A waterproof Apple Watch makes little sense since it's got to be tethered to an iPhone to work. You're not going to take your iPhone scuba driving, are you?
Again... Rain. Sweat. Laps.
It doesn't have to be waterproof to 20M ffs but it had better damn well be usable for swimming laps.
It doesn't make any sense for it not to be waterproof.
And, as I said, there's been no indication that it's not.
Of course the watch works on its own, but not for everything like calls, emails etc when you leave the phone at home. The watch still plays music and tracks your fitness data.
I think that you're going to be very disappointed when the Apple Watch is released. Most of the features - including all 3rd party apps - won't work when the watch is outside of pairing distance with your iPhone.
I think that you're going to be very disappointed when the Apple Watch is released. Most of the features - including all 3rd party apps - won't work when the watch is outside of pairing distance with your iPhone.
I'm not sure about that. Currently, watch kit supports glances and actionable notifications, but reading the Apple website, I get the impression that they are working on full featured apps. Once those are released, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't work without an iPhone.
Regardless, I won't be disappointed. I am always within pairing distance to my iPhone.
I'm not sure about that. Currently, watch kit supports glances and actionable notifications, but reading the Apple website, I get the impression that they are working on full featured apps. Once those are released, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't work without an iPhone.
Regardless, I won't be disappointed. I am always within pairing distance to my iPhone.
Watch doesn't have wifi or cellular. How much can one do on a wifi only iPad when not connected to wifi?
Regardless, I won't be disappointed. I am always within pairing distance to my iPhone.
Which is what diminishes its usefulness for me. I just don't see the point in spending $350 or more on another device that has to be so closely tethered to your always-with you smartphone to use its best features. My iPhone 6 is always in my pocket when I'm out and about, and sitting on my desk when I'm stationary. So I can always view my notifications instantly (yeah, I'm also the guy that takes his phone when sitting on the crapper " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />). Even when I'm driving, I usually have my iPhone on a windshield mount with Waze running (always useful to keep an eye out for accident, cops, etc). So if a notification comes though, I see it right away in my field of vision without having to look down or look at my wrist.
I'm sure that there are plenty that can make it work for them with their usage scenarios, but I'm still struggling to see its usefulness in its current iteration.
See, that is just an inconvenience to me. I rarely take off my current watch (it's a 13-year old Pulsar Solar) and I've never had to change the battery or wind it because... well, it's solar powered. Call me a creature of habit, but a watch with a 8-month battery life (sorry, I said one-year in the previous post) that still gives me fitness/sleep tracking capabilities is a more suitable replacement for me than a smartwatch that needs my iPhone to do anything but tell time (please correct me if I'm wrong on this part). Heck, I wouldn't even be able to swim with an Apple Watch, which makes it worthless.
Maybe when battery life is measured in weeks instead of hours, I'll consider taking the plunge... and when the thing is actually waterproof and not water resistant.
Never, ever, going to be weeks: the Apple Watch does too much energy intensive things for that compared to a "dumb" watch that needs to power a time chip and a very static display along with the occasional stopwatch function. Apple is stuffing an early iPad of computational activity (plus additional sensors) into a watch sized device. FWIW in the winter my Casio G-shock solar routinely dies and has to be sat in a window for a few days.
Also re "waterproof" versus "resistant", you're getting tangled in jargon. My G-Shock is labeled as "resistant to 200M".... (WR 200M), I suspect a regulatory heavy hand may be at play. I can check my Submariner when I get home (ironically it just went nuts and has started gaining time to the tune of close to an hour IN an hour... well 32 years without a repair so I guess I won't complain about needing to take a trip to Manhattan to the mothership) but that's long enough ago the regulations about labelling could easily have changed.
It's interesting that he would say how the schedule is doing, I'm still curious what the prices will be or how it will be sold. With so many different band options, will we see one price for the unit and the band price separate?
It's interesting that he would say how the schedule is doing, I'm still curious what the prices will be or how it will be sold. With so many different band options, will we see one price for the unit and the band price separate?
