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

123457»

Comments

  • Reply 121 of 132
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    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.




    No arguments with your statement, but that wasn't answering the question I put to sflagel about what "he" (or she) believes should have been done, as it was unequivocally stated that the Apple Watch "could have been better".  That implies that it would be relatively trivial to do something different than what is in the 1.0 product and it would be better.  It cannot require the use of fairy dust or unicorns.

  • Reply 122 of 132
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 794member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

     



    No arguments with your statement, but that wasn't answering the question I put to sflagel about what "he" (or she) believes should have been done, as it was unequivocally stated that the Apple Watch "could have been better".  That implies that it would be relatively trivial to do something different than what is in the 1.0 product and it would be better.  It cannot require the use of fairy dust or unicorns.


     

    Just because something could have been better does not mean it would be easy to make something better. Star Wars I could have been better without Jar Jar Binks; Apple Watch I, in my opinion as a consumer, could have been better without the Contacts button.

  • Reply 123 of 132
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    sflagel wrote: »
    Just because something could have been better does not mean it would be easy to make something better. Star Wars I could have been better without Jar Jar Binks; Apple Watch I, in my opinion as a consumer, could have been better without the Contacts button.

    I tend to agree with regard to the second button. Touchscreen plus the crown only would've simplified things. Single click of the crown to get back to home screen, double-click for Apple Pay and either Siri or tap on an app icon for Contacts, right next to the clock icon. Simpler is better.
  • Reply 124 of 132
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    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.

    OK, so you aroused my curiosity and I looked at a couple of reviews of the Sony Smartwatch 3 (SS 3).  Here is a picture of the device from the Engadget review (the watch part has been removed from the rubber band/case combination in the first one):

    http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/02/sony-smartwatch-3-review/

     

    As everyone would imagine, a big con against the device was its design and appearance.  It uses a rubber band as both strap and case, and the watch fits in.  I am not a watch aficionado, but I would not wear that thing outside of the gym or a run.  The screen was described as dull and colours a little off.  It was given praise for having NFC and WiFi, but at the time of review at least Andrew Wear did not support those functions (hey, future proof).  It is charged by USB, but to have it waterproof user must ensure to put cover back on the port.  Reviewer stated that it is recommended to remove the watch from the band/case to plug in charger, otherwise it is awkward.

     

    One pro was indeed the battery, which the reviewer said got about 1.5 days on moderate use.  If he kept the screen off almost all the time (save for notifications) - meaning not really using it - then it could get up to 2 days.  However, at 1.5 days (or maybe less if used more), then it really does need to be charged "every day", so difference between 18 hours and 36 hours isn't as much as one would think - especially when the charging process is as described.  Another pro was the GPS for location tracking for exercise.  This I do agree is a useful function, and hope it makes it into Apple Watch v2.

     

    Compared with Apple Watch, beyond the *extreme* differences in design/quality/fit/finish/materials, the SS 3 does not have haptic feedback, a heart rate sensor, or easily changeable straps.  The review makes the management sound a little cumbersome (as all such Android devices are right now), with few apps.  At $250 USD, it isn't exactly cheap either.

     

    Per the reviewers summary, it has a couple good functions, primarily for fitness, if you don't care about its appearance.  It doesn't compare really to the target market for Apple Watch at all.

     

    To each their own - some will want to buy that and it will fill their need.  However, to use the SS 3 as example of what Apple should have done to "make it better" - well, let's just say I completely disagree.  I don't think Apple is worried that the SS 3 is going to pull buyers away from iPhones, because the SS 3 Android Wear watch is so desirable.

  • Reply 125 of 132
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     

     

    Just because something could have been better does not mean it would be easy to make something better. Star Wars I could have been better without Jar Jar Binks; Apple Watch I, in my opinion as a consumer, could have been better without the Contacts button.


    IMO, if you say something "could have been better", you are indeed saying that it was possible to make it better, and that doing so would be relatively straight forward (it doesn't take an Einstein level intelligence & gazillions of dollars to accomplish the task).

     

    On the contacts button, since I haven't used the device, I can't say.  Might be the case, and perhaps after seeing how consumers use it, Apple might decide to remove it if it is of little value over say a different input method (specific tap sequence on the crown, or a touch screen gesture).  I agree that having it there does affect symmetry of device.

  • Reply 126 of 132
    larryalarrya Posts: 602member
    brucemc wrote: »
    OK, so you aroused my curiosity and I looked at a couple of reviews of the Sony Smartwatch 3 (SS 3).  Here is a picture of the device from the Engadget review (the watch part has been removed from the rubber band/case combination in the first one):
    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="57645" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/57645/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 262px">

    <img alt="" class="lightbox-enabled" data-id="57646" data-type="61" src="http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/57646/width/350/height/700/flags/LL" style="; width: 350px; height: 197px">

    http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/02/sony-smartwatch-3-review/

    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">As everyone would imagine, a big con against the device was its design and appearance.  It uses a rubber band as both strap and case, and the watch fits in.  I am not a watch </span>
    aficionado, but I would not wear that thing outside of the gym or a run.  The screen was described as dull and colours a little off.  It was given praise for having NFC and WiFi, but at the time of review at least Andrew Wear did not support those functions (hey, future proof).  It is charged by USB, but to have it waterproof user must ensure to put cover back on the port.  Reviewer stated that it is recommended to remove the watch from the band/case to plug in charger, otherwise it is awkward.

