One thing that strikes about Pebble Time is the "up to 7 days" battery life. Being an eInk display it's certainly more power efficient than an LCD or OLED, but how much of that efficiency falls away when you start using the display. The more active use you have with Pebble Time in your daily routine the less time the battery will last. The same is also true for ?Watch, but certainly less so since the display will have to be on to be used and that usage is more likely being considered. It'll be interesting to get some comparisons in real world usage in the coming months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Where did you see one? I wasn't aware it was available yet.
You can see it being worn and interacted with in their video, which is enough for each of us to make that determination. That said, I don't think it looks huge at all. In fact, it looks thinner than ?Watch, as well as looks like the best Pebble they've ever built.
I have to say, I'm not going to buy a Pebble. I still find it ugly. But it looks kind of cute, and makes me wonder if e-ink ePaper (thanks Solip) wouldn't have been a good trade-off for Apple to make. It also looks smaller, which is a good thing.
I guess we'll see in a couple of months, if Apple are still on track.
I have to say, I'm not going to buy a Pebble. I still find it ugly. But it looks kind of cute, and makes me wonder if e-ink wouldn't have been a good trade-off for Apple to make. It also looks smaller, which is a good thing.
I guess we'll see in a couple of months, if Apple are still on track.
I have to say, I'm not going to buy a Pebble. I still find it ugly. But it looks kind of cute, and makes me wonder if e-ink wouldn't have been a good trade-off for Apple to make. It also looks smaller, which is a good thing.
I guess we'll see in a couple of months, if Apple are still on track.
Please explain how it can be ugly, and cute.
Come, come, now. Many things can be ugly but cute! Your pet dog?
I also wouldn't count on the $350 Applewatch being a particularly decent product. Apple is known for pretty much crippling the entry point product to make the price point they want to receive a more compelling and usable solution. The cheapest real usable AppleWatch will probably be $450-500.
In what way would be it crippled? Everything points to all devices having the exact same CE inside, with the only difference being the casing, display cover, and band. Do you really think it would use an SIP that had less RAM, a slower processor, etc? That just sounds like extra work for not benefit for the user, especially since a higher performing SIP will just use more power.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading about two different screen sizes as one example. I wasn't talking processor or ram for running applications but obviously Apple likes to play with storage options to change the price point. Apple has obviously used that often in the past. The materials themselves can fall within that usable solution though. The low end is aluminum and I don't know how rugged I would expect that to be because watches can be treated differently than phones. People don't buy cases to protect their watches while wearing them. Unless you want to have an ugly and chipped space gray watch pretty quick, I suspect the $500 stainless steel will be the low end with $350 being for the paupers who want to buy an Applewatch and watch it get scratched up.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading about two different screen sizes as one example.
Of course the display is 38mm on one and 42mm on the other, and the batteries for those devices will be different sizes, but you're comment wasn't about that aspect or you simply don't realize that there is a 42mm ?Watch Sport and a 38mm ?Watch Edition.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading about two different screen sizes as one example.
Of course the display is 38mm on one and 42mm on the other, and the batteries for those devices will be different sizes, but you're comment wasn't about that aspect or you simply don't realize that there is a 42mm ?Watch Sport and a 38mm ?Watch Edition.
I took your comment to mean that apple was only making one CE but the screens aren't the same resolution. You noted bigger battery for a bigger screen but to drive the bigger screen with the same level of performance will also demand more graphical performance which is again, more battery. The casing to hold that larger battery will need more material and we are discussing materials that are much more expensive than aluminum. Is Apple just going to give you 4 mm more of 18k Rose Gold for free?
You seem to imply that the screen sizes will cost the same. I'm skeptical of that claim. Likewise storage options are often used to demand a premium. I could see Apple charging more for both storage and screen size on top of materials for the case and band.
I took your comment to mean that apple was only making one CE but the screens aren't the same resolution. You noted bigger battery for a bigger screen but to drive the bigger screen with the same level of performance will also demand more graphical performance which is again, more battery. The casing to hold that larger battery will need more material and we are discussing materials that are much more expensive than aluminum. Is Apple just going to give you 4 mm more of 18k Rose Gold for free?
I suppose they could use a better GPU in the 42mm due to the higher resolution, but I am doubtful they will. I think the level of graphic performance required is quite low, as well as the difference between the number of pixels. I fully expect the S-series chip in each device to be exactly the same in both capabilities and dimensions.
You seem to imply that the screen sizes will cost the same. I'm skeptical of that claim.
I thought I made my position very clear that I think the 38mm will likely cost less than the 42mm for a given style, but perhaps that was in a different thread.
edit: Here is one mention of how I think the pricing might go in a response to [@]ClemyNX[/@] earlier today.
