For me this companion app will be the biggest reason why Apple Watch will not sell much. Apple has long been criticized for the lack of "customization" but it was made on purpose to favor immediate use and ease of use.
You need to see this as a wearable. There is a reason why they have so many options (read: SKUs) out of the gate. Wearables not made of textiles are typically personal ornaments. Even the ones filled with utility are personal objects. If it was a static design like the original iPhone or iPod it would be a failure. IT HAD TO BE PERSONAL. This is why all other attempts at smart watches have been failures… and will have remained failures. This is undeniably the right way to go.
Also, I am curious about how often will Apple update the HW. If it is yearly I'll never buy it.
Why not? If Apple updates the S-series chip and offers the option to have the S1 replaced with an S2, then S3, then S4 … I am much more likely to buy it.
It has to be at least every two years. Otherwise I won't spend that amount of money for a product that gets old in 12 months.
I could see the casing updated every two years, like the iPhone, but I can more easily see it happen every year since that is on par with how designer watches update their styles and there is no need for a two year casing cycle since I assume there will be no after market cases for ?Watch (at least not anything worthwhile).
I have a Rolex that I wear pretty consistently - wondering if this will have enough allure to keep the R on a winder or not. I'm going to bite and try it when it releases. It's a dilemma a lot of people are going to have - whether to sometimes replace a current favorite timepiece with this bit of convenience or not.
I have a Rolex that I wear pretty consistently - wondering if this will have enough allure to keep the R on a winder or not. I'm going to bite and try it when it releases. It's a dilemma a lot of people are going to have - whether to sometimes replace a current favorite timepiece with this bit of convenience or not.
Yes so many of us have that Rolex dilemma here at Downton Abbey.
Really looking forward to this. I see lots of value (to me) in Apple Watch.
The app clearly allows you to customize your watch. I expect to visit these settings a couple times to get it "just right" then likely hardly ever open that app again.
Here's a question fro the tech savvy here: One of the more common places people will be using their Apple Watch is at home. Having a "lock" via BT to your phone while at home is going to be a must, and people will likely keep their iPhone somewhere other than in their pocket while at home. Is it technically possible to have some sort of accessory to boost BT signal? An iPhone dock with BT "boost?" Or a BT repeater to locate somewhere in the house? Or maybe build into a new iteration of Airport?
Apple Watch neatly solves one of the issues I have from ditching my landline years ago: I don't carry my iPhone in my pocket at home, and occasionally miss calls (unless I am using my Mac with connectivity!) Now my watch will alert me.
I read a multitude of sources and besides the article made some very good points.
It really didn't. It accused the apple watch of 10 hour battery life, which is ludicrous. It said it was ugly, which is purely subjective. It said it won't sell as much as the iPhone, which by itself is a bigger business than Microsoft. Of course Apple Watch isn't going to bring in more bucks than all of Microsoft.
I'm still looking/wanting for a reason to buy this. The more I read about what it can do the less it addresses what I need or what apple thinks I need.
With that said, this will blow the competition out the water by far. It will be the best smart watch on the market.
I am significantly intrigued at the possibilities this device will bring. Apple clearly understands the potential. I have gone from skeptical to very interested...Can't wait to see how this develops.
Same here, I am on the fence still and it going to be one those wait and see types of devices. My son believes that it will be a 3 to 5 year transtion going on with this device. At first people will not know how to best use it and over time it will begin replacing/supplement the phone and may become the must have device. My son said they simple fact that he will not have to keep pulling his phone out of his pocket evertime he gets a notification/call/msg is worth having it since most time you do not need to respond immediately.
Obvious Apple know where they taking this and the GUI to interface with the watch tells lots about what it can do. Using another IOS device to configure it is what will make it great verse what we seen from others. I much clearner solution.
Well, cell phones are for making calls, but I'd wager that less than 10% of total iPhone usage goes to that purpose. How dare they call it an iPhone, eh?
I plan to upgrade from my Jawbone UP simply because I'm tired of wearing a wearable that lacks the ability to tell time. The best part is that launching in April means that I'll be able to keep up on the Sox's scores during the season.
Really looking forward to this. I see lots of value (to me) in Apple Watch.
The app clearly allows you to customize your watch. I expect to visit these settings a couple times to get it "just right" then likely hardly ever open that app again.
