's not a watch. It's at minimum an Apple Pay terminal, which leads directly to your bank or credit card.
When you see people paying for things with their wrist you will see the point.
Having worked with the API a lot now, I think we'll see the first generation phased out very quickly. A lot of the effort is going towards the optimization of WatchOS (OS and apps) to keep pressure light on the device. As it starts to reach the rich-development platform they've achieved with iOS these days, I think we'll see development of hardware similar to the early iPhone era (double every time, a triple increase in performance here and there) quickly making the original, underpowered, and market-'prototype' quickly obsolete. Many of the reasons the ? Watch won't have these 'complex apps' is because the hardware can't support it, or at the very least hinders that kind of creativity.
Also, the reason I compare it to the iPod upgrade cycle is because of the style of improvements we will most likely see. They won't be essential to the experience, but the increasing set of features, polish, new-ness, will be attractive to potential buyers. My original iPod is still usable, however, it has it's limitations that cap it's experience.
I'm still curious what apps are going to require new hardware that quickly. Unless Apple designed the S1 with the bare minimum rendering it obsolete that much quicker. According to Apple's developer site ?Watch apps are designed for lightweight interactions and you should measure your interactions in seconds; interactions need to be brief and interfaces simple. How much processing power will this stuff take?
I mean come on. Has any Smart Watch even sold 1 million up to this point? If you combine them all together will you get 1 million? Pebble has sold a bunch, but they're cheap, have a long battery life, but even then I think it's only in the hundreds of thousands, not a million+. Maybe I'm wrong?!?!?!
You could've said that about iPods, iPhones, iPads.
I'm still curious what apps are going to require new hardware that quickly. Unless Apple designed the S1 with the bare minimum rendering it obsolete that much quicker. According to Apple's developer site ?Watch apps are designed for lightweight interactions and you should measure your interactions in seconds; interactions need to be brief and interfaces simple. How much processing power will this stuff take?
I don't know. But I also said something like that with the iPhone.
In comparison with the level of customization, depth, and performance you will get from an iOS device, it's going back to the starting board for seasoned developers (iOS 2.x style). While it is inconceivable, new things will push the limits quickly. Small things and large things, we just don't know but it's a familiar mindset for me, like when iOS was released but OS X was the king for development-ability.
A good example of what I'm thinking about is the gradients in Messages.app - every single time the scrollview is moved on the page, iOS must redraw these gradients. Every time a single pixel of content is shifted within the view that offsets those bubbles, they must be redrawn. Newer iOS devices do this seamlessly, while older models do/would/could shutter and have lag. It's simple and a small detail, but adds to the experience and can be added because the support of legacy hardware was relinquished. And I know this is kind of an arbitrary example, since ? Watch does this with its Messages app, but it's an example small things that make the whole in an Apple product and push the boundaries of hardware.
I'm not sure you can predict the future buying habits on the past. Remember film cameras, you would purchase a pro-body, and expect it to last many years somewhat like a quality watch. Now they are updated every few years, and cost a lot more. I just replaced my 2 - two year old bodies ( $3300 ea.) with 2 new bodies, also $3300 each. Something I would never have done in the film days.
how the hell your camera's specs fulfilled all requirements 2 years ago but now?
I don't think the market for the Watch will be the luxury watch market. I think the biggest draw will be from people who buy Timex, G-Shock and other sports watches. Those watches are not attractive and have limited functionality. The Apple Watch can even be programmed by the buyer and with a language like Swift, that's compelling functionality. Sports enthusiasts can even earn money selling their app to others. You'll get golfing apps that keep scores right on the watch - there will be text input methods.
Here's an example of a simple app that could be used to order fast food from a drive-thru chain on the West coast called In-N-Out ...
During peak hours they have many, many cars backed up ... the order stations usually cover only the first 4 or five cars in each line ..
The first image is a prototype app I wrote in 2008 for the original iPhone.