Somehow I got the impression there would be standard sets offered with additional accessory band options.
Never, ever, going to be weeks: the Apple Watch does too much energy intensive things for that compared to a "dumb" watch that needs to power a time chip and a very static display along with the occasional stopwatch function. Apple is stuffing an early iPad of computational activity (plus additional sensors) into a watch sized device. FWIW in the winter my Casio G-shock solar routinely dies and has to be sat in a window for a few days.
Also re "waterproof" versus "resistant", you're getting tangled in jargon. My G-Shock is labeled as "resistant to 200M".... (WR 200M), I suspect a regulatory heavy hand may be at play. I can check my Submariner when I get home (ironically it just went nuts and has started gaining time to the tune of close to an hour IN an hour... well 32 years without a repair so I guess I won't complain about needing to take a trip to Manhattan to the mothership) but that's long enough ago the regulations about labelling could easily have changed.
I should have said water resistant. But in simple terms, I mean that I can go swim some laps, splash in the pool with my kid, or go out in the ocean with my Pulsar Sonar or a Withings Activite Pop. I can't do that with an Apple Watch AFAIK.
I should have said water resistant. But in simple terms, I mean that I can go swim some laps, splash in the pool with my kid, or go out in the ocean with my Pulsar Sonar or a Withings Activite Pop. I can't do that with an Apple Watch AFAIK.
That AFAIK is probably the critical point. To what degree the device is sensitive to water hasn't been out in public knowledge. To my view the device doesn't look inherently susceptible, unlike say an iPhone or iPad or iPod with their openings for headphones, power input and speakers leading rather directly into the innards. It has some movable components (that crown thingy) but, for instance, the power is inductive with no "port" to jack into and provide a flooding vulnerability and the wrist bands slip into grooves that don't penetrate the casing.
So we'll see.
Oh and the Submariner is still "waterproof": "Rated waterproof to 300 metres."
I thought that triathletes swam. Why would you be in a boat?
Try looking up "in the same boat" in the search engine of your choice. Apparently you're either trolling or you've honestly never heard of that expression.
Comments
It doesn't have to be waterproof to 20M ffs but it had better damn well be usable for swimming laps.
It doesn't make any sense for it not to be waterproof.
And, as I said, there's been no indication that it's not.
I just want to preorder.
Also, I caved in. My iPhone 6+ is great.
Obtuse much?
Of course the watch works on its own, but not for everything like calls, emails etc when you leave the phone at home. The watch still plays music and tracks your fitness data.
I think that you're going to be very disappointed when the Apple Watch is released. Most of the features - including all 3rd party apps - won't work when the watch is outside of pairing distance with your iPhone.
I'm not sure about that. Currently, watch kit supports glances and actionable notifications, but reading the Apple website, I get the impression that they are working on full featured apps. Once those are released, I don't see any reason why they wouldn't work without an iPhone.
Regardless, I won't be disappointed. I am always within pairing distance to my iPhone.
Watch doesn't have wifi or cellular. How much can one do on a wifi only iPad when not connected to wifi?
Regardless, I won't be disappointed. I am always within pairing distance to my iPhone.
Which is what diminishes its usefulness for me. I just don't see the point in spending $350 or more on another device that has to be so closely tethered to your always-with you smartphone to use its best features. My iPhone 6 is always in my pocket when I'm out and about, and sitting on my desk when I'm stationary. So I can always view my notifications instantly (yeah, I'm also the guy that takes his phone when sitting on the crapper
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />). Even when I'm driving, I usually have my iPhone on a windshield mount with Waze running (always useful to keep an eye out for accident, cops, etc). So if a notification comes though, I see it right away in my field of vision without having to look down or look at my wrist.
I'm sure that there are plenty that can make it work for them with their usage scenarios, but I'm still struggling to see its usefulness in its current iteration.
