Apple Watch reviews: world's best smartwatch, but nobody knows what a smartwatch should do

12346

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 132
    mazda 3smazda 3s Posts: 1,613member
    This is an interesting point from David Pogue's review:

    [QUOTE]And here’s a surprising feature that Apple hasn’t said anything about previously: When the watch is in a known Wi-Fi hotspot, the watch can perform the most essential online functions even when your phone is completely dead, turned off, or absent. It can query Siri, for example, send and receive texts, and send/receive drawings and tap patterns to other watch owners. That’s impressive.[/QUOTE]
  • Reply 102 of 132
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     

     

    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.




    I second your thoughts: There are way too many physical options to achieve basically the same thing.

     

    The bubbly home screen and pill shaped button dedicated to contacts are pointless to me. The video review from the Wall Street Journal seems to confirm this (the bubbly home screen).

  • Reply 103 of 132
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,085member
    tmay wrote: »
    I don't think that you understand what the FDA actually stated.
    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.
    Yet another reason why the next version may be quite different from this initial one, and IMO it won't be all that long before we see it.
  • Reply 104 of 132
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    dklebedev wrote: »
    Some good people here argued, but now the reviewers restate what I was saying: it looks, but doesn't do. It's a solution looking for a problem.

    I wish people would have a look at their use of this cliché. It is far more likely that a new device like this—the iPad is another example—offers surprising conveniences not yet imagined by anyone who can't visualize the evolution of its use-cases and how they are going to break unseen habits that we didn't know we had.

    Clear? I thought not, unless you paid attention to the iPad's liberating form factor, only accessible because it has a large screen with no attached keyboard. We didn't really know this in advance of using it. Once we used it, it took all of a few days for it to become obvious.

    The habit of pulling the phone out of your pocket for the most petty interaction, such as who's texting you, or what time it is, will come to seem humiliating very quickly.

    Gatorguy is wrong about this. He says it'll take a couple of years. I'll give it a few months before the solutions are obvious.

    The wording of the cliché should be: "This is the kind of device that will solve problems that we didn't know we had."
  • Reply 105 of 132
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,085member
    flaneur wrote: »

    The habit of pulling the phone out of your pocket for the most petty interaction, such as who's texting you, or what time it is, will come to seem humiliating very quickly.

    Gatorguy is wrong about this. He says it'll take a couple of years. I'll give it a few months before the solutions are obvious.

    The wording of the cliché should be: "This is the kind of device that will solve problems that we didn't know we had."
    You could absolutely be correct and my opinion turn out wrong. We'll know more as the year goes by.
  • Reply 106 of 132
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    Yet another reason why the next version may be quite different from this initial one, and IMO it won't be all that long before we see it.

    I don't see the part where the FDA "shot it down". I only see sensors that aren't "reliable",

     

    Sure, the next generation will likely add more sensors, but it still doesn't mean that the FDA will be involved. Their guidance seems pretty specific.

  • Reply 107 of 132
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SirLance99 View Post

     

    "There’s no master switch to turn all notifications on and off, which is a huge pain."

     


    Turn off Bluetooth on your phone?

  • Reply 108 of 132
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,085member
    tmay wrote: »
    I don't see the part where the FDA "shot it down". I only see sensors that aren't "reliable",
    From the first paragraph:

    "... ultimately scrapped those plans due to technological and regulatory hurdles"

    And just to be clear it doesn't mean Apple stripped out any health sensors since making the watch public knowledge last year. Those health related features that ultimately missed out were earlier decisions. With the FDA's recent clarification some may make the cut for the next iteration.
  • Reply 109 of 132
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,238member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post





    From the first paragraph:



    "... ultimately scrapped those plans due to technological and regulatory hurdles"

    That's the only place that Daniel states it; not in the body of the Appleinsider article at all. The original article is behind a pay wall, so I have zero interest in going there. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to add a bit of the original article to add context to Daniel's statement?