The next 2 images are how the app (written in Swift) looks on the Apple Watch simulator,
The way it would work is this:
your iPhone has the In-N-Out app installed, and it is it is enabled for iBeacons
when you approach a location the iPhone would recognize an iBeacon signal and send a notification (not shown) to the Watch *
the user could dismiss or chose a saved standard order (not shown) or display a menu
the wearer orders by scrolling (display or crown) and tapping the name of each desired item
3 taps on Animal Style enters a quantity of 3
a tap on the number 3 decrements it by 1
When done, the user hard-presses the watch surface and the total menu is shown
the user sends the order to the kitchen by pressing the order button *
when his car arrives at pickup the order is enabled for Apple Pay *
Apple Pay proceeds normally
* The communication exchanges (arrival through pickup) are synched by exchanging an order token (different from the Apple Pay token).
Any desired loyalty / awards discounts would use this order token,
It's a lot easier and faster to use than explain ... scroll, tap, tap ... scroll, tap, tap ... press, tap
This is my first attempt at an Apple Watch app ... After learning the (beta) ropes -- it's quite easy to write in Swift, The app runs mostly on the iPhone -- the watch, itself, is just used for I/O to the iPhone app,
Short shelf life based on what? I'll bet one of the biggest reasons people upgrade their phones so frequently is camera improvements. ?Watch doesn't have a camera. I doubt ?Watch will be running really complex native apps that will require frequent SoC upgrades. I just don't see what will make gen 1 obsolete that quickly. And by obsolete I mean unusable.
Exactly.
Whatever tasks an Apple Watch will do on day-one... I expect it will continue to do those tasks for many years.
It's got sensors and a display. Those things should last a while, right?
Perhaps the battery will eventually have to be replaced... but I can't imagine the entire watch being obsoleted so soon. It's basically an external display for the iPhone with the majority of the software calculations being done on the iPhone.
I see no problem imagining a single Apple Watch lasting through two or three iPhone generations... or even longer.
Future Apple Watches may offer more or improved features... but the older models will still work as advertised.
How many old iPads are still being used? The newer iPads are better, faster, stronger... but the old ones still work as intended. I suspect the Apple Watch to follow a similar trajectory.
Here's an example of a simple app that could be used to order fast food from a drive-thru chain on the West coast called In-N-Out ...
During peak hours they have many, many cars backed up ... the order stations usually cover only the first 4 or five cars in each line ..
The first image is a prototype app I wrote in 2008 for the original iPhone.
The next 2 images are how the app (written in Swift) looks on the Apple Watch simulator,
The way it would work is this:
your iPhone has the In-N-Out app installed, and it is it is enabled for iBeacons
when you approach a location the iPhone would recognize an iBeacon signal and send a notification (not shown) to the Watch *
the user could dismiss or chose a saved standard order (not shown) or display a menu
the wearer orders by scrolling (display or crown) and tapping the name of each desired item
3 taps on Animal Style enters a quantity of 3
a tap on the number 3 decrements it by 1
When done, the user hard-presses the watch surface and the total menu is shown
the user sends the order to the kitchen by pressing the order button *
when his car arrives at pickup the order is enabled for Apple Pay *
Apple Pay proceeds normally
* The communication exchanges (arrival through pickup) are synched by exchanging an order token (different from the Apple Pay token).
Any desired loyalty / awards discounts would use this order token,
It's a lot easier and faster to use than explain ... scroll, tap, tap ... scroll, tap, tap ... press, tap
This is my first attempt at an Apple Watch app ... After learning the (beta) ropes -- it's quite easy to write in Swift, The app runs mostly on the iPhone -- the watch, itself, is just used for I/O to the iPhone app,
Very cool, and based on the right burger place.
The simulated screen is about four times bigger than the actual screen as displayed here -- and I don't think I'm magnifying it. Shouldn't the simulator show you actual size images? (Maybe it does on your screen.)
Whatever tasks an Apple Watch will do on day-one... I expect it will continue to do those tasks for many years.
It's got sensors and a display. Those things should last a while, right?
Perhaps the battery will eventually have to be replaced... but I can't imagine the entire watch being obsoleted so soon. It's basically an external display for the iPhone with the majority of the software calculations being done on the iPhone.
I see no problem imagining a single Apple Watch lasting through two or three iPhone generations... or even longer.
Future Apple Watches may offer more or improved features... but the older models will still work as advertised.
