If the product is successful (as I predict), will we see as many mea culpas? Unlikely. They will rely on moving the goal posts.
1) Of course. You'll see the, "Well yeah, but only now after they added blah blah and yada yada in the later versions," despite the talk being about the market segment for wearables, not about the first generation product being the only model to ever be released going forward. You'll also get a lot of people, especially the Apple haters once the copycats follow Apple's lead, say, "it was obvious the whole time."
2) I don't mind the people that don't get it. I've been very clear about leaning toward Fitbit Charge HR at this point, but I do get that wearables are a huge market that is on the verge of blowing up. I've also stated that I feel this might be a year or two too soon as the HW doesn't seem to be there yet, but the original iPhone succeeded despite only being '2G' EDGE, and I was wrong about Apple's ability to create a convenient and reliable biometric that was fast. So how many successes does Apple need to have before we sit back for once and say, "I think I'l give Apple the benefit of the doubt because it's possible they know something I don't." Why can't we do that?
The BLE signal is nominally accessible within 10 meters excepting interference or intervening barriers (walls, etc.).
The Apple Watch does have a WiFi radio and antenna (AIR, G) -- but it's use is undefined. If supported, a household router or AppleTV could provide what you want.
I thought BTLE is about 10 times the distance you quoted, maxing out at ~>100m, which is more accurate in my own observations.
But most importantly is Apple (and BT) abstracting out the differentiation of protocols, so ideally, it doesn't matter.
I'm basing the distance on my experience with iBeacons, not the BLE Spec.
An iOS device receiving an iBeacon transmission can approximate the distance from the iBeacon. The distance (between transmitting iBeacon and receiving device) is categorised into 3 distinct ranges:
For example, I can be 10 meters away line-of-site with no problem -- or <10 meters away with an interveing wall and it varies from out of range to ~10 meters ... YMMV, and that's the problem!
I suspect that in normal operation, paired with an iPhone, the Apple Watch requires that the iPhone is within a couple of meters.
Even on the iPhone, it's kind of different to determine what's going on -- all the BLE activity gets pushed down to the BLE radio, which does it's own thing, independently.
No, watches are for telling time. As long as they do that I'm happy. I don't need changing faces for them. If I were style-obsessed enough to care, owning several watches would be cheaper and simpler.
This mentality needs to change. Same argument:
"No, phones are for making calls. As long as they do that I'm happy. I don't need many features for them."
At several hundred $$ for one watch, who is going to be changing their Apple watch every year or two or three years? I have a nice Oris, cost me about the same as a mid range iWatch, but I've had it since 2003 and have no desire to change it anytime soon. I can see how
Last thing I want to read in tech forum is someone comparing smartwatch with their stupid watch. Did your Oris do anything else beside telling time? Your Oris is already overpriced for what it can do (telling time) which a $20 Casio can do better.
You bought your Oris for styling over features where features worth only $10. Same thing here, people buy Apple watch for its other features beside the $10 feature clock.
For example, I can be 40 meters away line-of-site with no problem -- or <40 meters away with an interveing wall and it varies from out of range to ~30 meters ... YMMV, and that's the problem!
I suspect that in normal operation, paired with an iPhone, the Apple Watch requires that the iPhone is within a couple of meters.
Even on the iPhone, it's kind of different to determine what's going on -- all the BLE activity gets pushed down to the BLE radio, which does it's own thing, independently.
Yeah, since a lot of the communication is abstracted away, it's hard to determine what is actually going on. iBeacons are recognizable to ~70m max, according to that article, so I have a hard time thinking Apple would cap it just to cap it. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't prompt you when moving away (to prevent against lost phones at >10m).
I think the ? Watch will utilize the maximum reach possible in order to stay attached to its host device without interruption, since it is so important to keep that connection. Ideally, there just needs be a strong enough signal to let its presence be known via BTLE and close enough to set up a BT high speed connection which is less prone to that interference.
Was the GMT based on the Inca, Mayan, Druid or Gregorian calendar
GMT does not need a calendar as it is only relevant for 24 hours and then it repeats. People who are using local time might be concerned which side of the international date line they were on.
I think the ? Watch will utilize the maximum reach possible in order to stay attached to its host device without interruption, since it is so important to keep that connection.
We need to consider that batter life is of the utmost importance in pretty much all scenarios so maintaining a connection at 70 meters may not be conducive for this product when there is likely the option to simply leave your work shed, all across your large lawn, go into your large house, and put the iPhone into your pocket* if you wish to use a companion app on ?Watch in your shed. Note how the iPhone will drain its battery trying to maintain that cellular connection with 1 bar. I neither want nor expect that to happen with ?Watch.
* This scenario was based on a 70 meter range in one direction.
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.
