Yeah because functionality including checking Facebook and reading text messages on a 1 inch screen with your wrist up to your nose is totally worth the hundreds of dollars premium (oh, and having to have your iPhone with you at all times to do any of this. Great functionality! [or lack thereof]). That was sarcasm by the way.
The Activite is incredibly simple. I don't need to check the weather on my watch when I have to have the phone with me at all times that does the same thing anyway. I'll just carry my phone and save $500 on a wrist weight.
It also has a ton of functionality. It tracks your sleep, walking, running, calories burned, metabolic activity level, swimming. For. Eight. Months. All of this is synced and stored just like the iWatch. It has a silent alarm.
Then when you need a battery, buy one for $2. I'll spend $2 a year for the convenience of not having to unlatch my "activity tracker" from my body every 8 hours (what kind of activity is the iWatch tracking anyway when 1 to 2 hours out of every day it can't even be attached to you to track anything?)
It is what the Apple Watch should have been- simple, beautiful, elegant.
And one that requires an Apple iPhone to use so your back to "pocket weight". That was fact by the way. And a $450 Fitbit? Not sure about that, $129 seems more reasonable for an actual Fitbit: and for an activity tracker does Swiss elegance really excuse the extra $321? For some perhaps.
Benedict Evans posted this on Twitter from CES. The Chinese really have no shame.
Apple's watch looks like every other smart watch already on the market...a rectangle with a glass touchscreen face. Did Apple copy them? No. Rectangles and circles are common designs. Replicas are nothing new in this world. All watches are identical because they all have common functional parts, just like a car. The Apple Watch isn't that attractive looking. The shiny aluminum sides is very 70s and 80s. Doesn't really match current design trends. The gold one is awful looking, unless you are a rapper and need bling. The big selling problem for Apple will be to convince someone they need the watch when their iPhone already does the same thing. Most have stopped wearing a watch because their smartphone has the time, and smart watches haven't been that popular. $350 and up is a tough sell for a product that duplicates a device people already own. They also have the challenge of telling people the battery only lasts for one day. I am sure early adopters will buy it, but many will likely take the "let's wait and see what happens" approach.
Every page of the Apple Watch description has the following footnote: Requires iPhone 5 or later. Even in the keynote, they said the watch requires the iPhone. I would like to know where you found documents that claim the watch functions without the iPhone. When the Watch SDK was released, it was confirmed the iPhone handles all the processing of the apps and the watch is just a display for the relayed information from the iPhone. It might have sensors on the watch, but the iPhone is required to handle all the processing of the information. So are people that ignorant to think they can leave their iPhone at home and take off with their Apple Watch on their wrist expecting it to work? Now that will be funny.
I would like to know where you found documents that claim the watch functions without the iPhone.
1) From the info given by info by Apple.
2) Are you saying that all those demos Apple had after their event had some iPhone wireless tied to them, say, under the table because without that connection to an iPhone the ?Watch will not be usable? I'm saying that's not the case and that ?Watch will not be usable even if your iPhone happens to be out of power or range at any given moment, but will allow you to use ?Pay after you've set it up.
3) You and tyler82's wording is like people saying that the iPhone sucks because it requires a Mac or WinPC with iTunes in order to set up. without any consideration that it's a portable device that can work independently of iTunes. Or do you two honestly think that your pulse rate and movement won't get recorded if you go for a run without your iPhone in hand? Why do you think it has storage for music if you think an iPhone is required for it to be useful? My guess is that it can playback audio over BT. My next guess is that Apple will come out with their first BT headphones (perhaps under the Beats branding).
It might have sensors on the watch, but the iPhone is required to handle all the processing of the information.
All? Really? I bet you the processor in ?Watch isn't just "for show." I can't imagine why an IPhone would have to be present so it could send ?Watch stored motion data and songs to the iPhone over BT to then be "processed" just to be sent back to ?Watch to be displayed and streamed, respectively. Furthermore, I can't imagine why anyone would think that it's a reasonable suggestion for such a circuitious operation in the first place.