How many old iPads are still being used? The newer iPads are better, faster, stronger... but the old ones still work as intended. I suspect the Apple Watch to follow a similar trajectory.
Agree.
The ?Watch is not A WATCH as the iPhone was not A MOBILE PHONE. Or AN iPad was not A READER.
True the ?Watch may need some of the features of the iPhone to maximize its functionality, but it will also prompt us to take out our iPads and/or open our Macs.
The ?Watch like the iPhone will sell like hotcakes. New iterations will be bought like hotcakes. And like every iPhone bought in the beginning, the kids in the family will, for the second time, anxiously wait for the next hand-me-down.
They're hitting wide market base in which many of those iPad owners are also iPhone owners, so the overlap would be negligible out of the gate (I don't think Granny will be buying an Apple watch for another few years, at minimum).
Granny is the perfect candidate!!! Think "I've fallen and I can't get up".
You guys need to get out of the nerdy-utilitarian mindset on the ?Watch. This doesn't operate on the iPhone model. A lot of people who wear watches own several of them. It's a fashion item; people wear the watch to match the mood or outfit. And like other fashion items such as shoes, jewelry, accessories, posh dresses, etc., a lot of people own more than one.
I feel you and I are equally correct, it is both ... that's what is so brilliant.
Granny is the perfect candidate!!! Think "I've fallen and I can't get up".
Or even, ... "Hello. This is Mrs Smith's ?Watch. She has fallen, she is unconscious here are her vitals. Send help now to the following address or use iLocate to find my position via her iPhone which is close by "
The simulated screen is about four times bigger than the actual screen as displayed here -- and I don't think I'm magnifying it. Shouldn't the simulator show you actual size images? (Maybe it does on your screen.)
Well ...
About the size: I'm running an iMac 5K ... And the simulator ... and Ai ...
Here's a shot supposed to be at the scale of 272x342 @ 335 ppi
When scaled to that proportion, it is proportional to the wrist and quite readable at 10" even with my old eyes. The smaller field, the Qty number, seems OK as a target, even for my fat fingers -- and it should be used infrequently.
Finally, it is fairly easy to reconfigure to make the rows larger and multi-line -- more scrolling, but bigger targets. Likely, an app designed like this (1 level, no drill-downs) would only be used for a menu of 20 or so items. It would be relatively easy to allow the user to customize the row/column size.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">They're hitting wide market base in which many of those iPad owners are also iPhone owners, so the overlap would be negligible out of the gate (I don't think Granny will be buying an Apple watch for another few years, at minimum).</span>
Granny is the perfect candidate!!! Think "I've fallen and I can't get up".
Exactly! And you or the doctor can call Granny and read her vitals,
Comments
Short shelf life based on what? I'll bet one of the biggest reasons people upgrade their phones so frequently is camera improvements. ?Watch doesn't have a camera. I doubt ?Watch will be running really complex native apps that will require frequent SoC upgrades. I just don't see what will make gen 1 obsolete that quickly. And by obsolete I mean unusable.
Having worked with the API a lot now, I think we'll see the first generation phased out very quickly. A lot of the effort is going towards the optimization of WatchOS (OS and apps) to keep pressure light on the device. As it starts to reach the rich-development platform they've achieved with iOS these days, I think we'll see development of hardware similar to the early iPhone era (double every time, a triple increase in performance here and there) quickly making the original, underpowered, and market-'prototype' quickly obsolete. Many of the reasons the ? Watch won't have these 'complex apps' is because the hardware can't support it, or at the very least hinders that kind of creativity.
Also, the reason I compare it to the iPod upgrade cycle is because of the style of improvements we will most likely see. They won't be essential to the experience, but the increasing set of features, polish, new-ness, will be attractive to potential buyers. My original iPod is still usable, however, it has it's limitations that cap it's experience.
The key will be low end price in imo. Apple has to get the price of the watch down to under $199. That will compete with highly functional feature watches, and at the same time, integrate into the apple ecosystem. Much like the iPhone dropped dramatically in price it's first year, I see the entry price on the phone dropping as well. $349 can easily be year one price, but it has to drop for adoption to ramp. and Adoption is key for app adoption, and app adoption is key for user lockin, and then the revenue circle spirals wildly upward.
