Taking a phone call can reduce the battery life to 3 hours?
This would be ridiculous! This seems like something Samsung would do: throw in the kitchen sink, regardless of its effect on usability, and let the punters deal with the consequences.
This watch should have been much simpler, I fear. I'm parroting that mantra largely from other people who've said it. There've been so many.
Adding to the panacea of call me underwhelmed. And that they're offering a $13,000 watch that as others have pointed out will be obsolete in a year or two. good grief.
There's a tremendous amount of potential for wrist devices, but most of the technology that's required to build it isn't actually on the watch, but rather off of it. Imagine a device that, much like many Seiko watches, charges itself through your body movement. It could, like a fitbit, detect if it's on your person (and hasn't been removed). Imagine something like Disney's Magic band tech, except rather than tying you to one unique identity, it would allow you to automatically create identities for each interaction and then allow you to control what personal information is connected to that identity, and account for how and when that personal information is used. That's where the bulk of the tech would be required - an identity service that is biometrically tied to your body, but allows you to control how you're identified (allowing you to manage all your identities, whether they're on the internet, offline at a store, at a bank, etc). This is the kinda killer app that could revolutionize business and even government (ie use your watch to sign agreements with a public key, share your personal information and track how its used, so much more).
Instead, we get a watch where you can change the face, maybe see your text messages or emails, ie things that others have done and no real innovation, and certainly not worth $500 to the vast majority of people (considering you can get an iPhone that does all these things for less than that). The apple Watch is going to flop, and flop hard. There is no way it'll sell 15 million units in the first year. I'll take that bet that if it does, I'll delete my account and shut my mouth about Apple (not just for 1 month, but permanently).
Apple, I've been a fan for a very long time, but this is just sad.
The device you describe sounds pretty awesome - and maybe we'll get there in a few years. I just finished watching (again) the 2007 introduction of the original iPhone. Not just the 3 minute highlight clip - the entire keynote. I didn't become an iPhone user until the 3GS came out and I certainly remember what passed for a "smart" phone before the iPhone.
What surprised me most about the video was not the contrast between "the original iPhone and what came before it" from the incumbent smartphone manufacturers - (which we all know was a dramatic difference.) It was the contrast between the original iPhone and today's iPhone 6! Despite an annual cycle of complaints that each new version of the iPhone "lacked innovation" or consisted of only incremental improvements, I find that the differences between the original iPhone and today's iPhone to be every bit as dramatic as the differences between the original iPhone and what came before it.
So - having said all that - remember that the Apple Watch is a first gen product and that there will be countless updtes and improvements to it over the coming years. I think it's entirely possoble that it will in fact evolve into the device you describe.
I don't think that a permanent ban is warranted over an incorrect prediction - but I'll take you're bet if we make it a self-ban for a month. For the sake of the bet, I'll say they sell over 20 million of them in the 12 months following it's release. (I actually think they'll sell more than 40 million - but not strongly enough to "bet" based on that number!)
20 million I would consider a triumph.
I think they won't reach 10 million in the first year.
Battery replacement is fine with me and in line with all other battery replacement programs.
Still I have not understood the edition. For a short lived gadget it quite expensive and we have read the arguments comparing mechanical watches of the same price, in that after some years you have the same timeless built quality vs. an outdated electronic brick.
Even a lifetime or whatever replacement of the guts would not cut it, as such clientele IMO is careful to make sure that their watch is not mistaken by the older model, which would be impossible to discern from the outside. So replacing all the watch for a number of gen included? Again doubtful, as a) Apple wants to earn money on selling watches, not the guts, and second, because if you buy it as a precious piece of jewelry you do not want this to be exchangeable, but personal and grow affected to it.
In the end, really for those who can spare the 10k for a gadget every two 2yrs or so?
Battery replacement is fine with me and in line with all other battery replacement programs.
Still I have not understood the edition. For a short lived gadget it quite expensive and we have read the arguments comparing mechanical watches of the same price, in that after some years you have the same timeless built quality vs. an outdated electronic brick.
Even a lifetime or whatever replacement of the guts would not cut it, as such clientele IMO is careful to make sure that their watch is not mistaken by the older model, which would be impossible to discern from the outside. So replacing all the watch for a number of gen included? Again doubtful, as a) Apple wants to earn money on selling watches, not the guts, and second, because if you buy it as a precious piece of jewelry you do not want this to be exchangeable, but personal and grow affected to it.
In the end, really for those who can spare the 10k for a gadget every two 2yrs or so?
Narrow-minded, presumptuous and contradictory!
Apple wants to earn money selling watches, not guts? How do you know that? Some might consider the guts to BE the watch and the casing and bands/straps to be 2 additional lines of accessories. Regardless, I don't think you really know what Apple wants better than anyone else.