See, that is just an inconvenience to me. I rarely take off my current watch (it's a 13-year old Pulsar Solar) and I've never had to change the battery or wind it because... well, it's solar powered. Call me a creature of habit, but a watch with a 8-month battery life (sorry, I said one-year in the previous post) that still gives me fitness/sleep tracking capabilities is a more suitable replacement for me than a smartwatch that needs my iPhone to do anything but tell time (please correct me if I'm wrong on this part). Heck, I wouldn't even be able to swim with an Apple Watch, which makes it worthless.
Maybe when battery life is measured in weeks instead of hours, I'll consider taking the plunge... and when the thing is actually waterproof and not water resistant.
Never, ever, going to be weeks: the Apple Watch does too much energy intensive things for that compared to a "dumb" watch that needs to power a time chip and a very static display along with the occasional stopwatch function. Apple is stuffing an early iPad of computational activity (plus additional sensors) into a watch sized device. FWIW in the winter my Casio G-shock solar routinely dies and has to be sat in a window for a few days.
Also re "waterproof" versus "resistant", you're getting tangled in jargon. My G-Shock is labeled as "resistant to 200M".... (WR 200M), I suspect a regulatory heavy hand may be at play. I can check my Submariner when I get home (ironically it just went nuts and has started gaining time to the tune of close to an hour IN an hour... well 32 years without a repair so I guess I won't complain about needing to take a trip to Manhattan to the mothership) but that's long enough ago the regulations about labelling could easily have changed.
It's interesting that he would say how the schedule is doing, I'm still curious what the prices will be or how it will be sold. With so many different band options, will we see one price for the unit and the band price separate?
It's interesting that he would say how the schedule is doing, I'm still curious what the prices will be or how it will be sold. With so many different band options, will we see one price for the unit and the band price separate?
Somehow I got the impression there would be standard sets offered with additional accessory band options.
Never, ever, going to be weeks: the Apple Watch does too much energy intensive things for that compared to a "dumb" watch that needs to power a time chip and a very static display along with the occasional stopwatch function. Apple is stuffing an early iPad of computational activity (plus additional sensors) into a watch sized device. FWIW in the winter my Casio G-shock solar routinely dies and has to be sat in a window for a few days.
Also re "waterproof" versus "resistant", you're getting tangled in jargon. My G-Shock is labeled as "resistant to 200M".... (WR 200M), I suspect a regulatory heavy hand may be at play. I can check my Submariner when I get home (ironically it just went nuts and has started gaining time to the tune of close to an hour IN an hour... well 32 years without a repair so I guess I won't complain about needing to take a trip to Manhattan to the mothership) but that's long enough ago the regulations about labelling could easily have changed.
I should have said water resistant. But in simple terms, I mean that I can go swim some laps, splash in the pool with my kid, or go out in the ocean with my Pulsar Sonar or a Withings Activite Pop. I can't do that with an Apple Watch AFAIK.
I should have said water resistant. But in simple terms, I mean that I can go swim some laps, splash in the pool with my kid, or go out in the ocean with my Pulsar Sonar or a Withings Activite Pop. I can't do that with an Apple Watch AFAIK.
That AFAIK is probably the critical point. To what degree the device is sensitive to water hasn't been out in public knowledge. To my view the device doesn't look inherently susceptible, unlike say an iPhone or iPad or iPod with their openings for headphones, power input and speakers leading rather directly into the innards. It has some movable components (that crown thingy) but, for instance, the power is inductive with no "port" to jack into and provide a flooding vulnerability and the wrist bands slip into grooves that don't penetrate the casing.
So we'll see.
Oh and the Submariner is still "waterproof": "Rated waterproof to 300 metres."
http://www.rolex.com/watches/submariner/m116610lv-0002.html?s_kwcid=AL!141!10!4540719603!26677474666&ef_id=VGYrKQAAAQdxaj6H:20150130221233:s
So the term hasn't been entirely "lawyered" away.
Try looking up "in the same boat" in the search engine of your choice. Apparently you're either trolling or you've honestly never heard of that expression.