"There’s virtually nothing I can’t do faster or better with access to a laptop or a phone except perhaps check the time."
Given that these were all tech people, it's unfortunate that they all thought it was a bit confusing to use, with a steep learning curve.
Without ever having used one myself, it seems reasonable what they say. For example, to send a text: click a button to bring up Contacts, then scroll through them using a Crown, then tapping a screen to chose Messages, and then talk into the watch to dictate the txt - four different interfaces for one action seems very un-Applesque. My laptop only has two interfaces: the trackpad and the keys; my iPhone has two; and the iPod had one. The Watch has three interfaces (and each of them has two functions), plus voice.
Someone has been interfering with Ive's vision. I can't think the second button was his idea. It was someone in the firm insisting that they have a button to encourage the use of Apple communication Apps rather than Facebook's.
I will buy one, but in the knowledge that it could have been so much better. It's like Star Wars Episode I, you go and see it but you know it won't be what you want it to be. And then Star Wars III gets there eventually....
I am sure I will get use to it and love it when I get a nudge when a txt arrives rather than my phone ding-donging it's arrival; or when I can stop carrying my phone around the house because I am waiting for an email. But I wish simpler would have been better.
Since Apple reportedly had to change direction in the middle of the river to get the initial version out (their medical focus on health-monitoring sensors got shot down by the FDA) I personally would expect the next gen Apple Watch to be a differently focused product which would probably include significant hardware changes.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that 2nd gen would be ready by this coming Spring if not earlier either.
But Phl Schiller is not Steve Jobs and Steve Dowling isn't Katie Cotton. Right now Apple's PR concern should be about getting as much positive press as possible. A friend texted me that the Today show LOVED the Watch. Maybe Apple needed more Today show and less Nilay Patel.
So you're saying that ONLY positive reviews should be allowed and no reviews that put the Apple Watch in it's place as "it's pretty but do we need it"? Seriously? If someone didn't like it and they review it they should be able to say that and everyone should be able to read it regardless of your blindness that Apple can only do perfect.
Most if not every review so far have all said almost exactly the same thing. The Apple watch is nice but slow and hard to use and do we really need it.
hey, thanks for taking my quote out of context and putting words in my mouth. What I actually wrote was this:
I was talking about the steel link bracelet. I don't care for it. I know it takes 9 hours to craft each one, and the engineering is fantastic, but it doesn't look as amazing as the engineering suggests it should, and I'm even giving it the benefit of the doubt until I see it in person. I've never said the watch itself looks cheap, or isn't attractive, though I don't think it photographs well.
not putting words in your mouth at all. you said that the apple watch (with link bracelet) looks like a cheap digital watch. it's what you've suggested for too many posts to count, often with a picture of some crappy cheap digital watch from the '80s. it's your message, your agenda to push that image. we get it.
I mentioned this before, a great hybrid would be a static e-ink watch face display with a transparent LCD display over, which offers everything the ?Watch display does when the power is activated.
anything you guys can think of and suggest would be better -- Apple has tried. guaranteed. they're better at this than you are. for whatever your idea doesn't work.
Honest question. What would you have done to make it much better, given the known constraints (e.g. battery technology, screen size, volume, etc)?
I am not very bright, not an Apple Head of Design, and I think it is unfair to ask me such a question. If I knew the answer to these questions, I'd be making $50 M a year, and not, well, less.
But some thoughts anyway:
- do away with the second button
- give Crown four modes: press (select App), ForceTouch (show menu for the App), roll (scroll through menu; or scroll through App if not preceded by ForceTouch), press again (select menu item). Plus double press (Apple Pay).
- set all Settings on the iPhone, including select and modify watch faces
The second button is only there to bring up Contacts (it has a second function of double click for Apple Pay, but there is no reason they cannot implement that in the Crown). I find it odd that Apple adds this seeming out of place button, breaking what otherwise could be a symmetrical aesthetic.
Do people actually call up a Contacts first, and ten decide how to communicate? Do people use the "Recents" feature on the iPhone (the row of Contacts that appears when you double click the Home button)?