So are people that ignorant to think they can leave their iPhone at home and take off with their Apple Watch on their wrist expecting it to work? Now that will be funny.
So, yes, I fully expect it will be useful when not immediately tethered to an iPhone.
Every page of the Apple Watch description has the following footnote: Requires iPhone 5 or later. Even in the keynote, they said the watch requires the iPhone. I would like to know where you found documents that claim the watch functions without the iPhone. When the Watch SDK was released, it was confirmed the iPhone handles all the processing of the apps and the watch is just a display for the relayed information from the iPhone. It might have sensors on the watch, but the iPhone is required to handle all the processing of the information. So are people that ignorant to think they can leave their iPhone at home and take off with their Apple Watch on their wrist expecting it to work? Now that will be funny.
"Work" means many things. Much of Apple Watch's functionality will be unavailable without a connection to an iPhone. However, it won't turn into an unpowered brick if it isn't. It will always function as a watch, and it will also play back audio via BT headphones. It will be able to display some photos. There are other features that are not yet clear how they will function without an iPhone. You are correct that it is an iPhone accessory, but the ignorant tag is a bit of hyperbole.
I get all the I don't get it comments. This device isn't for everybody. Someone calling it a failure because they don't like it is...well...ignorant.
And as you alluded: the con that the 8. Month. Battery. Life. comes at the cost of . Hardly. Any. Functionality. As process consumes power. Also I'd love to see the small print defining how you get that 8 months. I wonder if it were to be like the Kindle where they tout "30 DAYS!" and then down in the details they explain that's when used only an hour on any one of those "days"... Which I think is unnecessary because 30 hours (or whatever it calculates to) is a really decent use time. Just not the eye popping Thirty. Days. of the headline.
Yeah because functionality including checking Facebook and reading text messages on a 1 inch screen with your wrist up to your nose is totally worth the hundreds of dollars premium (oh, and having to have your iPhone with you at all times to do any of this. Great functionality! [or lack thereof]). That was sarcasm by the way.
The Activite is incredibly simple. I don't need to check the weather on my watch when I have to have the phone with me at all times that does the same thing anyway. I'll just carry my phone and save $500 on a wrist weight.
It also has a ton of functionality. It tracks your sleep, walking, running, calories burned, metabolic activity level, swimming. For. Eight. Months. All of this is synced and stored just like the iWatch. It has a silent alarm.
Then when you need a battery, buy one for $2. I'll spend $2 a year for the convenience of not having to unlatch my "activity tracker" from my body every 8 hours (what kind of activity is the iWatch tracking anyway when 1 to 2 hours out of every day it can't even be attached to you to track anything?)
It is what the Apple Watch should have been- simple, beautiful, elegant.
Well said.
I agree with you. Who'd have thought that the company known for going thinner would have boobed on its smallest product?
Apple's watch looks like every other smart watch already on the market...a rectangle with a glass touchscreen face. Did Apple copy them? No. Rectangles and circles are common designs. Replicas are nothing new in this world. All watches are identical because they all have common functional parts, just like a car. The Apple Watch isn't that attractive looking. The shiny aluminum sides is very 70s and 80s. Doesn't really match current design trends. The gold one is awful looking, unless you are a rapper and need bling. The big selling problem for Apple will be to convince someone they need the watch when their iPhone already does the same thing. Most have stopped wearing a watch because their smartphone has the time, and smart watches haven't been that popular. $350 and up is a tough sell for a product that duplicates a device people already own. They also have the challenge of telling people the battery only lasts for one day. I am sure early adopters will buy it, but many will likely take the "let's wait and see what happens" approach.
Yes; it's the design of the Apple Watch that surprised me the most.
It already looks dated, and it's not even on sale. Its blockiness is 70s style; not something I care for at all.
2) Are you saying that all those demos Apple had after their event had some iPhone wireless tied to them, say, under the table because without that connection to an iPhone the ?Watch will not be usable? I'm saying that's not the case and that ?Watch will not be usable even if your iPhone happens to be out of power or range at any given moment, but will allow you to use ?Pay after you've set it up.
