That's where I would have liked to see Apple go first... into my home.
My Wife's iPhone is connected to our car's BT. I always like it when I'm sitting in the car waiting for her and then suddenly, on the screen, it announces that her iPhone is now connected. I know she's only a few feet away.
I want my home to know when I'm around. I want my car and my home to ask me questions, answer my questions... and I'm really tired of having to plug shit in all the time. lol
I'm a lazy f*cker. What can I say. If you're going to make products that are supposed to increase my convenience then don't make them inconvenient.
Developers are under NDA -- so I can't discuss that here. If you are an iOS developer, go on the WatchKit forum and read through the posts regarding refreshing or reloading a table displayed on the Watch.
It's my inference that a max of 2 meters is required for operation because of battery drain. Certainly, the Watch could detect you were going beyond 2 meters and alert you to get closer to the paired iPhone.
As to a boost device, I don't think Apple wants any interception, retransmission or boosting of the communication between the Watch and it's paired iPhone.
As I've stated before, I have most of the iBeacons (including the Tile Key-Tags) -- and they are not that good at finding things more than 4 or 5 meters away.
Pinging an iPhone with Find My Phone is easier (if the iPhone has power).
Fair 'nuff. Soon all will be revealed. When do we think an Apple Event will be? If Tim ships at the end of April, then perhaps as late as mid April. Two weeks ahead of them showing up for pre-order or in Apple Stores? Perhaps an Apple Event as soon as this month (February)?
But you know...there are Apple Watches being Tested In The Wild(tm). I wonder if you could ask someone you run into "hey. how far away from your iPhone can you be and it still work?" (and yes, you can ask, but the wearer might be under an NDA and not answer....)
Is the watch metaphor even the product that will make the wearables market big?
Forget about chips. Forget about watches. Think about the product that would increase convenience in your life. Is it even a watch?
When you refer to it as a watch metaphor it's possible for something to be misinterpreted. When I say wearables I mean wearable CE, which includes headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I mean something worn on the arm that is very close proximity to the carpel bones of the wrist.
The formula for the longitude circumference at a given latitude is:
C = 2 pi r cos(x)
where pi = 3.14159, r = the earth's equatorial radius = 6378 km, and x is the angle of latitude.
The latitude for London is 51.5072
2 * 3.14159 * 6378 * .32317138189 = 12950.8093977 km
divide that by 24 hours = 539.617058238 km/hr then add 1 millionth
It might be one of those countless stories we're told but aren't true. I can see the measurement of time not being accurate as a need for standardization, and how the train made that more of a necessity. And I can see how the story would inflate to the say that trains would arrive before they left, before I see your math as being incorrect. I see that a lot with etymology. In fact, the general rule of etymology is: if the story sounds good it's probably not accurate.
When you refer to it as a watch metaphor it's possible for something to be misinterpreted. When I say wearables I mean wearable CE, which includes headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I mean something worn on the arm that is very close proximity to the carpel bones of the wrist.
Apple use the watch as its starting point for wearables. I'm thinking that the watch as metaphor for wearables might have been the wrong thing to copy.
I think older people are the least likely to buy an ?Watch.
It is mostly younger people who seem to be more interested in fiddling with a thousand little buttons and settings on their device like the ones shown in this article.
Older people are more likely to identify with your signature (Tomato Greeting Card).
Apple use the watch as its starting point for wearables. I'm thinking that the watch as metaphor for wearables might have been the wrong thing to copy.
The outside of the wrist is brilliant place for wearables which is clearly why watchmakers adopted it long ago. Even as wearables evolve I would imagine that the most powerful devices will be around the wrist and I don't foresee Apple giving up the wrist even as it eventually expands wearables into other areas of your person.
The outside of the wrist is brilliant place for wearables which is clearly why watchmakers adopted it long ago. Even as wearables evolve I would imagine that the most powerful devices will be around the wrist and I don't foresee Apple giving up the wrist even as it eventually expands wearables into other areas of your person.
And what about my comment made you assume that I think that anything worn on the wrist can only equal a watch? I believe i have been quite clear in my terminology.