I usually (well, always), decide on the mode of communication (Messages, FaceTime, phone, Skype, WhatsApp, etc.) open that particular App, and then select the Contact. But Apple seems to want to change this habit and getting me to select the Contact first. I assume it is to encourage the use of Apple Communications EcoSystem (there is no option to use WhatsApp once you are in Contacts).
Will they succeed or shall they do away with that awkward second button?
gruber's guess on why that button is there:
"Apple, as a company, is famously averse to extraneous hardware buttons. Sometimes they’re averse to useful hardware buttons (e.g. the mute switch/rotation lock that was removed from the latest iPads). Which makes the “side button” on Apple Watch all the more conspicuous. It serves other purposes — you double tap it to initiate an Apple Pay transaction, and you press it in conjunction with the digital crown to take a screenshot — but I don’t think this button would exist if not for the communication mode it invokes when you simply tap it. Apple thinks communication initiated from Apple Watch is important enough to justify that button. And I think that means digital touch."
I completely agree. I've hated the second pill-shaped button since I first saw it. That's about the only flaw I see in the otherwise brilliant case design.
yes, now only if you could actually use the device before deciding you hated parts of its UX...
I'll hold off as these are most of the comments from all the reviews.
"The Apple Watch ... is kind of slow." "Sometimes apps take forever to load, and sometimes third-party apps never really load at all. Sometimes it’s just unresponsive for a few seconds while it thinks and then it comes back." "It’s also surprisingly heavy." "[The] side button is extraordinarily confusing." "In the first of many moments where the Watch felt underpowered, I found that the screen lit up a couple of ticks too slowly: I’d raise my wrist, wait a beat, and then the screen would turn on." "Having a screen that constantly flips on and off is definitely behind the curve." "There’s no particularly great digital face, and there’s no ability to load up your own watch faces or buy new ones from the store." "There’s no master switch to turn all notifications on and off, which is a huge pain." "By the end of each day, I was hyper-aware of how low the Apple Watch battery had gotten." "You only get a charging cable, which is lame. For $700, you should a nice charging stand, like you get with the $249 Moto 360." "There’s virtually nothing I can’t do faster or better with access to a laptop or a phone except perhaps check the time."
how can he tap his friends and family better with a laptop, since a laptop can't send taptic feedback?
Since Apple reportedly had to change direction in the middle of the river to get the initial version out (their medical focus on health-monitoring sensors got shot down by the FDA) I personally would expect the next gen Apple Watch to be a differently focused product which would probably include significant hardware changes.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that 2nd gen would be ready by this coming Spring if not earlier either.
how strange - you're stating as fact something that is not a fact. Apple had to change course in its design for the watch because the FDA? please link to this press release or interview from Ive. thanks
I'm seeing on Twitter that people got review units last Wednesday. So they basically had a week or less to use the product, incorporate it into their daily lives and write a review. Is there a reason reviews needed to come out before the 10th? Why not the 15th or 22nd to give people more time with the device? Was it all about having reviews out before people could pre-order? I would have erred on the side of giving reviewers more time to live with the device.
I'm seeing on Twitter that people got review units last Wednesday. So they basically had a week or less to use the product, incorporate it into their daily lives and write a review. Is there a reason reviews needed to come out before the 10th? Why not the 15th or 22nd to give people more time with the device? Was it all about having reviews out before people could pre-order? I would have erred on the side of giving reviewers more time to live with the device.
I suppose it gives people enough time to compare reviews (I wouldn't rely on just one source) and think about possibly purchasing the watch. A good product will rise to the top and ultimately word-of-mouth is still the most powerful form of advertising.
Since Apple reportedly had to change direction in the middle of the river to get the initial version out (their medical focus on health-monitoring sensors got shot down by the FDA) I personally would expect the next gen Apple Watch to be a differently focused product which would probably include significant hardware changes.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that 2nd gen would be ready by this coming Spring if not earlier either.
"Most such wearables are considered low-risk "general wellness" devices meant to promote healthy lifestyles and as such won't require any FDA approval or regulation, the agency said in a draft guidance note.
Such products have "an intended use that relates to a maintaining or encouraging a general state of health or a healthy activity, or ... an intended use claim that associates the role of healthy lifestyle with helping to reduce the risk or impact of certain chronic diseases or conditions."