3) You and tyler82's wording is like people saying that the iPhone sucks because it requires a Mac or WinPC with iTunes in order to set up. without any consideration that it's a portable device that can work independently of iTunes. Or do you two honestly think that your pulse rate and movement won't get recorded if you go for a run without your iPhone in hand? Why do you think it has storage for music if you think an iPhone is required for it to be useful? My guess is that it can playback audio over BT. My next guess is that Apple will come out with their first BT headphones (perhaps under the Beats branding).
All? Really? I bet you the processor in ?Watch isn't just "for show." I can't imagine why an IPhone would have to be present so it could send ?Watch stored motion data and songs to the iPhone over BT to then be "processed" just to be sent back to ?Watch to be displayed and streamed, respectively. Furthermore, I can't imagine why anyone would think that it's a reasonable suggestion for such a circuitious operation in the first place.
So, yes, I fully expect it will be useful when not immediately tethered to an iPhone.
Yes; it's the design of the Apple Watch that surprised me the most.
It already looks dated, and it's not even on sale. Its blockiness is 70s style; not something I care for at all.
I don't know for sure ,but yes the photos make it looks "blocky" as you say but the people at its demo said that the pictures are deceptive and don't show just how stylish it is in reality. Until I see it in the Apple store I'm withholding final discernment on this aspect
Comments
Yeah because functionality including checking Facebook and reading text messages on a 1 inch screen with your wrist up to your nose is totally worth the hundreds of dollars premium (oh, and having to have your iPhone with you at all times to do any of this. Great functionality! [or lack thereof]). That was sarcasm by the way.
The Activite is incredibly simple. I don't need to check the weather on my watch when I have to have the phone with me at all times that does the same thing anyway. I'll just carry my phone and save $500 on a wrist weight.
It also has a ton of functionality. It tracks your sleep, walking, running, calories burned, metabolic activity level, swimming. For. Eight. Months. All of this is synced and stored just like the iWatch. It has a silent alarm.
Then when you need a battery, buy one for $2. I'll spend $2 a year for the convenience of not having to unlatch my "activity tracker" from my body every 8 hours (what kind of activity is the iWatch tracking anyway when 1 to 2 hours out of every day it can't even be attached to you to track anything?)
It is what the Apple Watch should have been- simple, beautiful, elegant.
And one that requires an Apple iPhone to use so your back to "pocket weight". That was fact by the way. And a $450 Fitbit? Not sure about that, $129 seems more reasonable for an actual Fitbit: and for an activity tracker does Swiss elegance really excuse the extra $321? For some perhaps.
1) Pregnant women aren't allowed to work in Switzerland or are you against women working?
2) How can one be a slave when they have a choice to leave? Do they hold their IDs and threaten to kill them or their families if they leave?
You can't? Where did you get this info?
You do? Where did you get this info?
The iPhone business is sort of funny as they slather the images of iPhones all over their webpages in partnership with their wrist device. Up to and including this tidbit: "Activité is connected to your smartphone and automatically displays the correct time." http://www.withings.com/us/withings-activite.html?clickid=URDSsLXh90KE2hcV180MtV3VUkVzSyV:21K82I0
Benedict Evans posted this on Twitter from CES. The Chinese really have no shame.
Apple's watch looks like every other smart watch already on the market...a rectangle with a glass touchscreen face. Did Apple copy them? No. Rectangles and circles are common designs. Replicas are nothing new in this world. All watches are identical because they all have common functional parts, just like a car. The Apple Watch isn't that attractive looking. The shiny aluminum sides is very 70s and 80s. Doesn't really match current design trends. The gold one is awful looking, unless you are a rapper and need bling. The big selling problem for Apple will be to convince someone they need the watch when their iPhone already does the same thing. Most have stopped wearing a watch because their smartphone has the time, and smart watches haven't been that popular. $350 and up is a tough sell for a product that duplicates a device people already own. They also have the challenge of telling people the battery only lasts for one day. I am sure early adopters will buy it, but many will likely take the "let's wait and see what happens" approach.