Here's a question fro the tech savvy here: One of the more common places people will be using their Apple Watch is at home. Having a "lock" via BT to your phone while at home is going to be a must, and people will likely keep their iPhone somewhere other than in their pocket while at home. Is it technically possible to have some sort of accessory to boost BT signal? An iPhone dock with BT "boost?" Or a BT repeater to locate somewhere in the house? Or maybe build into a new iteration of Airport?
Apple Watch neatly solves one of the issues I have from ditching my landline years ago: I don't carry my iPhone in my pocket at home, and occasionally miss calls (unless I am using my Mac with connectivity!) Now my watch will alert me.
It's probable that at home it would operate much like Continuity, if your device is on the same WiFi network it'll work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64
Same here, I am on the fence still and it going to be one those wait and see types of devices. My son believes that it will be a 3 to 5 year transtion going on with this device. At first people will not know how to best use it and over time it will begin replacing/supplement the phone and may become the must have device. My son said they simple fact that he will not have to keep pulling his phone out of his pocket evertime he gets a notification/call/msg is worth having it since most time you do not need to respond immediately.
Obvious Apple know where they taking this and the GUI to interface with the watch tells lots about what it can do. Using another IOS device to configure it is what will make it great verse what we seen from others. I much clearner solution.
The main issue is going to be the timeframe for developing baseband chips that are power efficient enough to stick in the future ?Watch models. Once they can get it independent of an iPhone, then the game will change.
Noticeably absent from the companion app was any Apple Pay Setup for the Apple Watch.
I gleaned a bit of information from a podcast where one of the participants had a hands on demo of the Watch from an Apple rep ... He said, that the rep [B][I] told [/I][/B] him that you invoke Apple Pay on the Watch by double-tapping the button below the crown ... seems to make sense, as far as it goes ...
That phrase gets used way too much around here when you really to mean to say, "I don't have a particular use for this product."
What problem are they imagining or hoping creates itself? You know the same was said about the iPod when it launched. "What's wrong with Apple?" "Nobody will pay $525* for an I-POD!" "They're done for now!"
The difference is that the iPod did solve a problem. It provided a way to easily access a song among hundreds through the click wheel.
The AppleWatch will called a watch only by name and that telling time will become secondary. Just as an iPhone probably inaccurately describes how it's mostly used these days.
The watch will sell in decent numbers by early adopters and Apple fans.
But for it to become mainstream, there needs to be a compelling reason to drop $350.
Fitness is not the reason. There are dozens of watches that do this better.
Health could drive greater adoption, but how much do people really track their health? The quantitative self is hot right now...because we can.
And lastly, tethering it to an iPhone is all the more reason why the Watch is a nice to have and not a need to have.
The difference is that the iPod did solve a problem. It provided a way to easily access a song among hundreds through the click wheel.
The AppleWatch will called a watch only by name and that telling time will become secondary. Just as an iPhone probably inaccurately describes how it's mostly used these days.
The watch will sell in decent numbers by early adopters and Apple fans.
But for it to become mainstream, there needs to be a compelling reason to drop $350.
Fitness is not the reason. There are dozens of watches that do this better.
Health could drive greater adoption, but how much do people really track their health? The quantitative self is hot right now...because we can.
And lastly, tethering it to an iPhone is all the more reason why the Watch is a nice to have and not a need to have.
Except that portable CD players were only about $90 at the time the iPod launched, which made the iPod very expensive. The iPod took off because of the iTunes Music Store, not because of the ClickWheel.
Here's a question fro the tech savvy here: One of the more common places people will be using their Apple Watch is at home. Having a "lock" via BT to your phone while at home is going to be a must, and people will likely keep their iPhone somewhere other than in their pocket while at home. Is it technically possible to have some sort of accessory to boost BT signal? An iPhone dock with BT "boost?" Or a BT repeater to locate somewhere in the house? Or maybe build into a new iteration of Airport?
I don't understand what you mean. Why would you need a boost (or relay) of the BT signal to keep your iPhone unlocked or locked? If you're not in proximity of your iPhone would you need it unlocked and if you are why not use the standard BT signal strength for it to determine your range?
Also, with Touch ID, auto-unlock isn't as useful as it was when I envisioned that feature years ago. Since Macs don't have Touch ID, that could be useful in "safe" areas when the signal strength is highest.
That phrase gets used way too much around here when you really to mean to say, "I don't have a particular use for this product."
What problem are they imagining or hoping creates itself? You know the same was said about the iPod when it launched. "What's wrong with Apple?" "Nobody will pay $525* for an I-POD!" "They're done for now!"