"However, any device that makes specific claims about treating a recognized disease or medical condition -- such as obesity -- would be subject to FDA regulation, since obesity is classified as a medical condition.
Any product claiming to treat conditions including obesity, anxiety, eating disorders or autism, especially if the claimed treatment presents some risks, will be considered a medical device subject to oversight, the FDA says.
Any device that is "invasive" or "involves an intervention or technology that may pose a risk to a user's safety if device controls are not applied, such as risks from lasers, radiation exposure, or implants," would be subject to approval and regulation"
There would be wide latitude in what sensor data Apple would be allowed to obtain, assuming that it isn't invasive, and that it wouldn't be used to treat disease or medical conditions.
"Apple, as a company, is famously averse to extraneous hardware buttons. Sometimes they’re averse to useful hardware buttons (e.g. the mute switch/rotation lock that was removed from the latest iPads). Which makes the “side button” on Apple Watch all the more conspicuous. It serves other purposes — you double tap it to initiate an Apple Pay transaction, and you press it in conjunction with the digital crown to take a screenshot — but I don’t think this button would exist if not for the communication mode it invokes when you simply tap it. Apple thinks communication initiated from Apple Watch is important enough to justify that button. And I think that means digital touch."
Right, that was also my assumption. Glad to hear I'm not alone. The question is, when you communicate do you select the contact first, or the App first? I think most people choose the app first. So Apple is trying to change our behaviour to make us use their apps.
And even more astonishing, they seem to be willing to give up their good looks for it.
Comments
That was very funny. Of course you can tone down the notifications.
"There’s no master switch to turn all notifications on and off, which is a huge pain."
So yes but no.
"[The] side button is extraordinarily confusing."
"There’s virtually nothing I can’t do faster or better with access to a laptop or a phone except perhaps check the time."
Given that these were all tech people, it's unfortunate that they all thought it was a bit confusing to use, with a steep learning curve.
Without ever having used one myself, it seems reasonable what they say. For example, to send a text: click a button to bring up Contacts, then scroll through them using a Crown, then tapping a screen to chose Messages, and then talk into the watch to dictate the txt - four different interfaces for one action seems very un-Applesque. My laptop only has two interfaces: the trackpad and the keys; my iPhone has two; and the iPod had one. The Watch has three interfaces (and each of them has two functions), plus voice.
Someone has been interfering with Ive's vision. I can't think the second button was his idea. It was someone in the firm insisting that they have a button to encourage the use of Apple communication Apps rather than Facebook's.
I will buy one, but in the knowledge that it could have been so much better. It's like Star Wars Episode I, you go and see it but you know it won't be what you want it to be. And then Star Wars III gets there eventually....
I am sure I will get use to it and love it when I get a nudge when a txt arrives rather than my phone ding-donging it's arrival; or when I can stop carrying my phone around the house because I am waiting for an email. But I wish simpler would have been better.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that 2nd gen would be ready by this coming Spring if not earlier either.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/02/16/apple-scrapped-advanced-apple-watch-health-monitoring-features-due-to-reliability-issues
I will buy one, but in the knowledge that it could have been so much better.
Honest question. What would you have done to make it much better, given the known constraints (e.g. battery technology, screen size, volume, etc)?
But Phl Schiller is not Steve Jobs and Steve Dowling isn't Katie Cotton. Right now Apple's PR concern should be about getting as much positive press as possible. A friend texted me that the Today show LOVED the Watch. Maybe Apple needed more Today show and less Nilay Patel.
So you're saying that ONLY positive reviews should be allowed and no reviews that put the Apple Watch in it's place as "it's pretty but do we need it"? Seriously? If someone didn't like it and they review it they should be able to say that and everyone should be able to read it regardless of your blindness that Apple can only do perfect.
Most if not every review so far have all said almost exactly the same thing. The Apple watch is nice but slow and hard to use and do we really need it.
not putting words in your mouth at all. you said that the apple watch (with link bracelet) looks like a cheap digital watch. it's what you've suggested for too many posts to count, often with a picture of some crappy cheap digital watch from the '80s. it's your message, your agenda to push that image. we get it.
it's your message, your agenda to push that image. we get it.
Again, more words in my mouth. That's your inference and nothing more. But good luck with that approach.
