I am always confused by this. You do know that if you just run every so often with both phone and watch, that the watch updates its pacing from the phones gps and then the watch is accurate enough to not need gps, yes?
Or are you using GPS for something else?
If it's not GPS it's something else.
Trust me, the goal posts move, but not the criticism.
It's simply wrong because it's an Apple product, period.
First you say you won't get even if it was less bulky.
Then you say you would buy it if it was less bulky.
Make up your damn mind. Sounds to me you are just trolling and have something negative to say about the Watch NO MATTER WHAT.
I'm just sick and tired of all this unnecessary negativity about the Watch. If you are not interested in it, fine. Why waste space make comments on it here when it is obvious you will never buy one no matter how thin it is.
I don't understand how people's emotional connection to an Apple product can have such a detrimental affect on their reading comprehension. I didn't say I would never buy it. I said it is unnecessary for me. As a matter of fact I did buy one, I just canceled it later. Some people are so defensive they perceive every comment that is not raving admiration of the product as completely negative trolling. I'm always willing to reevaluate my opinion especially if the product becomes more compelling. Right now I'm simply ambivalent about it, not negative, except I do think it is a little unattractive, but I'm not ruling out buying one in the future.
Well, of course you want whatever you want, but it should be pretty clear that Apple is not even going in this direction.
I think it is pretty clear that they are putting as much technology into it as is possible in the form factor with the given state of the art. I really don't see where we can derive a direction from Apple based on one sample.
They use terminology like "timepiece" and "complications" for a reason, they aim for the modern version of analog luxury watches. This is also pretty clear from e.g. their selection of bands, which are all variations (in some cases advancements) of such watches. Nobody with any interest in these considers anything Suunto or Garmin are making "elite" or even wearable, we consider them ugly clunkers.
I suspect that part of that terminology use is to attract the watch wearing culture. That is those obsessed with watches of which there are more than a few. This is to help them generate buzz and credibility in the field.
However I would not underestimate Apples long term potential here to deliver a highly integrated device. I can literally see the functionality of an entire iPhone built into a watch in the future. Near term GPS wouldn't be impossible in at least a couple of models.
I expect Apple to only add tons of additional sensors and functionality like GPS if and when it can be done while maintaining useful battery like and a satisfactory overall design.
That is elfin obvious!
Nobody is able to do that today, maybe because the technology is simply not there.
Technology is a problem for this rev. However they are already using extremely advanced technology, the density of the "logic" board is amazing for a consumer device. Given that the main chip could certainly add a number of features with a process shrink. GPS actually has two problems to consider, one is power usage and the other is antenna size/performance. Apple might be successful in addressing power usage via a GPS receiver integrated into the main SOC but the antenna problem is a bit more difficult to deal with due to physical size.
Yes but mechanical watches have been that way for centuries now. Such a face can offer a surprising amount of information to the user. Obviously the digital age offers dramatically more variety when it comes to information that can be embedded in a display but that doesn't counter indicate the general acceptance of round watch displays.
So tradition. Yeah, I heard people decry the original iPhone as not having a traditional smartphone physical keyboard. Thank goodness form factors evolve. Acceptance lags for some people more than others. You'll come around.
I'm not sure this is reality. In many cases native watch apps should be more power efficient.
Maybe you're right but I was under the impression that the apps would run better and faster but that's because there would be less wireless handoff from phone to watch required. But since the processing would all be done on the watch, I would think that battery would only suffer more.
Yes but mechanical watches have been that way for centuries now. Such a face can offer a surprising amount of information to the user. Obviously the digital age offers dramatically more variety when it comes to information that can be embedded in a display but that doesn't counter indicate the general acceptance of round watch displays.
Classical confusion of cause and effect. Analog watches (at least the majority) are round, because a hand describes a circle and most complications are most easily implemented above the (also roundish) clockwork. Pretty much all major manufacturers also had square and rectangle shaped luxury watches, mostly in combination with complications (like power reserve gauges, moon phase, second dial etc.) which just made more sense outside of the main dial's surface (e.g. to avoid the hands covering these features multiple times a day).