To put it another way, I'm the one here who is for ?Watch, which is not a watch, but, as I have stated countless times both wrist-worn CE device and wearable CE, whereas you're the one that doesn't think the wrist is a viable place for anything other than a watch, and certainly not ?Watch.
I think older people are the least likely to buy an ?Watch.
It is mostly younger people who seem to be more interested in fiddling with a thousand little buttons and settings on their device like the ones shown in this article.
Older people are more likely to identify with your signature (Tomato Greeting Card).
Clumsily, I was trying to make the point that if you have a relative or loved one who is older or impaired, you might buy and setup the Apple Watch for them -- for their safety, well-being and your peace of mind.
I am the oldest ... so that doesn't apply for me.
We live in an upper middle-class area ... My granddaughter drives, works and attends a community college. My two grandsons attend high school.
Periodically, each will get into potentially dangerous situations, e.g, the high school was locked-down yesterday ...
Basically, it's dangerous out there.
With the Apple Watch, an app will be able to detect [at the very least] an irregular pulse -- and through the paired iPhone alert the family ...
And what about my comment made you assume that I think that anything worn on the wrist can only equal a watch? I believe i have been quite clear in my terminology.
To put it another way, I'm the one here who is for ?Watch, which is not a watch, but, as I have stated countless times both wrist-worn CE device and wearable CE, whereas you're the one that doesn't think the wrist is a viable place for anything other than a watch, and certainly not ?Watch.
WTF are you talking about?
The watch as metaphor means that although it isn't limited to being just a watch it still looks just like a watch.
You're the one that said that Apple won't give up the wrist... whereas I never said anything about Apple giving up the wrist... nor did I say anything about the wrist being a viable place for anything other than a watch.
The watch as metaphor means that although it isn't limited to being just a watch it still looks just like a watch.
You're the one that said that Apple won't give up the wrist... whereas I never said anything about Apple giving up the wrist... nor did I say anything about the wrist being a viable place for anything other than a watch.
You're really all over the place lately.
Re-read what you wrote to me, "Wrist does not have to equal watch." You wrote that right after saying I'm assuming. You also wrote, "I'm thinking that the watch as metaphor for wearables might have been the wrong thing to copy." the only thing they "copied" was the technological concept of a wearable device that attaches to the wrist, therefore you must feel the wrist is the wrong place for such technology, since everything else was designed from the ground up to be idealized for CE worn on the wrist. Surely you know there will be some similarities to other devices that are worn on one's person, especially the wrist, where it has to fit within a certain level of comfort. Are you expecting some radical design that looks like it's out of a cheesy Sci-FI movie? I never was. I was always expecting something that was bordering on being jewelry, just like modern watches.
Perhaps if you started using concrete terms instead of what you define as "figures of speech" your words wouldn't be misinterpreted, but I think you're using the term metaphor because you still (just like many others) don't have a solid grasp of what ?Watch is, how wrist-worn electronic devices, or wearable CE are the next major step in technology.
Is the watch metaphor even the product that will make the wearables market big?
Forget about chips. Forget about watches. Think about the product that would increase convenience in your life. Is it even a watch?
The thing is about a 'wrist worn device' is that it is very accessible, easy to put on and take off and it is relatively discreet. What other kind of out of the box wearable were you thinking of? For me, what would make a wearable increase the convenience in my life, looking forward, would probably be health related. It doesn't have to be on my wrist but anywhere else would be a pain. And on my wrist I can get so many other benefits (Solips mentioned a ton of them).
The thing is about a 'wrist worn device' is that it is very accessible, easy to put on and take off and it is relatively discreet.
I never imagined I would have to detail why the wrist is such an ideal place for something out of the way that is instantly accessible for viewing and touching, with and without looking directly at it to operate, all while doing other tasks. I'm not subtle referring to [@]island hermit[/@] in that previous sentence, but a great number of people that left the watch years ago when they got their cellphone, yet still don't see how the wrist is still such an ideal location for wearable CE.