"Why would someone need a computer?"
anything you guys can think of and suggest would be better -- Apple has tried. guaranteed. they're better at this than you are. for whatever your idea doesn't work.
Honest question. What would you have done to make it much better, given the known constraints (e.g. battery technology, screen size, volume, etc)?
I am not very bright, not an Apple Head of Design, and I think it is unfair to ask me such a question. If I knew the answer to these questions, I'd be making $50 M a year, and not, well, less.
But some thoughts anyway:
- do away with the second button
- give Crown four modes: press (select App), ForceTouch (show menu for the App), roll (scroll through menu; or scroll through App if not preceded by ForceTouch), press again (select menu item). Plus double press (Apple Pay).
- set all Settings on the iPhone, including select and modify watch faces
gruber's guess on why that button is there:
"Apple, as a company, is famously averse to extraneous hardware buttons. Sometimes they’re averse to useful hardware buttons (e.g. the mute switch/rotation lock that was removed from the latest iPads). Which makes the “side button” on Apple Watch all the more conspicuous. It serves other purposes — you double tap it to initiate an Apple Pay transaction, and you press it in conjunction with the digital crown to take a screenshot — but I don’t think this button would exist if not for the communication mode it invokes when you simply tap it. Apple thinks communication initiated from Apple Watch is important enough to justify that button. And I think that means digital touch."
yes, now only if you could actually use the device before deciding you hated parts of its UX...
how can he tap his friends and family better with a laptop, since a laptop can't send taptic feedback?
how strange - you're stating as fact something that is not a fact. Apple had to change course in its design for the watch because the FDA? please link to this press release or interview from Ive. thanks
nope. your posting history speaks for itself. cheap. digital. watch. c'mon, link to the red LED-watch photo again!
I'm seeing on Twitter that people got review units last Wednesday. So they basically had a week or less to use the product, incorporate it into their daily lives and write a review. Is there a reason reviews needed to come out before the 10th? Why not the 15th or 22nd to give people more time with the device? Was it all about having reviews out before people could pre-order? I would have erred on the side of giving reviewers more time to live with the device.
I suppose it gives people enough time to compare reviews (I wouldn't rely on just one source) and think about possibly purchasing the watch. A good product will rise to the top and ultimately word-of-mouth is still the most powerful form of advertising.
Since Apple reportedly had to change direction in the middle of the river to get the initial version out (their medical focus on health-monitoring sensors got shot down by the FDA) I personally would expect the next gen Apple Watch to be a differently focused product which would probably include significant hardware changes.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that 2nd gen would be ready by this coming Spring if not earlier either.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/02/16/apple-scrapped-advanced-apple-watch-health-monitoring-features-due-to-reliability-issues
I don't think that you understand what the FDA actually stated.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/27714/20150120/fda-will-regulate-some-not-all-health-related-wearables.htm
"Most such wearables are considered low-risk "general wellness" devices meant to promote healthy lifestyles and as such won't require any FDA approval or regulation, the agency said in a draft guidance note.
Such products have "an intended use that relates to a maintaining or encouraging a general state of health or a healthy activity, or ... an intended use claim that associates the role of healthy lifestyle with helping to reduce the risk or impact of certain chronic diseases or conditions."
"However, any device that makes specific claims about treating a recognized disease or medical condition -- such as obesity -- would be subject to FDA regulation, since obesity is classified as a medical condition.
Any product claiming to treat conditions including obesity, anxiety, eating disorders or autism, especially if the claimed treatment presents some risks, will be considered a medical device subject to oversight, the FDA says.
Any device that is "invasive" or "involves an intervention or technology that may pose a risk to a user's safety if device controls are not applied, such as risks from lasers, radiation exposure, or implants," would be subject to approval and regulation"
There would be wide latitude in what sensor data Apple would be allowed to obtain, assuming that it isn't invasive, and that it wouldn't be used to treat disease or medical conditions.
Right, that was also my assumption. Glad to hear I'm not alone. The question is, when you communicate do you select the contact first, or the App first? I think most people choose the app first. So Apple is trying to change our behaviour to make us use their apps.
And even more astonishing, they seem to be willing to give up their good looks for it.