What do you think will be the iTunes equivalent for the Apple Watch? (ie - iTunes - easy access to digital music)
When that thing can monitor b/p, heartrate and diagnose you by peeing on it... then I might consider buying one.
Indeed. Lots of very confident predictions of ?Watch failure. If the product is successful (as I predict), will we see as many mea culpas? Unlikely. They will rely on moving the goal posts.
Last year, an AT&T salesman showed me all the features of his smartwatch. Most involved customizations like that described above. Was I impressed?
No, watches are for telling time. As long as they do that I'm happy. I don't need changing faces for them. If I were style-obsessed enough to care, owning several watches would be cheaper and simpler.
Nor do I need a watch that takes my pulse. I used to be on the nursing staff at a hospital. I can take my own pulse rate in a few seconds.
I'm sure Apple won't have any trouble selling millions of these watches. But for me they're a solution in search of a problem. Before the iPhone came out, I spent several years searching in vain for a cell phone that did what it does. I've not been in any search for a new and improved watch.
Standard watches really aren't that great at telling time if you think about it. The Apple Watch will sync with the atomic clock making it highly more accurate than most wristwatches out there, not to mention it won't have to be adjusted for time zones and daylight savings. Hell cell phones are better time keepers than most watches. You really need to re-think what the Apple watch really is. Can't stand people with such a narrow view on everything.
Standard watches really aren't that great at telling time if you think about it. The Apple Watch will sync with the atomic clock making it highly more accurate than most wristwatches out there, not to mention it won't have to be adjusted for time zones and daylight savings. Hell cell phones are better time keepers than most watches. You really need to re-think what the Apple watch really is. Can't stand people with such a narrow view on everything.
Although Apple has had several embarrassing gaffs in their Daylight Savings Time adjustments over the years.
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 feel very much the same way. The more I see of the watch, the more convinced I become that there isn't some secret wow feature, but that it's all rather predictable. And not the least bit interesting. I'm sure there's a niche market for people who want to get notifications on their wrists, send heartbeats (so lame), and talk into their watches like power nerds, but I think that market is very small.
No doubt this will blow away the conpetition, but considering that Pebble only sold 400,000 watches last year, that won't be hard to do. Outside of Apple's fanatical fan base, I see no real world interest in the watch. I've been an Apple customer and investor for over thirty years. I've been asking all of my Mac/iPhone owning friends, clients, business associates and even a few random people what they think of the watch. Not a single one has expressed an interest.
Smart watches have never taken off and I don't believe they ever will. I'm a bit surprised to see Apple put so much energy into this product when there are better consumer product areas to target. However, given that Apple pretty much is the iPhone these days (70% of all revenue...), it makes sense to create a must-have iPhone accessory. I just don't think this is it, certainly not at $350+. Under $200? There's a chance. But at the current price, it's only going to sell to fanboys. How big is that market? And more to the point, who is going to buy the watch after all of the fans have theirs? I think they'll see a few million out the gate, after which sales drop dramatically.
For example, I can be 40 meters away line-of-site with no problem -- or <40 meters away with an interveing wall and it varies from out of range to ~30 meters ... YMMV, and that's the problem!
I suspect that in normal operation, paired with an iPhone, the Apple Watch requires that the iPhone is within a couple of meters.
Even on the iPhone, it's kind of different to determine what's going on -- all the BLE activity gets pushed down to the BLE radio, which does it's own thing, independently.
Yeah, since a lot of the communication is abstracted away, it's hard to determine what is actually going on. iBeacons are recognizable to ~70m max, according to that article, so I have a hard time thinking Apple would cap it just to cap it. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">However, that doesn't mean they couldn't prompt you when moving away (to prevent against lost phones at >10m). </span>
I think the ? Watch will utilize the maximum reach possible in order to stay attached to its host device without interruption, since it is so important to keep that connection. Ideally, there just needs be a strong enough signal to let its presence be known via BTLE and close enough to set up a BT high speed connection which is less prone to that interference.<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> </span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">Now I wonder!</span>
Yep! On the Apple Developer forums, it's hard to get some straight answers on the Apple Watch -- likely, to avoid giving competitors information on an unreleased product.
But, sometimes you can infer answers from how a related question is answered. My inference is that the Apple Watch must be Near (within 2 meters) of the iPhone -- or too much power will be required for lost/reconnections and retransmissions ...
1) Hundreds of years of market for watches and several years of fitness trackers show that wrist-worn devices are successful.
2) Again, do you realize how silly it sounds to say that in 2002 (or earlier) that "MP3 players" fixed a major problem people had? Do you know how few "MP3 players" were sold before 2002? Your memory is tricking into believing the iPod was something it was not. There was no golden ticket. There was Eureka! moment as soon as everyone saw it the first time. It literally took YEARS before it took off, yet, if ?Watch does multiples of what the iPod did post iTunes Store, iTunes on Windows, and iPod mini it'll be called a failure, just like the iPad was in 2010 despite being the fastest growing and selling consumer tech ever made.
edit: PS: I will say, unequivocally, that that the wearable electronics market is the cusp of being the next big thing with sales into the double digit billions within a few years.