Re-read what you wrote to me, "Wrist does not have to equal watch." You wrote that right after saying I'm assuming. You also wrote, "I'm thinking that the watch as metaphor for wearables might have been the wrong thing to copy." the only thing they "copied" was the technological concept of a wearable device that attaches to the wrist, therefore you must feel the wrist is the wrong place for such technology, since everything else was designed from the ground up to be idealized for CE worn on the wrist. Surely you know there will be some similarities to other devices that are worn on one's person, especially the wrist, where it has to fit within a certain level of comfort. Are you expecting some radical design that looks like it's out of a cheesy Sci-FI movie? I never was. I was always expecting something that was bordering on being jewelry, just like modern watches.
Perhaps if you started using concrete terms instead of what you define as "figures of speech" your words wouldn't be misinterpreted, but I think you're using the term metaphor because you still (just like many others) don't have a solid grasp of what ?Watch is, how wrist-worn electronic devices, or wearable CE are the next major step in technology.
Of course, you seem to be forgetting this your interpretation of what I said is just an opinion. Not solid fact... or anything close to it. That you don't get what I am saying is of no concern to me. It seems that you believe that everyone has misinterpreted what I am saying but we don't know if that's the case. Your position is no more valid to me than any other member. Please don't forget that.
You also forget that my life doesn't hinge upon agreeing with you or you with me, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.
Also, you still don't seem to grasp that I was asking questions. You seem to have forgotten what a question means. You jump form conclusion to conclusion to conclusion with no solid basis for your assumptions. My favorite from this last post is the part about "cheesy sci-fi movie. Why does it have to be cheesy? Was the first mac cheesy? Was the iMac cheesy? I suppose you think the Cube was cheesy.
If I knew what the design was supposed to be I wouldn't be sitting here typing crap to strangers... but I can have an opinion as to whether or not I believe that a certain design or implementation is the right way to go about it or the wrong way to go about it. It is my opinion.
Of course, you seem to be forgetting this your interpretation of what I said is just an opinion. Not solid fact... or anything close to it.
When you define your concept as a metaphor you are forcing me to make interpretations. The only reasons I see people doing that is because they can try to wiggle out of their comments later (the intelligent troll) or those that don't really have a good foundation for their argument in the first place (clearly this is where I think your comment fall). There should be zero ambiguity with what I'm stating. When I say wearable electronic, I literally mean wearable electronics, which include headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I literally mean a device worn on the wrist.
I would definitely prefer if your language changed to remove the metaphor from the conversation entirely.
If I knew what the design was supposed to be I wouldn't be sitting here typing crap to strangers... but I can have an opinion as to whether or not I believe that a certain design or implementation is the right way to go about it or the wrong way to go about it. It is my opinion.
Knowing how something should be completed and being able to do all the streps to get it completely are very different things. ?Pay is how I thought it should be designed, but I would never be able to make that happen… so here I am posting crap to strangers. Or take a trainer v. trainee.
I ran across a cool app some time ago called "Bump." It allows 2 iPhone users to connect directly to share contact information. While cool, it always seemed clumsy to notice someone had an iPhone, ask if they had "Bump" then start fiddling etc etc.
With Apple Watch, you can see it on their wrist. "Hey, let me send you my contact info" Tap to the app and done. If native to the Apple Watch (no need to ask if the other person has the app) I can see it being a popular feature.
The thing is about a 'wrist worn device' is that it is very accessible, easy to put on and take off and it is relatively discreet. What other kind of out of the box wearable were you thinking of? For me, what would make a wearable increase the convenience in my life, looking forward, would probably be health related. It doesn't have to be on my wrist but anywhere else would be a pain. And on my wrist I can get so many other benefits (Solips mentioned a ton of them).
If I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be sitting where I am... I just know in my heart that at some point in the future wearing a device on the wrist will be old technology. The wrist became a convenient place to put a watch when that technology became available. Prior to that the wrist hadn't been used for much over a period of thousands of years. The idea of a watch on the wrist was very novel and a perfect solution to keep both hands on the job while still being able to tell the time.
I already mentioned my thoughts on convenient technology in another comment. Having something attached to my wrist, something I still have to use my hands to interact, something that I have to take off to recharge etc. is not outside of the box thinking. Like my car fob in my pocket, I want something that disappears. The watch face in my opinion doesn't disappear... it's an old technology that was used for another purpose. I think we're pretty much tied to it for a while... just as we have been tied to 4 wheels and an engine for much too long a period. Sometimes we're stuck with a certain technology because of technical limitations, sometimes by infrastructure, sometimes by corporate mentality and sometimes by all three combined.