In one paragraph, you state that the upgraded watch would be a problem because people would mistake it for the old version - and in the next paragraph you say people want to buy something they can "grow affected to". Much of the watches functionality will be provided by the paired iPhone - so even without replaceable guts, the interface and functionality will change and evolve - why not provide the option to boost the processor speed of the device, take advantage of improved battery technology and/or new and improved sensors through a guts replacement?
Finally - there are dozens if not hundreds of different reasons/motives people will have for buying the cheap and expensive versions of these watches. It's narrow-minded to imply there are only a few "types" of people who will buy them and that you know their reasons for doing so - especially when you yourself don't seem to belong to any classification of purchaser.
Whew. That's a tough one. I hope you're right, but my gut instinct is that it will get thinner and thinner every year.
I doubt it. The reason those timepieces stay the same size is because they have moving physical parts, and can only be made so smaller. Electronics on the other hand have historically gotten smaller. The Watch will get thinner just like the iPhone, and iPad did.
I doubt it. The reason those timepieces stay the same size is because they have moving physical parts, and can only be made so smaller. Electronics on the other hand have historically gotten smaller. The Watch will get thinner just like the iPhone, and iPad did.
I like this line by [@]Corrections[/@]: "And the fact that Apple implemented this technology on a state-of-the-art micro-scale of electron gates measured in nanometers, rather than using mechanical parts measured in 18th century increments of archaic ligne, is to me a positive, not a negative."
There really is an entire new world being opened up here.
PS: I'll say it again, I think the wrist worn device could get a larger footprint while getting thinner and lighter. That's because the wrist-worn device will finally become a much more useful place for monitoring and connecting.
I like this line by [@]Corrections[/@]: "And the fact that Apple implemented this technology on a state-of-the-art micro-scale of electron gates measured in nanometers, rather than using mechanical parts measured in 18th century increments of archaic ligne, is to me a positive, not a negative."
There really is an entirely new world being opened up here.
PS: I'll say it again, I think the wrist worn device could get a larger footprint while getting thinner and lighter. That's because the wrist-worn device will finally become a much more useful place for monitoring and connecting.
What Apple has done is wondrous, and they've built a new world for themselves. I just don't see anyone having the money, the people, and the knowhow to compete with them. Unless they come up with a feature, or function that will differentiate them from the Watch, they'll only be able to make a crippled 'me too' device.
I doubt it. The reason those timepieces stay the same size is because they have moving physical parts, and can only be made so smaller. Electronics on the other hand have historically gotten smaller. The Watch will get thinner just like the iPhone, and iPad did.
Comments
Why stop there? Maybe longer like the Apple TV.
I've heard that it will cost $349 to replace the battery.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Taking a phone call can reduce the battery life to 3 hours?
This would be ridiculous! This seems like something Samsung would do: throw in the kitchen sink, regardless of its effect on usability, and let the punters deal with the consequences.
This watch should have been much simpler, I fear. I'm parroting that mantra largely from other people who've said it. There've been so many.
Adding to the panacea of call me underwhelmed. And that they're offering a $13,000 watch that as others have pointed out will be obsolete in a year or two. good grief.
There's a tremendous amount of potential for wrist devices, but most of the technology that's required to build it isn't actually on the watch, but rather off of it. Imagine a device that, much like many Seiko watches, charges itself through your body movement. It could, like a fitbit, detect if it's on your person (and hasn't been removed). Imagine something like Disney's Magic band tech, except rather than tying you to one unique identity, it would allow you to automatically create identities for each interaction and then allow you to control what personal information is connected to that identity, and account for how and when that personal information is used. That's where the bulk of the tech would be required - an identity service that is biometrically tied to your body, but allows you to control how you're identified (allowing you to manage all your identities, whether they're on the internet, offline at a store, at a bank, etc). This is the kinda killer app that could revolutionize business and even government (ie use your watch to sign agreements with a public key, share your personal information and track how its used, so much more).
Instead, we get a watch where you can change the face, maybe see your text messages or emails, ie things that others have done and no real innovation, and certainly not worth $500 to the vast majority of people (considering you can get an iPhone that does all these things for less than that). The apple Watch is going to flop, and flop hard. There is no way it'll sell 15 million units in the first year. I'll take that bet that if it does, I'll delete my account and shut my mouth about Apple (not just for 1 month, but permanently).
Apple, I've been a fan for a very long time, but this is just sad.
The device you describe sounds pretty awesome - and maybe we'll get there in a few years. I just finished watching (again) the 2007 introduction of the original iPhone. Not just the 3 minute highlight clip - the entire keynote. I didn't become an iPhone user until the 3GS came out and I certainly remember what passed for a "smart" phone before the iPhone.