... and you need to read what I originally said:
"I'm sure there is a lot of potential... but... unlike the iPhone and the iPad which seemed to be filling a gap, I just can't see the Apple Watch taking off right away (I agree with Inkling... they're a solution in search of a problem). Over time I can see there might be added functionality that will increase its popularity but as far as convenience being one of the benefits... hmmmm... between pulling an iPhone out of my pocket and working with something on my wrist... 6 of one... imho."
By the way... who the f*ck said that MP3 players fixed a "major" problem. Certainly not me. They did fix a problem, though, bulkiness and inconvenience. People wanted music... the mp3 player made it easy to take music with them. I thought the iPod was a breakthrough product when i first saw it.
I just don't see it in the Apple Watch. Not yet, at least. It reminds me more of the Newton. Great idea. Bad timing. Not the right implementation... restricted by current technology.
Comments
1) Of course. You'll see the, "Well yeah, but only now after they added blah blah and yada yada in the later versions," despite the talk being about the market segment for wearables, not about the first generation product being the only model to ever be released going forward. You'll also get a lot of people, especially the Apple haters once the copycats follow Apple's lead, say, "it was obvious the whole time."
2) I don't mind the people that don't get it. I've been very clear about leaning toward Fitbit Charge HR at this point, but I do get that wearables are a huge market that is on the verge of blowing up. I've also stated that I feel this might be a year or two too soon as the HW doesn't seem to be there yet, but the original iPhone succeeded despite only being '2G' EDGE, and I was wrong about Apple's ability to create a convenient and reliable biometric that was fast. So how many successes does Apple need to have before we sit back for once and say, "I think I'l give Apple the benefit of the doubt because it's possible they know something I don't." Why can't we do that?
I'm basing the distance on my experience with iBeacons, not the BLE Spec.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon
For example, I can be 10 meters away line-of-site with no problem -- or <10 meters away with an interveing wall and it varies from out of range to ~10 meters ... YMMV, and that's the problem!
I suspect that in normal operation, paired with an iPhone, the Apple Watch requires that the iPhone is within a couple of meters.
Even on the iPhone, it's kind of different to determine what's going on -- all the BLE activity gets pushed down to the BLE radio, which does it's own thing, independently.
Edit Fixed Feet/Meters inconsistaancy.
No, watches are for telling time. As long as they do that I'm happy. I don't need changing faces for them. If I were style-obsessed enough to care, owning several watches would be cheaper and simpler.
This mentality needs to change. Same argument:
"No, phones are for making calls. As long as they do that I'm happy. I don't need many features for them."
Sound right? Guess not.
Yeah ... and our next Druid Cocktail party is Friday at 17:30 HT (Henge Time)
At several hundred $$ for one watch, who is going to be changing their Apple watch every year or two or three years? I have a nice Oris, cost me about the same as a mid range iWatch, but I've had it since 2003 and have no desire to change it anytime soon. I can see how
Last thing I want to read in tech forum is someone comparing smartwatch with their stupid watch. Did your Oris do anything else beside telling time? Your Oris is already overpriced for what it can do (telling time) which a $20 Casio can do better.
You bought your Oris for styling over features where features worth only $10. Same thing here, people buy Apple watch for its other features beside the $10 feature clock.
Sends all other wearables to /dev/null
I'm basing the distance on my experience with iBeacons, not the BLE Spec.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBeacon
For example, I can be 40 meters away line-of-site with no problem -- or <40 meters away with an interveing wall and it varies from out of range to ~30 meters ... YMMV, and that's the problem!
I suspect that in normal operation, paired with an iPhone, the Apple Watch requires that the iPhone is within a couple of meters.
Even on the iPhone, it's kind of different to determine what's going on -- all the BLE activity gets pushed down to the BLE radio, which does it's own thing, independently.
Yeah, since a lot of the communication is abstracted away, it's hard to determine what is actually going on. iBeacons are recognizable to ~70m max, according to that article, so I have a hard time thinking Apple would cap it just to cap it. However, that doesn't mean they couldn't prompt you when moving away (to prevent against lost phones at >10m).
I think the ? Watch will utilize the maximum reach possible in order to stay attached to its host device without interruption, since it is so important to keep that connection. Ideally, there just needs be a strong enough signal to let its presence be known via BTLE and close enough to set up a BT high speed connection which is less prone to that interference.
Now I wonder!