If you want actual solutions in search of a problem I can show you a dozens, if not hundreds, of old infomercials and As Seen On TV ads spanning multiple decades.
The example of the iPod is a bad one... that was about price, not the gap that the iPod filled... which is what I am talking about with the Apple Watch.
The problems that the iPod fixed was ease and functionality... people wanted the convenience of MP3 players to listen to their music but everything up until the iPod was not as easy to use. iTunes fixed the next problem... access to more music... legally. (pipped by Satchmo)
I don't think the Apple Watch is fixing a problem. I think Apple is creating the problem and then telling everyone that they are fixing it. I don't see anything about the AW that fixes a problem that a vast amount of people are having.
It really didn't. It accused the apple watch of 10 hour battery life, which is ludicrous. It said it was ugly, which is purely subjective. It said it won't sell as much as the iPhone, which by itself is a bigger business than Microsoft. Of course Apple Watch isn't going to bring in more bucks than all of Microsoft.
It was pure nonsense and a waste of time.
Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder? Good one. Like a Zune no doubt.
The difference is that the iPod did solve a problem. It provided a way to easily access a song among hundreds through the click wheel.
The AppleWatch will called a watch only by name and that telling time will become secondary. Just as an iPhone probably inaccurately describes how it's mostly used these days.
The watch will sell in decent numbers by early adopters and Apple fans.
But for it to become mainstream, there needs to be a compelling reason to drop $350.
Fitness is not the reason. There are dozens of watches that do this better.
Health could drive greater adoption, but how much do people really track their health? The quantitative self is hot right now...because we can.
And lastly, tethering it to an iPhone is all the more reason why the Watch is a nice to have and not a need to have.
It's certainly possible you had the same view in 2002 as you do now, but for most people is what the opposite of a proper move for Apple.
Unbelievably expensive with a finite amount of space compared to the then logic of unlimited CDs with better quality music at much lower prices.
You should watch Jobs present the original iPod. Lots of confused people.
Unbelievably expensive with a finite amount of space compared to the then logic of unlimited CDs with better quality music at much lower prices.
You should watch Jobs present the original iPod. Lots of confused people.
Not to mention the iTunes Music Store didn't exist, which meant you either still paid for CD's (which were more expensive back then) on top of the iPod's cost, or you stole it with Napster and other stuff at terrible quality. People forget that the iPod didn't launch as this wildly powerful and successful product. Kinda like how people will (and have) forgot that we once bought iPhones and iPod Touches without an App Store (or cut/copy/paste!).
You are right. People fixate on how 'they' perceive the world assuming 'they' are correct.
Here is some fun trivia on the topic of time.
Time itself (as in the time of day, not Einstein's take) is a relatively (oops) new concept in the way we accept it today. Back in England when the railways started, sundials were still used. This was fine with horse travel but the trains started arriving on a coast to cost trip before they'd left. It was impossible to create a printed time table that didn't look like something from Dr. Who (not that he was there then .. or was he?). The railways pushed and got standardized time based on London's time GMT .. and at the back then the papers were full of people objecting as this now meant the sun was in the wrong place at any given 'time' in the UK anywhere west of London.
So THAT's how time began! Well, I knew it had nothing to do with religion and I was pretty sure Dr Who was involved, and now I know. Thanks for the info - I love that kind of stuff. I learned the other day the alleged origins of scoring tennis. One of the theories (there were more than one), also based on time. - The hour is divided into four quarters - 15 - 30 - 45 - game (except 45 is too unclear when called out so it became 40). The term Love apparently came from l'œuf (tennis is a french game), which means 'the egg' - i.e. zero. Hmmm... well, there were other theories.
Comments
You need to see this as a wearable. There is a reason why they have so many options (read: SKUs) out of the gate. Wearables not made of textiles are typically personal ornaments. Even the ones filled with utility are personal objects. If it was a static design like the original iPhone or iPod it would be a failure. IT HAD TO BE PERSONAL. This is why all other attempts at smart watches have been failures… and will have remained failures. This is undeniably the right way to go.
Why not? If Apple updates the S-series chip and offers the option to have the S1 replaced with an S2, then S3, then S4 … I am much more likely to buy it.
I could see the casing updated every two years, like the iPhone, but I can more easily see it happen every year since that is on par with how designer watches update their styles and there is no need for a two year casing cycle since I assume there will be no after market cases for ?Watch (at least not anything worthwhile).
Yes so many of us have that Rolex dilemma here at Downton Abbey.
I read a multitude of sources and besides the article made some very good points.