What surprised me most about the video was not the contrast between "the original iPhone and what came before it" from the incumbent smartphone manufacturers - (which we all know was a dramatic difference.) It was the contrast between the original iPhone and today's iPhone 6! Despite an annual cycle of complaints that each new version of the iPhone "lacked innovation" or consisted of only incremental improvements, I find that the differences between the original iPhone and today's iPhone to be every bit as dramatic as the differences between the original iPhone and what came before it.
So - having said all that - remember that the Apple Watch is a first gen product and that there will be countless updtes and improvements to it over the coming years. I think it's entirely possoble that it will in fact evolve into the device you describe.
I don't think that a permanent ban is warranted over an incorrect prediction - but I'll take you're bet if we make it a self-ban for a month. For the sake of the bet, I'll say they sell over 20 million of them in the 12 months following it's release. (I actually think they'll sell more than 40 million - but not strongly enough to "bet" based on that number!)
20 million I would consider a triumph.
I think they won't reach 10 million in the first year.
10 million would be about 1 watch for every 500 compatible iPhones. My 20 million prediction would be 1 watch for every 250 iPhones.
Never say never. The apple iie was upgradable to the gs with an official Apple motherboard swap. Half the readers here may have not been born yet.
And not to forget the updates from 128K Mac to 512K and then to 512Ke, both of which I went through ;-)
Battery replacement is fine with me and in line with all other battery replacement programs.
Still I have not understood the edition. For a short lived gadget it quite expensive and we have read the arguments comparing mechanical watches of the same price, in that after some years you have the same timeless built quality vs. an outdated electronic brick.
Even a lifetime or whatever replacement of the guts would not cut it, as such clientele IMO is careful to make sure that their watch is not mistaken by the older model, which would be impossible to discern from the outside. So replacing all the watch for a number of gen included? Again doubtful, as a) Apple wants to earn money on selling watches, not the guts, and second, because if you buy it as a precious piece of jewelry you do not want this to be exchangeable, but personal and grow affected to it.
In the end, really for those who can spare the 10k for a gadget every two 2yrs or so?
Narrow-minded, presumptuous and contradictory!
Apple wants to earn money selling watches, not guts? How do you know that? Some might consider the guts to BE the watch and the casing and bands/straps to be 2 additional lines of accessories. Regardless, I don't think you really know what Apple wants better than anyone else.
In one paragraph, you state that the upgraded watch would be a problem because people would mistake it for the old version - and in the next paragraph you say people want to buy something they can "grow affected to". Much of the watches functionality will be provided by the paired iPhone - so even without replaceable guts, the interface and functionality will change and evolve - why not provide the option to boost the processor speed of the device, take advantage of improved battery technology and/or new and improved sensors through a guts replacement?
Finally - there are dozens if not hundreds of different reasons/motives people will have for buying the cheap and expensive versions of these watches. It's narrow-minded to imply there are only a few "types" of people who will buy them and that you know their reasons for doing so - especially when you yourself don't seem to belong to any classification of purchaser.
It's possible that Apple could make the ?Watch smaller and smaller every few years as technology advances.
But remember: Rolex, Omega, and TAG Heuer, for example, never slim down their flagship watch models.
Doing so would obsolete the Rolex you bought in 2012, and that obsolescence would hurt sales.
If Apple wants to break into the high-end watch market for the long run, they'll keep the ?Watch design as-is.
I think it's quite possible that the ?Watch will remain the same size for decades. Just with longer battery life.
Because the processing power is really all in your iPhone anyway and the Retina screen can stay as-is.
The limiting factor in how long a 2015 ?Watch will last just might be the lifetime of the OLED screen.
Whew. That's a tough one. I hope you're right, but my gut instinct is that it will get thinner and thinner every year.
I doubt it. The reason those timepieces stay the same size is because they have moving physical parts, and can only be made so smaller. Electronics on the other hand have historically gotten smaller. The Watch will get thinner just like the iPhone, and iPad did.
I like this line by [@]Corrections[/@]: "And the fact that Apple implemented this technology on a state-of-the-art micro-scale of electron gates measured in nanometers, rather than using mechanical parts measured in 18th century increments of archaic ligne, is to me a positive, not a negative."
There really is an entire new world being opened up here.
PS: I'll say it again, I think the wrist worn device could get a larger footprint while getting thinner and lighter. That's because the wrist-worn device will finally become a much more useful place for monitoring and connecting.
What Apple has done is wondrous, and they've built a new world for themselves. I just don't see anyone having the money, the people, and the knowhow to compete with them. Unless they come up with a feature, or function that will differentiate them from the Watch, they'll only be able to make a crippled 'me too' device.
Isn't that what I said?
Yes it is. I was also referring to what the OP said about mechanical watches.