Likewise storage options are often used to demand a premium. I could see Apple charging more for both storage and screen size on top of materials for the case and band
They already are hitting the floor running with 34 different models. I do not expect them to also differentiate them by capacity. There will be enough for the OS, its apps, and some local storage, most of which will be for music when you work out so you can be detached from you bulkier iPhone.
One thing that strikes about Pebble Time is the "up to 7 days" battery life. Being an eInk display it's certainly more power efficient than an LCD or OLED
Pebble has said that they have an e-Paper display, not "eInk" which refers to a specific company. I don't think eInk with its Triton generation of eInk were ever able to make a decent color e-Reader. That's why Amazon went with LCD for its color Kindle. To be half way decent Pebble would have to go with something different, may be Mirasol as used in the QUALCOMM TOQ. If they can get 4 solid days of use out of this I certainly would be interested. The last thing I want to do have to worry about charging a watch when stuck late at night in an airport on a delay. I like the $199 starting price, but would pay $300 for a Pebble Steel Time watch.
Sorry about the trims but I suffer from lack of brevity. It's awesome that you are joining a club. Are you 40ish? Tri's, owning a GoPro and brewing some sort of beer seem to be mandatory to turn 40 nowadays. I am just getting ready to turn 45 and I was shocked when I saw the drop off in number of participants compared to the 40-44 crowd.
ConnectIQ and the amount of RAM you mentioned do indeed seem like sad jokes. Companies make mistakes like this and then wonder why Apple ends up being used even as a stop gap measure in instances where the marketleaders have bungled so badly. It is like back with the first iPhone not having video or MMS. People would rather find a workaround for such a more capable device with a future rather than deal with a best of class device by the old standard with such terrible limitations.
For the Tomtom, not much worth investigating with it. They are Nokia in my opinion. Good price points and good hardware but can't execute on software.
I'm of two minds on the Apple Watch with regard to competitors like Garmin and Suunto. Garmin and Suunto have gotten just about everything you can get out of a watch in terms of balancing battery life, durability, an array of sensors and gathering data with a few options. Like you note though they seem to be lacking on software platform, basic things like memory or access to data gathered, etc.
The we have the Android/Apple side of the equation. These are watches that have larger screens, terrible battery life in my opinion, they hold the promise of doing a lot more but no one is really sure how or why that will happen yet. They still sound like a solution looking for a problem. In order to be so open and capable, the trade-offs for now are terrible and might not get better. (battery life, lack of sensors, etc.)
My own view is Apple is still going about this wrong and the solution is closer to something like a good Garmin combined with a Pebble. Focused, capable and something that works with and enhances what your phone can provide.
I remember the first Apple TV which basically became a false start. It had a hard drive. It was trying to be a Mac on your TV. Apple scrapped it and gave us a more focused iOS based version that did less but did it better and was focused around streaming and wifi rather than storage and being a PC media hub. It also was a third of the size, a fourth of the weight and probably used a tenth of the power or less of the prior one.
People don't need an iPhone on their wrist. They need something on their wrist that is unique but might add value to what their phone can provide. A heart rate monitor, being water proof, being either a GPS unto itself or a hand off GPS for when you have to leave your phone behind are all great uses. I'm wondering if AppleWatch gen 2 might go more in this direction. If not Pebble certainly is heading that way and I hope they stick around.
I'm slightly older than you, and strangely do not belong to the home beer brewing / GoPro crowd (lol). I think it's amazing doing a tri is for all ages, we see really old people participating as well. Gives me hopes I can really kick this off and do it at any age.
I think you are spot on with the comparison between smart watches and (multi)sport watches. I sincerely hope Apple is going all out with the evolution of their watch, but somehow I think they'll want to keep focusing on the IOT as opposed to a multisport watch that can 'connect to the Internet better'. From what I've seen the Android wear isn't all that good, or at least nothing enticing about it for me.
I, too, look forward to see what Pebble is coming up with. Still, I look at Suunto and Garmin because right now they're still the only two brands worth following for my sport 'wants'.
Comments
One thing that strikes about Pebble Time is the "up to 7 days" battery life. Being an eInk display it's certainly more power efficient than an LCD or OLED, but how much of that efficiency falls away when you start using the display. The more active use you have with Pebble Time in your daily routine the less time the battery will last. The same is also true for ?Watch, but certainly less so since the display will have to be on to be used and that usage is more likely being considered. It'll be interesting to get some comparisons in real world usage in the coming months.
Where did you see one? I wasn't aware it was available yet.
You can see it being worn and interacted with in their video, which is enough for each of us to make that determination. That said, I don't think it looks huge at all. In fact, it looks thinner than ?Watch, as well as looks like the best Pebble they've ever built.
I have to say, I'm not going to buy a Pebble. I still find it ugly. But it looks kind of cute, and makes me wonder if e-ink ePaper (thanks Solip) wouldn't have been a good trade-off for Apple to make. It also looks smaller, which is a good thing.