    One pro was indeed the battery, which the reviewer said got about 1.5 days on moderate use.  If he kept the screen off almost all the time (save for notifications) - meaning not really using it - then it could get up to 2 days.  However, at 1.5 days (or maybe less if used more), then it really does need to be charged "every day", so difference between 18 hours and 36 hours isn't as much as one would think - especially when the charging process is as described.  Another pro was the GPS for location tracking for exercise.  This I do agree is a useful function, and hope it makes it into Apple Watch v2.

    Compared with Apple Watch, beyond the *extreme* differences in design/quality/fit/finish/materials, the SS 3 does not have haptic feedback, a heart rate sensor, or easily changeable straps.  The review makes the management sound a little cumbersome (as all such Android devices are right now), with few apps.  At $250 USD, it isn't exactly cheap either.

    Per the reviewers summary, it has a couple good functions, primarily for fitness, if you don't care about its appearance.  It doesn't compare really to the target market for Apple Watch at all.

    To each their own - some will want to buy that and it will fill their need.  However, to use the SS 3 as example of what Apple should have done to "make it better" - well, let's just say I completely disagree.  I don't think Apple is worried that the SS 3 is going to pull buyers away from iPhones, because the SS 3 Android Wear watch is so desirable.

    Your points are well considered and valid; however, the original question was, what could Apple possibly do better under the constraints that exist for everyone in this space, and I produced an example of a shipping product with better battery life (my two links showed 2-3 days' battery life), GPS, better waterproofing, and an always-on screen. I agree, aesthetically it isn't as nice, and as with everything Android, it's rough around the edges, but the question wasn't about appearance or build quality.
  • Reply 127 of 132
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 794member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

     

    IMO, if you say something "could have been better", you are indeed saying that it was possible to make it better, and that doing so would be relatively straight forward (it doesn't take an Einstein level intelligence & gazillions of dollars to accomplish the task).

     

    On the contacts button, since I haven't used the device, I can't say.  Might be the case, and perhaps after seeing how consumers use it, Apple might decide to remove it if it is of little value over say a different input method (specific tap sequence on the crown, or a touch screen gesture).  I agree that having it there does affect symmetry of device.


     

    I must argue that thinking something could have been better is a representation on the expectation on provider of the product, not ease for me. When my daughter gives me a painting of a stick man, I don't think she "could have been better" because it is easy for me to draw better. I think that she could have done better because she is 15 years old.

     

    Equally, I think the Watch could have been better, looking at what Apple has done before, or not done before. And one thing they didn't do before is put superfluous conspicuous buttons on things. So my concern is not with the button per se; but that the ONLY reason I can see Ive putting that extra button there, is that some business strategist with an MBA degree at Apple forced him to do so. Or he is trying to copy Archos....

  • Reply 128 of 132
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     

     

    I must argue that thinking something could have been better is a representation on the expectation on provider of the product, not ease for me. When my daughter gives me a painting of a stick man, I don't think she "could have been better" because it is easy for me to draw better. I think that she could have done better because she is 15 years old.

     

    Equally, I think the Watch could have been better, looking at what Apple has done before, or not done before. And one thing they didn't do before is put superfluous conspicuous buttons on things. So my concern is not with the button per se; but that the ONLY reason I can see Ive putting that extra button there, is that some business strategist with an MBA degree at Apple forced him to do so. Or he is trying to copy Archos....




    As I noted, it seems if the Apple Watch had just the touchscreen and the digital crown it could've simplified things significantly. Reviewers seem to think the watch looks and feels terrific, but the matter of two buttons versus just having one very capable button (the digital crown) is a bit confusing.

  • Reply 129 of 132
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 794member

    As I noted, it seems just the touchscreen and the digital crown could've simplified things significantly. Everyone seems to think the watch looks and feels terrific, but the matter of two buttons versus one very capable button (the digital crown) is confusing.

    They did not even have to make the Crown more capable. They could have just done away with the button and we would tap on the respective Apps. The button is a mystery! Complete mystery. Can anyone shed light on it?
  • Reply 130 of 132
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sflagel View Post

     

     

    I must argue that thinking something could have been better is a representation on the expectation on provider of the product, not ease for me. When my daughter gives me a painting of a stick man, I don't think she "could have been better" because it is easy for me to draw better. I think that she could have done better because she is 15 years old.

     

    Equally, I think the Watch could have been better, looking at what Apple has done before, or not done before. And one thing they didn't do before is put superfluous conspicuous buttons on things. So my concern is not with the button per se; but that the ONLY reason I can see Ive putting that extra button there, is that some business strategist with an MBA degree at Apple forced him to do so. Or he is trying to copy Archos....


    Perhaps I wasn't being clear.  It is not "you" that is supposed to make it better in your garage.  That of course would be a ridiculous assertion.  When someone states that it is a shame about product X, because it could/should have been better, it is implying that *that company* (in this case Apple), could have clearly done a better job - they should have done something better, and it was within the obvious realm of possibility at the time.

     

    So that was my question - clearly you felt that Apple should have made the Apple Watch v1 better in some way.  What that appears to come down to here was the lack of the side button.

  • Reply 131 of 132
    sflagelsflagel Posts: 794member
    brucemc wrote: »
    Perhaps I wasn't being clear.  It is not "you" that is supposed to make it better in your garage.  That of course would be a ridiculous assertion.  When someone states that it is a shame about product X, because it could/should have been better, it is implying that *that company* (in this case Apple), could have clearly done a better job - they should have done something better, and it was within the obvious realm of possibility at the time.

    So that was my question - clearly you felt that Apple should have made the Apple Watch v1 better in some way.  What that appears to come down to here was the lack of the side button.

    That is probably one unnecessary distraction.
Sign In or Register to comment.