     

    Otherwise, I'm not going to be convinced at all that those sensors are not in the first generation Apple Watch due to regulatory issues, but just due to immature technology.

  • Reply 110 of 132
    larryalarrya Posts: 602member
    sflagel wrote: »
    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.


    I have been saying the same thing. It's like Apple hired the designers of BopIt!
    brucemc wrote: »
    Honest question.  What would you have done to make it much better, given the known constraints (e.g. battery technology, screen size, volume, etc)?

    See Sony Smartwatch 3: 2 days' battery life (though the reviewer got 3), always on color LCD (they just turn the backlight on when you raise it), waterproof (IP68), and GPS. Of course it also does all the notification stuff.

    I'll tell you one thing, if someone ever does find a compelling problem for these things to solve, Apple could start losing iPhone sales as people actually follow the smart watch to their ecosystems, instead of the reverse.
  • Reply 111 of 132
    The "Digital Touch" of the Apple Watch is not a new thing, and Apple copied it from Pantech's Love Connection announced and sold in 2008. See, http://www.cnet.com/news/pantechs-love-connection-phone/
  • Reply 112 of 132
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LarryA View Post





    I have been saying the same thing. It's like Apple hired the designers of BopIt!

    See Sony Smartwatch 3: 2 days' battery life (though the reviewer got 3), always on color LCD (they just turn the backlight on when you raise it), waterproof (IP68), and GPS. Of course it also does all the notification stuff.



    I'll tell you one thing, if someone ever does find a compelling problem for these things to solve, Apple could start losing iPhone sales as people actually follow the smart watch to their ecosystems, instead of the reverse.

    Give me a big fat  break buddy about Sony lasting 2 days on heavy use. Need the link to that reviewer and EXACTLY everything he did pronto. Funny how all those other reviewers who actually handled the other watches say different from you; all of them.

  • Reply 113 of 132
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mr O View Post

     



    I second your thoughts: There are way too many physical options to achieve basically the same thing.

     

    The bubbly home screen and pill shaped button dedicated to contacts are pointless to me. The video review from the Wall Street Journal seems to confirm this (the bubbly home screen).


     

    You mean the video of the women who looked like someone on cocaine (or hopped on on caffeine) all day long and seemed to not know day from night, yes that's the kind of typical user for this watch....  She was fiddling with the thing all day long and was "surprised" it was almost dead at 10pm... )

     

    Or the idiot and NY Times who likened settings the watch filter for notifications on his phones to being "technically literate", I kid you not! In world were a "hacker" is anyone who can plug a cord and run a script, that shouldn't be too surprising.

     

    The standard for "tech journalists" or whatever columnist is given these products is really going down the toilet.

     

    Despite all this, they could not really find a fault with the Apple watch itself, merely with the category itself.

     

    Guess, everyone should stop doing anything new because you know, horses are sufficient to go from A to Z and cars.. Well, those things are slow, unreliable, uncomfortable and expensive (sic).

  • Reply 114 of 132
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tmay View Post

     

    "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.


     

    As long as you don't emit a diagnosis from the sensor data (that's what got the DNA sequencing labs in trouble), or purport to treat something with your device (say, purporting to treat arrythmia through bio feedback) you don't need

  • Reply 115 of 132
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SirLance99 View Post

     

    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.


     

    That's not even what most of the reviews are saying. The verge is probably the biggest proponent of this tact. At most, they say that its not for everyone; which, is a big duh, since even the first Iphone, with its limitations was also not a device for everyone (especially at its launch price). If this first gen device is immensely useful for 20% of users, that's around 80M by the end of 2015. If only 1/5 of these buy it, the device would be a immense success.