Really looking forward to this. I see lots of value (to me) in Apple Watch.
The app clearly allows you to customize your watch. I expect to visit these settings a couple times to get it "just right" then likely hardly ever open that app again.
Here's a question fro the tech savvy here: One of the more common places people will be using their Apple Watch is at home. Having a "lock" via BT to your phone while at home is going to be a must, and people will likely keep their iPhone somewhere other than in their pocket while at home. Is it technically possible to have some sort of accessory to boost BT signal? An iPhone dock with BT "boost?" Or a BT repeater to locate somewhere in the house? Or maybe build into a new iteration of Airport?
Apple Watch neatly solves one of the issues I have from ditching my landline years ago: I don't carry my iPhone in my pocket at home, and occasionally miss calls (unless I am using my Mac with connectivity!) Now my watch will alert me.
It's a serious concern. Whether it's you favorite Seiko diver or something else - can it replace a timepiece that you really value?
I read a multitude of sources and besides the article made some very good points.
It really didn't. It accused the apple watch of 10 hour battery life, which is ludicrous. It said it was ugly, which is purely subjective. It said it won't sell as much as the iPhone, which by itself is a bigger business than Microsoft. Of course Apple Watch isn't going to bring in more bucks than all of Microsoft.
It was pure nonsense and a waste of time.
Same here, I am on the fence still and it going to be one those wait and see types of devices. My son believes that it will be a 3 to 5 year transtion going on with this device. At first people will not know how to best use it and over time it will begin replacing/supplement the phone and may become the must have device. My son said they simple fact that he will not have to keep pulling his phone out of his pocket evertime he gets a notification/call/msg is worth having it since most time you do not need to respond immediately.
Obvious Apple know where they taking this and the GUI to interface with the watch tells lots about what it can do. Using another IOS device to configure it is what will make it great verse what we seen from others. I much clearner solution.
Well, cell phones are for making calls, but I'd wager that less than 10% of total iPhone usage goes to that purpose. How dare they call it an iPhone, eh?
I plan to upgrade from my Jawbone UP simply because I'm tired of wearing a wearable that lacks the ability to tell time. The best part is that launching in April means that I'll be able to keep up on the Sox's scores during the season.
Really looking forward to this. I see lots of value (to me) in Apple Watch.
The app clearly allows you to customize your watch. I expect to visit these settings a couple times to get it "just right" then likely hardly ever open that app again.
Here's a question fro the tech savvy here: One of the more common places people will be using their Apple Watch is at home. Having a "lock" via BT to your phone while at home is going to be a must, and people will likely keep their iPhone somewhere other than in their pocket while at home. Is it technically possible to have some sort of accessory to boost BT signal? An iPhone dock with BT "boost?" Or a BT repeater to locate somewhere in the house? Or maybe build into a new iteration of Airport?
Apple Watch neatly solves one of the issues I have from ditching my landline years ago: I don't carry my iPhone in my pocket at home, and occasionally miss calls (unless I am using my Mac with connectivity!) Now my watch will alert me.
It's probable that at home it would operate much like Continuity, if your device is on the same WiFi network it'll work.
Same here, I am on the fence still and it going to be one those wait and see types of devices. My son believes that it will be a 3 to 5 year transtion going on with this device. At first people will not know how to best use it and over time it will begin replacing/supplement the phone and may become the must have device. My son said they simple fact that he will not have to keep pulling his phone out of his pocket evertime he gets a notification/call/msg is worth having it since most time you do not need to respond immediately.
Obvious Apple know where they taking this and the GUI to interface with the watch tells lots about what it can do. Using another IOS device to configure it is what will make it great verse what we seen from others. I much clearner solution.
The main issue is going to be the timeframe for developing baseband chips that are power efficient enough to stick in the future ?Watch models. Once they can get it independent of an iPhone, then the game will change.
I gleaned a bit of information from a podcast where one of the participants had a hands on demo of the Watch from an Apple rep ... He said, that the rep [B][I] told [/I][/B] him that you invoke Apple Pay on the Watch by double-tapping the button below the crown ... seems to make sense, as far as it goes ...
That phrase gets used way too much around here when you really to mean to say, "I don't have a particular use for this product."
What problem are they imagining or hoping creates itself? You know the same was said about the iPod when it launched. "What's wrong with Apple?" "Nobody will pay $525* for an I-POD!" "They're done for now!"
The difference is that the iPod did solve a problem. It provided a way to easily access a song among hundreds through the click wheel.