As a society we're getting more and more used to seeing people talking to themselves, so maybe voice activated technology enhanced by a smart city infrastructure will be the future. (ie. Your standing on a corner, all you have to say is "transit" and the device on your person will talk to you giving you gps type instructions and times for the various choices) [don't jump on this... it's just a quick thought]
Comments
I want the Apple Watch Home Screen on every Screen that I own -- from TV down to the Watch!
Someone here has that in his sig.
I want Apple in my living room up on my wall.
Not on my wrist.
That's where I would have liked to see Apple go first... into my home.
My Wife's iPhone is connected to our car's BT. I always like it when I'm sitting in the car waiting for her and then suddenly, on the screen, it announces that her iPhone is now connected. I know she's only a few feet away.
I want my home to know when I'm around. I want my car and my home to ask me questions, answer my questions... and I'm really tired of having to plug shit in all the time. lol
I'm a lazy f*cker. What can I say. If you're going to make products that are supposed to increase my convenience then don't make them inconvenient.
I WANT MINE YESTERDAY !!!!!!!
Developers are under NDA -- so I can't discuss that here. If you are an iOS developer, go on the WatchKit forum and read through the posts regarding refreshing or reloading a table displayed on the Watch.
It's my inference that a max of 2 meters is required for operation because of battery drain. Certainly, the Watch could detect you were going beyond 2 meters and alert you to get closer to the paired iPhone.
As to a boost device, I don't think Apple wants any interception, retransmission or boosting of the communication between the Watch and it's paired iPhone.
As I've stated before, I have most of the iBeacons (including the Tile Key-Tags) -- and they are not that good at finding things more than 4 or 5 meters away.
Pinging an iPhone with Find My Phone is easier (if the iPhone has power).
Fair 'nuff. Soon all will be revealed. When do we think an Apple Event will be? If Tim ships at the end of April, then perhaps as late as mid April. Two weeks ahead of them showing up for pre-order or in Apple Stores? Perhaps an Apple Event as soon as this month (February)?
But you know...there are Apple Watches being Tested In The Wild(tm). I wonder if you could ask someone you run into "hey. how far away from your iPhone can you be and it still work?" (and yes, you can ask, but the wearer might be under an NDA and not answer....)
When you refer to it as a watch metaphor it's possible for something to be misinterpreted. When I say wearables I mean wearable CE, which includes headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I mean something worn on the arm that is very close proximity to the carpel bones of the wrist.
It might be one of those countless stories we're told but aren't true. I can see the measurement of time not being accurate as a need for standardization, and how the train made that more of a necessity. And I can see how the story would inflate to the say that trains would arrive before they left, before I see your math as being incorrect. I see that a lot with etymology. In fact, the general rule of etymology is: if the story sounds good it's probably not accurate.
When you refer to it as a watch metaphor it's possible for something to be misinterpreted. When I say wearables I mean wearable CE, which includes headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I mean something worn on the arm that is very close proximity to the carpel bones of the wrist.
Apple use the watch as its starting point for wearables. I'm thinking that the watch as metaphor for wearables might have been the wrong thing to copy.
~ 25% of the US population is age 55 and over.
I think older people are the least likely to buy an ?Watch.
It is mostly younger people who seem to be more interested in fiddling with a thousand little buttons and settings on their device like the ones shown in this article.
Older people are more likely to identify with your signature (Tomato Greeting Card).
The outside of the wrist is brilliant place for wearables which is clearly why watchmakers adopted it long ago. Even as wearables evolve I would imagine that the most powerful devices will be around the wrist and I don't foresee Apple giving up the wrist even as it eventually expands wearables into other areas of your person.
The outside of the wrist is brilliant place for wearables which is clearly why watchmakers adopted it long ago. Even as wearables evolve I would imagine that the most powerful devices will be around the wrist and I don't foresee Apple giving up the wrist even as it eventually expands wearables into other areas of your person.