A digital watch can use the "hands" metaphor, but it dosn't have to. Actually, I see many people using their Apple Watches with non-conventional dial faces. And this makes perfect sense. Why display a format that needs translation and interpretation (is it am or pm?) when there is no need to? Creating a round GUI is certainly possible, but all programming tools in existence rely on rectangular models. This can easily be seen when looking at all the truncated and oddly wrapped content on a Moto 270... They just made it despite it making no sense, Apple is luckily better than that. And in the same vein... if it is really the form factor, why don't people buy the Moto in droves?
There is a huge misconception about "success" here. There is no way on earth to sell an amount of watches that is even close to smartphone territory. Apple will outsell all Swiss makers of certified watches in less than three months. That is success. Gauging success by own desires and the own interest in something... is not going to work.
I'm thinking here in terms of viable as a product, that is the product is able to support its development and manufacturing costs leading to profit for Apple. We really don't know if this will be the case long term.
Well, it is most likely the best selling watch in human history already (unless some communist state gave some millions away for free).
That is an unknown at this time? Swatch for example had some amazing sales figures at one time.
That is certainly "viable". It is still not shipping immediately anywhere, and it has not even reached all countries. That is certainly "viable". Considering the amount of Apple Watches sold, the amount of people buying expensive accessories like bands (I have 5 bands by now which is maybe excessive, but everybody I know bought at least one)... and considering the markup on all these items, it is certainly "viable".
Early adopters have never sustained a product anywhere. Have you seen a 17" MBP in Apples lineup lately? Nope, that is because residual sales couldn't sustain its development.
The comparison to an established category like cell phones (which is the best selling non-food product in existence) is just wrong, because nothing can get close – and a watch will always be something people can easily live without, but communication and some internet access is pretty much mandatory today.
This I understand completely which is likely why the watch has been positioned as it has been. However Apple Watch isn't like many watches from the past, it has a very expensive development history behind it.
I also do not see a "bias" against watches, just people who do not need them, or just have different, more important things to spend money on.
That is exactly what I meant by bias. If you allocate funds to other products then you have biased that allocation due to your needs or preferences.
Apple can't change that fundamentally.
Sure they can. They did it with smart phones that before iPhone was a sector that just couldn't get any traction. To make a fundamental change here they need to make the wearing of an Applee Watch compelling just as iPhone was compelling. I don't see that in this release but then again iPhone took awhile to come into its own.
Still, just like MP3 players where not considered a must in 2002, and smartphones where not considered a must in 2006, and tablets where not viable in 2010... this will catch on, just maybe not reaching the same volumes.
Maybe - maybe not. I really don't know. What I do know is that we have a very good generation one device from Apple (a surprise in and of itself) that has the potential to go mainstream. I don't think it is there yet because it doesn't offer enough functionality to attract those biased against it. In other wires people don't look at Watch and say to themselves I need to rethink how I spend my money.
I really don't care what Cook tries to sell the watch as, at this point it is just a fancy piece of jewelry like an advanced mood ring.
Cook said it was 3 things:
1. time keeper
What watch these days isn't a piece of jewelry? Seriously? Maybe the stop watches used by coaches and the like.
2. activity tracker
As about as useful as a mood ring.
3. communication
It has potential here bit a long ways to go. However the ability to communicate doesn't make the Watch anything more than a piece of jewelry.
Go watch the Watch event again and stop spewing BS.
I suspect I know far more about Watch and the SDK/XCode support than you might imagine. It isn't BS, everything about how Apple is marketing this device indicates that it is being sold as fancy jewelry.
Round smartwatches are beyond stupid. Ever wonder why there has never been a successful round smartphone, laptop, tablet, desktop, TV?