(Don't need your iPhone with you to use it)
You do? Where did you get this info?
Every page of the Apple Watch description has the following footnote: Requires iPhone 5 or later. Even in the keynote, they said the watch requires the iPhone. I would like to know where you found documents that claim the watch functions without the iPhone. When the Watch SDK was released, it was confirmed the iPhone handles all the processing of the apps and the watch is just a display for the relayed information from the iPhone. It might have sensors on the watch, but the iPhone is required to handle all the processing of the information. So are people that ignorant to think they can leave their iPhone at home and take off with their Apple Watch on their wrist expecting it to work? Now that will be funny.
1) From the info given by info by Apple.
2) Are you saying that all those demos Apple had after their event had some iPhone wireless tied to them, say, under the table because without that connection to an iPhone the ?Watch will not be usable? I'm saying that's not the case and that ?Watch will not be usable even if your iPhone happens to be out of power or range at any given moment, but will allow you to use ?Pay after you've set it up.
3) You and tyler82's wording is like people saying that the iPhone sucks because it requires a Mac or WinPC with iTunes in order to set up. without any consideration that it's a portable device that can work independently of iTunes. Or do you two honestly think that your pulse rate and movement won't get recorded if you go for a run without your iPhone in hand? Why do you think it has storage for music if you think an iPhone is required for it to be useful? My guess is that it can playback audio over BT. My next guess is that Apple will come out with their first BT headphones (perhaps under the Beats branding).
All? Really? I bet you the processor in ?Watch isn't just "for show." I can't imagine why an IPhone would have to be present so it could send ?Watch stored motion data and songs to the iPhone over BT to then be "processed" just to be sent back to ?Watch to be displayed and streamed, respectively. Furthermore, I can't imagine why anyone would think that it's a reasonable suggestion for such a circuitious operation in the first place.
So, yes, I fully expect it will be useful when not immediately tethered to an iPhone.
Every page of the Apple Watch description has the following footnote: Requires iPhone 5 or later. Even in the keynote, they said the watch requires the iPhone. I would like to know where you found documents that claim the watch functions without the iPhone. When the Watch SDK was released, it was confirmed the iPhone handles all the processing of the apps and the watch is just a display for the relayed information from the iPhone. It might have sensors on the watch, but the iPhone is required to handle all the processing of the information. So are people that ignorant to think they can leave their iPhone at home and take off with their Apple Watch on their wrist expecting it to work? Now that will be funny.
"Work" means many things. Much of Apple Watch's functionality will be unavailable without a connection to an iPhone. However, it won't turn into an unpowered brick if it isn't. It will always function as a watch, and it will also play back audio via BT headphones. It will be able to display some photos. There are other features that are not yet clear how they will function without an iPhone. You are correct that it is an iPhone accessory, but the ignorant tag is a bit of hyperbole.
I get all the I don't get it comments. This device isn't for everybody. Someone calling it a failure because they don't like it is...well...ignorant.
My guess is that it can playback audio over BT.
Tim confirmed this in an interview.
Well said.
I agree with you. Who'd have thought that the company known for going thinner would have boobed on its smallest product?
Yes; it's the design of the Apple Watch that surprised me the most.
It already looks dated, and it's not even on sale. Its blockiness is 70s style; not something I care for at all.
Yes; it's the design of the Apple Watch that surprised me the most.
It already looks dated, and it's not even on sale. Its blockiness is 70s style; not something I care for at all.
I don't know for sure ,but yes the photos make it looks "blocky" as you say but the people at its demo said that the pictures are deceptive and don't show just how stylish it is in reality. Until I see it in the Apple store I'm withholding final discernment on this aspect
Yes; it's the design of the Apple Watch that surprised me the most.
It already looks dated, and it's not even on sale. Its blockiness is 70s style; not something I care for at all.
if you are basing your opinion on that picture, you may have made a slip, that picture is of the Chinese knock off, not the Apple watch! just saying