There you go assuming again.
Wrist does not have to equal watch.
And what about my comment made you assume that I think that anything worn on the wrist can only equal a watch? I believe i have been quite clear in my terminology.
To put it another way, I'm the one here who is for ?Watch, which is not a watch, but, as I have stated countless times both wrist-worn CE device and wearable CE, whereas you're the one that doesn't think the wrist is a viable place for anything other than a watch, and certainly not ?Watch.
Clumsily, I was trying to make the point that if you have a relative or loved one who is older or impaired, you might buy and setup the Apple Watch for them -- for their safety, well-being and your peace of mind.
I am the oldest ... so that doesn't apply for me.
We live in an upper middle-class area ... My granddaughter drives, works and attends a community college. My two grandsons attend high school.
Periodically, each will get into potentially dangerous situations, e.g, the high school was locked-down yesterday ...
Basically, it's dangerous out there.
With the Apple Watch, an app will be able to detect [at the very least] an irregular pulse -- and through the paired iPhone alert the family ...
I can't put a price on that!
And what about my comment made you assume that I think that anything worn on the wrist can only equal a watch? I believe i have been quite clear in my terminology.
To put it another way, I'm the one here who is for ?Watch, which is not a watch, but, as I have stated countless times both wrist-worn CE device and wearable CE, whereas you're the one that doesn't think the wrist is a viable place for anything other than a watch, and certainly not ?Watch.
WTF are you talking about?
The watch as metaphor means that although it isn't limited to being just a watch it still looks just like a watch.
You're the one that said that Apple won't give up the wrist... whereas I never said anything about Apple giving up the wrist... nor did I say anything about the wrist being a viable place for anything other than a watch.
You're really all over the place lately.
Re-read what you wrote to me, "Wrist does not have to equal watch." You wrote that right after saying I'm assuming. You also wrote, "I'm thinking that the watch as metaphor for wearables might have been the wrong thing to copy." the only thing they "copied" was the technological concept of a wearable device that attaches to the wrist, therefore you must feel the wrist is the wrong place for such technology, since everything else was designed from the ground up to be idealized for CE worn on the wrist. Surely you know there will be some similarities to other devices that are worn on one's person, especially the wrist, where it has to fit within a certain level of comfort. Are you expecting some radical design that looks like it's out of a cheesy Sci-FI movie? I never was. I was always expecting something that was bordering on being jewelry, just like modern watches.
Perhaps if you started using concrete terms instead of what you define as "figures of speech" your words wouldn't be misinterpreted, but I think you're using the term metaphor because you still (just like many others) don't have a solid grasp of what ?Watch is, how wrist-worn electronic devices, or wearable CE are the next major step in technology.
You're not getting what I said.
Is the watch metaphor even the product that will make the wearables market big?
Forget about chips. Forget about watches. Think about the product that would increase convenience in your life. Is it even a watch?
The thing is about a 'wrist worn device' is that it is very accessible, easy to put on and take off and it is relatively discreet. What other kind of out of the box wearable were you thinking of? For me, what would make a wearable increase the convenience in my life, looking forward, would probably be health related. It doesn't have to be on my wrist but anywhere else would be a pain. And on my wrist I can get so many other benefits (Solips mentioned a ton of them).
I never imagined I would have to detail why the wrist is such an ideal place for something out of the way that is instantly accessible for viewing and touching, with and without looking directly at it to operate, all while doing other tasks. I'm not subtle referring to [@]island hermit[/@] in that previous sentence, but a great number of people that left the watch years ago when they got their cellphone, yet still don't see how the wrist is still such an ideal location for wearable CE.
Re-read what you wrote to me, "Wrist does not have to equal watch." You wrote that right after saying I'm assuming. You also wrote, "I'm thinking that the watch as metaphor for wearables might have been the wrong thing to copy." the only thing they "copied" was the technological concept of a wearable device that attaches to the wrist, therefore you must feel the wrist is the wrong place for such technology, since everything else was designed from the ground up to be idealized for CE worn on the wrist. Surely you know there will be some similarities to other devices that are worn on one's person, especially the wrist, where it has to fit within a certain level of comfort. Are you expecting some radical design that looks like it's out of a cheesy Sci-FI movie? I never was. I was always expecting something that was bordering on being jewelry, just like modern watches.