[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/55074/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
GMT does not need a calendar as it is only relevant for 24 hours and then it repeats. People who are using local time might be concerned which side of the international date line they were on.
We need to consider that batter life is of the utmost importance in pretty much all scenarios so maintaining a connection at 70 meters may not be conducive for this product when there is likely the option to simply leave your work shed, all across your large lawn, go into your large house, and put the iPhone into your pocket* if you wish to use a companion app on ?Watch in your shed. Note how the iPhone will drain its battery trying to maintain that cellular connection with 1 bar. I neither want nor expect that to happen with ?Watch.
* This scenario was based on a 70 meter range in one direction.
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.
What do you think will be the iTunes equivalent for the Apple Watch? (ie - iTunes - easy access to digital music)
When that thing can monitor b/p, heartrate and diagnose you by peeing on it... then I might consider buying one.
Indeed. Lots of very confident predictions of ?Watch failure. If the product is successful (as I predict), will we see as many mea culpas? Unlikely. They will rely on moving the goal posts.
Just remember... that goes both ways.
Standard watches really aren't that great at telling time if you think about it. The Apple Watch will sync with the atomic clock making it highly more accurate than most wristwatches out there, not to mention it won't have to be adjusted for time zones and daylight savings. Hell cell phones are better time keepers than most watches. You really need to re-think what the Apple watch really is. Can't stand people with such a narrow view on everything.
If you enjoy peeing on your electronics I can diagnose you right here and now.
Although Apple has had several embarrassing gaffs in their Daylight Savings Time adjustments over the years.
I feel very much the same way. The more I see of the watch, the more convinced I become that there isn't some secret wow feature, but that it's all rather predictable. And not the least bit interesting. I'm sure there's a niche market for people who want to get notifications on their wrists, send heartbeats (so lame), and talk into their watches like power nerds, but I think that market is very small.
No doubt this will blow away the conpetition, but considering that Pebble only sold 400,000 watches last year, that won't be hard to do. Outside of Apple's fanatical fan base, I see no real world interest in the watch. I've been an Apple customer and investor for over thirty years. I've been asking all of my Mac/iPhone owning friends, clients, business associates and even a few random people what they think of the watch. Not a single one has expressed an interest.
Smart watches have never taken off and I don't believe they ever will. I'm a bit surprised to see Apple put so much energy into this product when there are better consumer product areas to target. However, given that Apple pretty much is the iPhone these days (70% of all revenue...), it makes sense to create a must-have iPhone accessory. I just don't think this is it, certainly not at $350+. Under $200? There's a chance. But at the current price, it's only going to sell to fanboys. How big is that market? And more to the point, who is going to buy the watch after all of the fans have theirs? I think they'll see a few million out the gate, after which sales drop dramatically.
Yep! On the Apple Developer forums, it's hard to get some straight answers on the Apple Watch -- likely, to avoid giving competitors information on an unreleased product.
But, sometimes you can infer answers from how a related question is answered. My inference is that the Apple Watch must be Near (within 2 meters) of the iPhone -- or too much power will be required for lost/reconnections and retransmissions ...
But, I really don't know!
1) Hundreds of years of market for watches and several years of fitness trackers show that wrist-worn devices are successful.
2) Again, do you realize how silly it sounds to say that in 2002 (or earlier) that "MP3 players" fixed a major problem people had? Do you know how few "MP3 players" were sold before 2002? Your memory is tricking into believing the iPod was something it was not. There was no golden ticket. There was Eureka! moment as soon as everyone saw it the first time. It literally took YEARS before it took off, yet, if ?Watch does multiples of what the iPod did post iTunes Store, iTunes on Windows, and iPod mini it'll be called a failure, just like the iPad was in 2010 despite being the fastest growing and selling consumer tech ever made.
edit: PS: I will say, unequivocally, that that the wearable electronics market is the cusp of being the next big thing with sales into the double digit billions within a few years.
... and you need to read what I originally said:
"I'm sure there is a lot of potential... but... unlike the iPhone and the iPad which seemed to be filling a gap, I just can't see the Apple Watch taking off right away (I agree with Inkling... they're a solution in search of a problem). Over time I can see there might be added functionality that will increase its popularity but as far as convenience being one of the benefits... hmmmm... between pulling an iPhone out of my pocket and working with something on my wrist... 6 of one... imho."
By the way... who the f*ck said that MP3 players fixed a "major" problem. Certainly not me. They did fix a problem, though, bulkiness and inconvenience. People wanted music... the mp3 player made it easy to take music with them. I thought the iPod was a breakthrough product when i first saw it.
I just don't see it in the Apple Watch. Not yet, at least. It reminds me more of the Newton. Great idea. Bad timing. Not the right implementation... restricted by current technology.
Actually, GMT goes back to the invention of navigation using time as reference.
539.617058239 km/hr