I guess we'll see in a couple of months, if Apple are still on track.
Please explain how it can be ugly, and cute.
.
How about some other examples that fit that description?
I have to say, I'm not going to buy a Pebble. I still find it ugly. But it looks kind of cute, and makes me wonder if e-ink wouldn't have been a good trade-off for Apple to make. It also looks smaller, which is a good thing.
I guess we'll see in a couple of months, if Apple are still on track.
Please explain how it can be ugly, and cute.
Come, come, now. Many things can be ugly but cute! Your pet dog?
I also wouldn't count on the $350 Applewatch being a particularly decent product. Apple is known for pretty much crippling the entry point product to make the price point they want to receive a more compelling and usable solution. The cheapest real usable AppleWatch will probably be $450-500.
In what way would be it crippled? Everything points to all devices having the exact same CE inside, with the only difference being the casing, display cover, and band. Do you really think it would use an SIP that had less RAM, a slower processor, etc? That just sounds like extra work for not benefit for the user, especially since a higher performing SIP will just use more power.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading about two different screen sizes as one example. I wasn't talking processor or ram for running applications but obviously Apple likes to play with storage options to change the price point. Apple has obviously used that often in the past. The materials themselves can fall within that usable solution though. The low end is aluminum and I don't know how rugged I would expect that to be because watches can be treated differently than phones. People don't buy cases to protect their watches while wearing them. Unless you want to have an ugly and chipped space gray watch pretty quick, I suspect the $500 stainless steel will be the low end with $350 being for the paupers who want to buy an Applewatch and watch it get scratched up.
Of course the display is 38mm on one and 42mm on the other, and the batteries for those devices will be different sizes, but you're comment wasn't about that aspect or you simply don't realize that there is a 42mm ?Watch Sport and a 38mm ?Watch Edition.
I've met quite a few cute ugly girls in my life, but I don't ever remember thinking that about a inanimate object.
I'm pretty sure I remember reading about two different screen sizes as one example.
Of course the display is 38mm on one and 42mm on the other, and the batteries for those devices will be different sizes, but you're comment wasn't about that aspect or you simply don't realize that there is a 42mm ?Watch Sport and a 38mm ?Watch Edition.
I took your comment to mean that apple was only making one CE but the screens aren't the same resolution. You noted bigger battery for a bigger screen but to drive the bigger screen with the same level of performance will also demand more graphical performance which is again, more battery. The casing to hold that larger battery will need more material and we are discussing materials that are much more expensive than aluminum. Is Apple just going to give you 4 mm more of 18k Rose Gold for free?
You seem to imply that the screen sizes will cost the same. I'm skeptical of that claim. Likewise storage options are often used to demand a premium. I could see Apple charging more for both storage and screen size on top of materials for the case and band.
I suppose they could use a better GPU in the 42mm due to the higher resolution, but I am doubtful they will. I think the level of graphic performance required is quite low, as well as the difference between the number of pixels. I fully expect the S-series chip in each device to be exactly the same in both capabilities and dimensions.
I thought I made my position very clear that I think the 38mm will likely cost less than the 42mm for a given style, but perhaps that was in a different thread.
edit: Here is one mention of how I think the pricing might go in a response to [@]ClemyNX[/@] earlier today.
They already are hitting the floor running with 34 different models. I do not expect them to also differentiate them by capacity. There will be enough for the OS, its apps, and some local storage, most of which will be for music when you work out so you can be detached from you bulkier iPhone.
One thing that strikes about Pebble Time is the "up to 7 days" battery life. Being an eInk display it's certainly more power efficient than an LCD or OLED
Pebble has said that they have an e-Paper display, not "eInk" which refers to a specific company. I don't think eInk with its Triton generation of eInk were ever able to make a decent color e-Reader. That's why Amazon went with LCD for its color Kindle. To be half way decent Pebble would have to go with something different, may be Mirasol as used in the QUALCOMM TOQ. If they can get 4 solid days of use out of this I certainly would be interested. The last thing I want to do have to worry about charging a watch when stuck late at night in an airport on a delay. I like the $199 starting price, but would pay $300 for a Pebble Steel Time watch.
I'm slightly older than you, and strangely do not belong to the home beer brewing / GoPro crowd (lol). I think it's amazing doing a tri is for all ages, we see really old people participating as well. Gives me hopes I can really kick this off and do it at any age.
I think you are spot on with the comparison between smart watches and (multi)sport watches. I sincerely hope Apple is going all out with the evolution of their watch, but somehow I think they'll want to keep focusing on the IOT as opposed to a multisport watch that can 'connect to the Internet better'. From what I've seen the Android wear isn't all that good, or at least nothing enticing about it for me.
I, too, look forward to see what Pebble is coming up with. Still, I look at Suunto and Garmin because right now they're still the only two brands worth following for my sport 'wants'.
Anyway, good post; +1