Perhaps if you started using concrete terms instead of what you define as "figures of speech" your words wouldn't be misinterpreted, but I think you're using the term metaphor because you still (just like many others) don't have a solid grasp of what ?Watch is, how wrist-worn electronic devices, or wearable CE are the next major step in technology.
Of course, you seem to be forgetting this your interpretation of what I said is just an opinion. Not solid fact... or anything close to it. That you don't get what I am saying is of no concern to me. It seems that you believe that everyone has misinterpreted what I am saying but we don't know if that's the case. Your position is no more valid to me than any other member. Please don't forget that.
You also forget that my life doesn't hinge upon agreeing with you or you with me, and my opinion is just as valid as yours.
Also, you still don't seem to grasp that I was asking questions. You seem to have forgotten what a question means. You jump form conclusion to conclusion to conclusion with no solid basis for your assumptions. My favorite from this last post is the part about "cheesy sci-fi movie. Why does it have to be cheesy? Was the first mac cheesy? Was the iMac cheesy? I suppose you think the Cube was cheesy.
If I knew what the design was supposed to be I wouldn't be sitting here typing crap to strangers... but I can have an opinion as to whether or not I believe that a certain design or implementation is the right way to go about it or the wrong way to go about it. It is my opinion.
When you define your concept as a metaphor you are forcing me to make interpretations. The only reasons I see people doing that is because they can try to wiggle out of their comments later (the intelligent troll) or those that don't really have a good foundation for their argument in the first place (clearly this is where I think your comment fall). There should be zero ambiguity with what I'm stating. When I say wearable electronic, I literally mean wearable electronics, which include headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I literally mean a device worn on the wrist.
I would definitely prefer if your language changed to remove the metaphor from the conversation entirely.
Knowing how something should be completed and being able to do all the streps to get it completely are very different things. ?Pay is how I thought it should be designed, but I would never be able to make that happen… so here I am posting crap to strangers. Or take a trainer v. trainee.
Getting away from some of the angst...
I ran across a cool app some time ago called "Bump." It allows 2 iPhone users to connect directly to share contact information. While cool, it always seemed clumsy to notice someone had an iPhone, ask if they had "Bump" then start fiddling etc etc.
With Apple Watch, you can see it on their wrist. "Hey, let me send you my contact info" Tap to the app and done. If native to the Apple Watch (no need to ask if the other person has the app) I can see it being a popular feature.
The thing is about a 'wrist worn device' is that it is very accessible, easy to put on and take off and it is relatively discreet. What other kind of out of the box wearable were you thinking of? For me, what would make a wearable increase the convenience in my life, looking forward, would probably be health related. It doesn't have to be on my wrist but anywhere else would be a pain. And on my wrist I can get so many other benefits (Solips mentioned a ton of them).
If I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be sitting where I am... I just know in my heart that at some point in the future wearing a device on the wrist will be old technology. The wrist became a convenient place to put a watch when that technology became available. Prior to that the wrist hadn't been used for much over a period of thousands of years. The idea of a watch on the wrist was very novel and a perfect solution to keep both hands on the job while still being able to tell the time.
I already mentioned my thoughts on convenient technology in another comment. Having something attached to my wrist, something I still have to use my hands to interact, something that I have to take off to recharge etc. is not outside of the box thinking. Like my car fob in my pocket, I want something that disappears. The watch face in my opinion doesn't disappear... it's an old technology that was used for another purpose. I think we're pretty much tied to it for a while... just as we have been tied to 4 wheels and an engine for much too long a period. Sometimes we're stuck with a certain technology because of technical limitations, sometimes by infrastructure, sometimes by corporate mentality and sometimes by all three combined.
As a society we're getting more and more used to seeing people talking to themselves, so maybe voice activated technology enhanced by a smart city infrastructure will be the future. (ie. Your standing on a corner, all you have to say is "transit" and the device on your person will talk to you giving you gps type instructions and times for the various choices) [don't jump on this... it's just a quick thought]