Maybe to you but watches have come with all sorts of form factors over the years however round is the traditional format that is well accepted. If you consider how some of the interface works you would have to think that Apple has already thought about displays other than rectangles. It might be smarter on your part to ask how many square watches have been successful over the years.
I think your problem is an inability to think outside the box so to speak. Round watches are impossible because you can't imagine such.
I haven't heard anyone say their battery life was lacking. OTOH the watch display does turn off. So ... an always-visible display, visible in direct sunlight too, would get me to consider the watch. Otherwise it's a nonstarter. Because the beach, dudes!
I'm against adding a FaceTime camera. The Watch is and should remain a companion product as long as it relies on another device for data. If you're going to video call it will be done through an iPhone so just use your phone. If the Watch ever gets SIM card capabilities then a camera could be an option.
So tradition. Yeah, I heard people decry the original iPhone as not having a traditional smartphone physical keyboard.
It comes back to what is acceptable as wearable jewelry. Let's be honest a square watch will not appeal to everybody on every day of the month. That is why people that actually wear watches will often have several often varying dramatically in design.
Thank goodness form factors evolve.
Having just one form factor is the big problem.
In any event I think you mised the point of my argument, which is that a round face isn't impossible on an Apple Warch, I wasn't saying it is required I'm simply at odds with people that think it is impossible.
Acceptance lags for some people more than others. You'll come around.
It is a matter of coming around because I haven't worn a watch for decades now. I'm just at odds with people saying a round Apple Watch is impossible or stupid. Realistically it is anything but impossible. That isn't to say Apple will do a round watch, but that there is no reason they can't.
As for what might get me to wear an Apple Watch, more sensor capability would be a big draw, especially if they can work in blood glucose monitoring. For me telling time just isn't a compelling reason to wear a watch and at the moment Apple Watch doesn't offer a lot more of value to me.
adrayven 07/02/2015 10:31 AM Mine's been fine with battery.. Usually between 23-50% at end of day.. and I start at 5am and end usually around 10-11pm at night.. 30 min of exercise in there, a few voice calls, avg 6-10 emails/texts notifications per hour throughout the day, etc.
Agree, I have about the same usage and battery life.
After an initial fascination, I found I didn't use the watch as much as I thought, but now with some of the new/updated apps I am using it more than I ever have. For me the key is to keep the number of apps, glances, notifications pared down to only what I really need to see.
Although I have the autoupdate for apps turned off, it still adds new apps when an existing iPhone app gets updated to include AppleWatch - very frustrating, as I then have to manually delete or turn them off. Its an everyday thing that I hope will be fixed in the next software update
Early adopters have never sustained a product anywhere. Have you seen a 17" MBP in Apples lineup lately? Nope, that is because residual sales couldn't sustain its development.
...
Sure they can. They did it with smart phones that before iPhone was a sector that just couldn't get any traction. To make a fundamental change here they need to make the wearing of an Applee Watch compelling just as iPhone was compelling. I don't see that in this release but then again iPhone took awhile to come into its own.
Not sure the 17" MBP was about early adopters. It existed for many years and had a purpose (additional screen real estate needed for some tasks). I had every 17" PowerBook and MBP because of that. With the arrival of the 15" rMBP in 2012 most of the need for the 17" model just vanished for many people. I know several people who went down that road, and nobody wants the bigger device back. So, maybe Apple just killed it for good (for most)? I do not think that the 17" model ate that much additional R&D cost, but I can't say for sure.
...
The big difference between a watch and all other products before it is that all of them addressed needs that existed. People want private entertainment, people want communication. It is "just" (ok, biggest "just" ever) a matter of creating the right product to deliver. A watch is obviously not the ideal communication device (unless you pair it with wireless headsets etc., all things that never took off), it is too small for entertainment, and quite obviously, you can find out the current time by many other means most of the time. So, IMHO, the task here is much more difficult: instead of satisfying a need, you need to identify or create one. Possible, but certainly not overnight.