And I think the next key is 'inline upgradeability,' esp in batteries, but just as much in chipset. If I buy a $2000 fashion watch, I expect it to last at least 10 years. This can be done by in shop upgrades/or ship/replace modes, but it will have to be done. Spending $100 every other year or so is not unusual for cleaning a Rolex, and wandering in for a chip/battery replacement would be the same (chip performance and OS are about 1/2 of the power performance envelope, so I see getting a next gen chipset, OS, and battery swap out as critical). This comes with the tradeoff of designing packaging to support upgradeability, or having the machines distributed to Apple Stores to execute such an operation 'while you wait'
I can see the aluminum and rubber strap watch coming down in price but no way will a stainless steel ?Watch ever be $199. Go to Apple's website and look at how the describe the watch bands. Right or wrong it seems Apple decided to go the luxury route with ?Watch. Personally I don't have an issue with that strategy because they can play up the unique strengths of ?Watch compared to other players that are using commodity hardware and software (and not coming close to ?Watch in build quality/precision manufacturing).
You are right if you view it as a watch. But it's not a watch. It's at minimum an Apple Pay terminal, which leads directly to your bank or credit card.
When you see people paying for things with their wrist you will see the point.
I'm still curious what apps are going to require new hardware that quickly. Unless Apple designed the S1 with the bare minimum rendering it obsolete that much quicker. According to Apple's developer site ?Watch apps are designed for lightweight interactions and you should measure your interactions in seconds; interactions need to be brief and interfaces simple. How much processing power will this stuff take?
You could've said that about iPods, iPhones, iPads.
Indeed.
It's a terrible name for such a supposed earth rattling device.
I'm still curious what apps are going to require new hardware that quickly. Unless Apple designed the S1 with the bare minimum rendering it obsolete that much quicker. According to Apple's developer site ?Watch apps are designed for lightweight interactions and you should measure your interactions in seconds; interactions need to be brief and interfaces simple. How much processing power will this stuff take?
I don't know. But I also said something like that with the iPhone.
In comparison with the level of customization, depth, and performance you will get from an iOS device, it's going back to the starting board for seasoned developers (iOS 2.x style). While it is inconceivable, new things will push the limits quickly. Small things and large things, we just don't know but it's a familiar mindset for me, like when iOS was released but OS X was the king for development-ability.
A good example of what I'm thinking about is the gradients in Messages.app - every single time the scrollview is moved on the page, iOS must redraw these gradients. Every time a single pixel of content is shifted within the view that offsets those bubbles, they must be redrawn. Newer iOS devices do this seamlessly, while older models do/would/could shutter and have lag. It's simple and a small detail, but adds to the experience and can be added because the support of legacy hardware was relinquished. And I know this is kind of an arbitrary example, since ? Watch does this with its Messages app, but it's an example small things that make the whole in an Apple product and push the boundaries of hardware.
I agree, iPhone is a horrible name. It's DOA.
Comparing an Apple Watch with a regular watch is like comparing an iPhone with a regular phone ...
An Apple Watch can do so much more -- quickly and conveniently.
I suspect that we'll se a lot of tie-in promotions by carriers, banks/credit card companies and phone retailers.
Agreed, just like the iPhone was a portable computer the Apple Watch is a wearable computer: neither fit the old functional stereotype of their name.
Here's an example of a simple app that could be used to order fast food from a drive-thru chain on the West coast called In-N-Out ...
During peak hours they have many, many cars backed up ... the order stations usually cover only the first 4 or five cars in each line ..
The first image is a prototype app I wrote in 2008 for the original iPhone.
The next 2 images are how the app (written in Swift) looks on the Apple Watch simulator,
The way it would work is this:
* The communication exchanges (arrival through pickup) are synched by exchanging an order token (different from the Apple Pay token).
Any desired loyalty / awards discounts would use this order token,
It's a lot easier and faster to use than explain ... scroll, tap, tap ... scroll, tap, tap ... press, tap
This is my first attempt at an Apple Watch app ... After learning the (beta) ropes -- it's quite easy to write in Swift, The app runs mostly on the iPhone -- the watch, itself, is just used for I/O to the iPhone app,
Exactly.