  • Reply 116 of 132
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 794member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

    You mean the video of the women who looked like someone on cocaine (or hopped on on caffeine) all day long and seemed to not know day from night, yes that's the kind of typical user for this watch....  She was fiddling with the thing all day long and was "surprised" it was almost dead at 10pm... )

     

    Or the idiot and NY Times who likened settings the watch filter for notifications on his phones to being "technically literate", I kid you not! In world were a "hacker" is anyone who can plug a cord and run a script, that shouldn't be too surprising.

     

    The standard for "tech journalists" or whatever columnist is given these products is really going down the toilet.

     

    Despite all this, they could not really find a fault with the Apple watch itself, merely with the category itself.

     

    Guess, everyone should stop doing anything new because you know, horses are sufficient to go from A to Z and cars.. Well, those things are slow, unreliable, uncomfortable and expensive (sic).


     

    I don't think that is actually what the reviewers were saying at all. They seemed to all say that they believe the smartwatch is the future, that "there is something there", that there were many functionalities that they appreciated (although no killer functionality), and that App makers will come up with compelling reasons to have one. They all said they will buy the Sport watch to be part of that journey. And so will I, but I know it could have been better.

     

    The disappointing thing is that they felt that the implementation that Apple provided, while better than others, was still unsatisfactory. They felt it was complicated.

     

    This contrasts sharply with reviews for earlier products where reviewers missed certain functionality (original iPhone without 3G), or liked how it worked but did not quite know what to do with it (iPad is a large iPod Touch). I am a firm believer that a good product will attract great uses, but based on the reviews, it does not seem "intimate" to me at all.

     

    I believe that Apple increasingly sees their Eco system as an important driver for on-going Apple product sales; and thus added this second button to nudge us towards using their communication apps. If everyone uses platform agnostic WhatsApp, Skype, Twitter DMs, then the barriers to entry for competing phone makers come down (although they have so far been awful in exploiting that). And that someone in that company therefore insisted that there is dedicated Contacts button.

     

    You know that they can do better than having three interfaces: one of the breakthrough, visible, and astonishing innovations of the original iPhone was the single Home button. The fact that you did everything via the screen using a finger. That is what made it so special at the time.

     

    I look forward to smart watches, only because I am very annoyed at having to put my phone withing visible distance to see notifications, and having to take it out all the time because it ding-donged in my jacket pocket. But I would like it to be more intimate.

  • Reply 117 of 132
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • Reply 118 of 132
    larryalarrya Posts: 602member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

    Give me a big fat  break buddy about Sony lasting 2 days on heavy use. Need the link to that reviewer and EXACTLY everything he did pronto. Funny how all those other reviewers who actually handled the other watches say different from you; all of them.




    Did I say "heavy use", or are you trying to put words in my mouth? None of the Apple watch reviews I've seen state "EXACTLY everything" that he or she did, but I suspect you found the story on your own and are trying to preemptively disqualify it.

     

    Here's the link in case you didn't find it - try using a search tool next time you declare "all of them": Sony Smartwatch 3 review: great design, good screen and decent ...

     

    P.S. - You're right about one thing - the byline actually says three days, not two.

     

    P.P.S. - Here's another review stating 2+ days' life: http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/11/20/sony-smartwatch-3-review-excellent-battery-life-acceptable-design/

  • Reply 119 of 132
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

     

    Honest question.  What would you have done to make it much better, given the known constraints (e.g. battery technology, screen size, volume, etc)?


    This is not specific to smartwatches, but in general one adjusts the product requirements as necessary to fit the constraints. E.g. in the face of battery limitations Apple deliberately chose to limit the multitasking capabilities of iOS compared to OS X, especially for the first few releases of iOS, because they did not think third party developers would be careful with managing resources. Consequently, although you have never been able to multitask on iOS like you can on a full-blown computer, you're unlikely to encounter a runaway third party app that drains your battery due to sloppy programming like you might on Android. In the case of smartwatches, the question to ask is whether today's hardware is compatible with the vision of a smartwatch as essentially a wrist-mounted smartphone.

  • Reply 120 of 132
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
Sign In or Register to comment.