Are people really that much into fitness and health? If so, why do we eat what we eat? Why hasn't any fitness product made a fortune? Who needs all this constant GPS, barometric pressure etc. information all the time? And in how many devices do we need it? Not even 1% of the people I know is some "outdoor type", and "trekking" destinations are usually defined by pubs or restaurants...
I do not mean to say there are no applications that could be useful (to a relevant mass of people), but I am not sure we really know what these might be. I would assume that e.g. controlling home automation is a (future) biggie, I consider it a prime example where a wearable solution makes a lot of sense. But this is, for the time being, only relevant in the richest households of the richest countries. And even there the penetration is still rather low.
Long story short. I do not think that most of the complaints and suggestions we are hearing are really making a difference for the time being. Products with all these capabilities (round form factor, millions of sensors etc.) do exist, and none of them is making a killing. Apple doing the same thing is not the answer. Being "there" whenever these new needs and possibilities develop is most important.
Watch will get whatever the technology will allow. However I can see big problems with having a camera on a watch. Urinal and locker room videos come to mind. Basically a dream device for perverts.
Watch is and should remain a companion product as long as it relies on another device for data.
For now maybe but the watch isn't far off from being a Dick Tracy type of device. I do think the long term is for the Watch to be completely independent of any cell phone.
If you're going to video call it will be done through an iPhone so just use your phone. If the Watch ever gets SIM card capabilities then a camera could be an option.
It doesn't even need SIM card coaability at first. They could easily do FaceTime on Watch and have a lot of sakes simply due to that capability. FaceTime especially if limited to audio, would be a great addition to the watch at a minimal power burn. Video would of course use more power but that isn't a long term problem. However either way being able to communicate via your Watch, over WiFi (not slaved to an iPhone), would be a huge improvement.
In other words I suspect Watch will come into its own when it can do much over WiFi. FaceTime is just one of those things.
Naaa... A watch with a camera is "mega purvey"perhaps even more so than the googol glasses (which are pretty pervey in their own right.) Besides it would get it on the restricted list in many sensitive locations. (and perhaps banned from many restaurants/nightclubs because of the restroom issue.)
Quite simply, adding a camera to the ?watch subtracts far more than it adds
Not sure the 17" MBP was about early adopters. It existed for many years and had a purpose (additional screen real estate needed for some tasks). I had every 17" PowerBook and MBP because of that. With the arrival of the 15" rMBP in 2012 most of the need for the 17" model just vanished for many people. I know several people who went down that road, and nobody wants the bigger device back. So, maybe Apple just killed it for good (for most)? I do not think that the 17" model ate that much additional R&D cost, but I can't say for sure.
This is what I meant by residual sales, that is sales after early adopters left. The 17" MBP was on the downward slide well before retina came out. You could see that in the lackluster upgrades that the machine got compared to the 15" machine. The retina models just sealed the 17" machines fate.
The big difference between a watch and all other products before it is that all of them addressed needs that existed. People want private entertainment, people want communication. It is "just" (ok, biggest "just" ever) a matter of creating the right product to deliver. A watch is obviously not the ideal communication device (unless you pair it with wireless headsets etc., all things that never took off), it is too small for entertainment, and quite obviously, you can find out the current time by many other means most of the time. So, IMHO, the task here is much more difficult: instead of satisfying a need, you need to identify or create one. Possible, but certainly not overnight.
Watch addresses needs that exist, I hope I'm not implying that. My concern is people indicating it is a success when then early adopters sales haven't even really started yet. What we see after the initial rush tapers off will determine Watches success and the resources that they throw into it. I just don't think the current model will be a runaway success that people are already saying it is - time will tell.
Are people really that much into fitness and health? If so, why do we eat what we eat? Why hasn't any fitness product made a fortune? Who needs all this constant GPS, barometric pressure etc. information all the time? And in how many devices do we need it? Not even 1% of the people I know is some "outdoor type", and "trekking" destinations are usually defined by pubs or restaurants...