Whatever tasks an Apple Watch will do on day-one... I expect it will continue to do those tasks for many years.
It's got sensors and a display. Those things should last a while, right?
Perhaps the battery will eventually have to be replaced... but I can't imagine the entire watch being obsoleted so soon. It's basically an external display for the iPhone with the majority of the software calculations being done on the iPhone.
I see no problem imagining a single Apple Watch lasting through two or three iPhone generations... or even longer.
Future Apple Watches may offer more or improved features... but the older models will still work as advertised.
How many old iPads are still being used? The newer iPads are better, faster, stronger... but the old ones still work as intended. I suspect the Apple Watch to follow a similar trajectory.
Here's an example of a simple app that could be used to order fast food from a drive-thru chain on the West coast called In-N-Out ...
During peak hours they have many, many cars backed up ... the order stations usually cover only the first 4 or five cars in each line ..
The first image is a prototype app I wrote in 2008 for the original iPhone.
The next 2 images are how the app (written in Swift) looks on the Apple Watch simulator,
The way it would work is this:
* The communication exchanges (arrival through pickup) are synched by exchanging an order token (different from the Apple Pay token).
Any desired loyalty / awards discounts would use this order token,
It's a lot easier and faster to use than explain ... scroll, tap, tap ... scroll, tap, tap ... press, tap
This is my first attempt at an Apple Watch app ... After learning the (beta) ropes -- it's quite easy to write in Swift, The app runs mostly on the iPhone -- the watch, itself, is just used for I/O to the iPhone app,
Very cool, and based on the right burger place.
The simulated screen is about four times bigger than the actual screen as displayed here -- and I don't think I'm magnifying it. Shouldn't the simulator show you actual size images? (Maybe it does on your screen.)
Quote:
Whatever tasks an Apple Watch will do on day-one... I expect it will continue to do those tasks for many years.
It's got sensors and a display. Those things should last a while, right?
Perhaps the battery will eventually have to be replaced... but I can't imagine the entire watch being obsoleted so soon. It's basically an external display for the iPhone with the majority of the software calculations being done on the iPhone.
I see no problem imagining a single Apple Watch lasting through two or three iPhone generations... or even longer.
Future Apple Watches may offer more or improved features... but the older models will still work as advertised.
How many old iPads are still being used? The newer iPads are better, faster, stronger... but the old ones still work as intended. I suspect the Apple Watch to follow a similar trajectory.
Agree.
The ?Watch is not A WATCH as the iPhone was not A MOBILE PHONE. Or AN iPad was not A READER.
True the ?Watch may need some of the features of the iPhone to maximize its functionality, but it will also prompt us to take out our iPads and/or open our Macs.
The ?Watch like the iPhone will sell like hotcakes. New iterations will be bought like hotcakes. And like every iPhone bought in the beginning, the kids in the family will, for the second time, anxiously wait for the next hand-me-down.
They're hitting wide market base in which many of those iPad owners are also iPhone owners, so the overlap would be negligible out of the gate (I don't think Granny will be buying an Apple watch for another few years, at minimum).
Granny is the perfect candidate!!! Think "I've fallen and I can't get up".
I feel you and I are equally correct, it is both ... that's what is so brilliant.
Or even, ... "Hello. This is Mrs Smith's ?Watch. She has fallen, she is unconscious here are her vitals. Send help now to the following address or use iLocate to find my position via her iPhone which is close by "
Well ...
About the size: I'm running an iMac 5K ... And the simulator ... and Ai ...
Here's a shot supposed to be at the scale of 272x342 @ 335 ppi
When scaled to that proportion, it is proportional to the wrist and quite readable at 10" even with my old eyes. The smaller field, the Qty number, seems OK as a target, even for my fat fingers -- and it should be used infrequently.
Finally, it is fairly easy to reconfigure to make the rows larger and multi-line -- more scrolling, but bigger targets. Likely, an app designed like this (1 level, no drill-downs) would only be used for a menu of 20 or so items. It would be relatively easy to allow the user to customize the row/column size.
Exactly! And you or the doctor can call Granny and read her vitals,
I would have said it's batteries, butt he's an analist, so we know he knows sh..