The AppleWatch will called a watch only by name and that telling time will become secondary. Just as an iPhone probably inaccurately describes how it's mostly used these days.
The watch will sell in decent numbers by early adopters and Apple fans.
But for it to become mainstream, there needs to be a compelling reason to drop $350.
Fitness is not the reason. There are dozens of watches that do this better.
Health could drive greater adoption, but how much do people really track their health? The quantitative self is hot right now...because we can.
And lastly, tethering it to an iPhone is all the more reason why the Watch is a nice to have and not a need to have.
The difference is that the iPod did solve a problem. It provided a way to easily access a song among hundreds through the click wheel.
The AppleWatch will called a watch only by name and that telling time will become secondary. Just as an iPhone probably inaccurately describes how it's mostly used these days.
The watch will sell in decent numbers by early adopters and Apple fans.
But for it to become mainstream, there needs to be a compelling reason to drop $350.
Fitness is not the reason. There are dozens of watches that do this better.
Health could drive greater adoption, but how much do people really track their health? The quantitative self is hot right now...because we can.
And lastly, tethering it to an iPhone is all the more reason why the Watch is a nice to have and not a need to have.
Except that portable CD players were only about $90 at the time the iPod launched, which made the iPod very expensive. The iPod took off because of the iTunes Music Store, not because of the ClickWheel.
I don't understand what you mean. Why would you need a boost (or relay) of the BT signal to keep your iPhone unlocked or locked? If you're not in proximity of your iPhone would you need it unlocked and if you are why not use the standard BT signal strength for it to determine your range?
Also, with Touch ID, auto-unlock isn't as useful as it was when I envisioned that feature years ago. Since Macs don't have Touch ID, that could be useful in "safe" areas when the signal strength is highest.
That phrase gets used way too much around here when you really to mean to say, "I don't have a particular use for this product."
What problem are they imagining or hoping creates itself? You know the same was said about the iPod when it launched. "What's wrong with Apple?" "Nobody will pay $525* for an I-POD!" "They're done for now!"
If you want actual solutions in search of a problem I can show you a dozens, if not hundreds, of old infomercials and As Seen On TV ads spanning multiple decades.
The example of the iPod is a bad one... that was about price, not the gap that the iPod filled... which is what I am talking about with the Apple Watch.
The problems that the iPod fixed was ease and functionality... people wanted the convenience of MP3 players to listen to their music but everything up until the iPod was not as easy to use. iTunes fixed the next problem... access to more music... legally. (pipped by Satchmo)
I don't think the Apple Watch is fixing a problem. I think Apple is creating the problem and then telling everyone that they are fixing it. I don't see anything about the AW that fixes a problem that a vast amount of people are having.
Ugliness is in the eyes of the beholder? Good one. Like a Zune no doubt.
It's certainly possible you had the same view in 2002 as you do now, but for most people is what the opposite of a proper move for Apple.
Unbelievably expensive with a finite amount of space compared to the then logic of unlimited CDs with better quality music at much lower prices.
You should watch Jobs present the original iPod. Lots of confused people.
You might want to take a look at Montblancs take on smart watch by adding a "smart" wristband addition.
Unbelievably expensive with a finite amount of space compared to the then logic of unlimited CDs with better quality music at much lower prices.
You should watch Jobs present the original iPod. Lots of confused people.
Not to mention the iTunes Music Store didn't exist, which meant you either still paid for CD's (which were more expensive back then) on top of the iPod's cost, or you stole it with Napster and other stuff at terrible quality. People forget that the iPod didn't launch as this wildly powerful and successful product. Kinda like how people will (and have) forgot that we once bought iPhones and iPod Touches without an App Store (or cut/copy/paste!).
You are right. People fixate on how 'they' perceive the world assuming 'they' are correct.
Here is some fun trivia on the topic of time.
Time itself (as in the time of day, not Einstein's take) is a relatively (oops) new concept in the way we accept it today. Back in England when the railways started, sundials were still used. This was fine with horse travel but the trains started arriving on a coast to cost trip before they'd left. It was impossible to create a printed time table that didn't look like something from Dr. Who (not that he was there then .. or was he?). The railways pushed and got standardized time based on London's time GMT .. and at the back then the papers were full of people objecting as this now meant the sun was in the wrong place at any given 'time' in the UK anywhere west of London.
So THAT's how time began! Well, I knew it had nothing to do with religion and I was pretty sure Dr Who was involved, and now I know. Thanks for the info