We all have different needs! If the glucose monitoring function ever came to pass I might find a way to wear a watch even if that was not the habit in the past. Some of those finctions you list though are almost no brainers. Temperature measuring requires a diode for example ( with an A/D input). In some cases the additions are trivial so why not. Others like GPS are far more involved but if you look towards a future where iPhone doesn't exist it does make sense to wrap it in.
The desire for some of these features are hard to justify with today's hardware and functionality. But this isn't a static world, I fully expect Watch to become far more powerful in the future.
I do not mean to say there are no applications that could be useful (to a relevant mass of people), but I am not sure we really know what these might be. I would assume that e.g. controlling home automation is a (future) biggie, I consider it a prime example where a wearable solution makes a lot of sense. But this is, for the time beling, only relevant in the richest households of the richest countries. And even there the penetration is still rather low.
Actually I've never really gotten a grip on the home automation kick. I have an automatic thermostat for the furnace that does just fine. Do I really need Siri talking to Apple just to turn on my lights?
By the way this is why I believe Apple is off base with Siri, that AI needs to run locally to handle local needs. Not to pull the thread off track but Siri and home automation just strikes me as stupid in its current form.
Long story short. I do not think that most of the complaints and suggestions we are hearing are really making a difference for the time being. Products with all these capabilities (round form factor, millions of sensors etc.) do exist, and none of them is making a killing. Apple doing the same thing is not the answer. Being "there" whenever these new needs and possibilities develop is most important.
Nothing said now will make a difference because sales are going to people that are at best early adopters. Think about it, Apple isn't even shipping its mainstream operating system for the watch. The concern is will the Watch have what it takes to sustain sales after this period of early adoption. That I really don't know but for me it needs to have more functionality then it has now. It just isn't compelling for somebody that doesn't wear a watch now.
In any event I think you are mis representing the current Watch as there really isn't anything like it out there right now. Apple in fact has not done the same thing, it just has to do more and that will come with the next technology leap.
Naaa... A watch with a camera is "mega purvey"perhaps even more so than the googol glasses (which are pretty pervey in their own right.) Besides it would get it on the restricted list in many sensitive locations. (and perhaps banned from many restaurants/nightclubs because of the restroom issue.)
Quite simply, adding a camera to the ?watch subtracts far more than it adds
Couldn't disagree more. If any of what you suggest is true, the iPhone would be banned from restaurants/nightclubs. Google Glass was a problem because the camera looked at whatever you looked at, and no one knew whether it was on or not. Just like the iPhone it would be pretty easy to spot someone using the camera on a watch, or at least as easy, since it's pretty easy to take pictures of someone on a iPhone now without them knowing. And I'm not sure what any camera could capture in a bathroom without it being blatantly obvious, including Google Glass.
The benefits of the camera will allow people to take spontaneous selfies without taking their phone out of their bag or pocket, and that will make it a huge seller for some people. And if you don't think Apple isn't aware of it, then go back and look at the keynote where Tim Cook spent a good deal of time extolling the virtues of the burst feature on the iPhone's front facing camera, specifically for taking selfies.
So there's that, and then the potential of the camera to be used for turning the watch backlight on and off, and keeping it on, with a face recognition feature.
So no, not "mega puervy" at all, at least not any more than the iPhone. If you're in the restroom and see someone pointing their watch face at you while they press buttons on it, or better yet, holding it over the urinal stall and pressing buttons on it, then maybe you have some cause for concern. But then they could do that with their iPhone too. No the benefits of the camera far outweigh any of these privacy concerns.
Naaa... A watch with a camera is "mega purvey"perhaps even more so than the googol glasses (which are pretty pervey in their own right.)
Nothing is as purvey as Google Glass.
Besides it would get it on the restricted list in many sensitive locations. (and perhaps banned from many restaurants/nightclubs because of the restroom issue.)
It is possible, many places already have plenty of problems with cell phones. It is unfortunate that so many cant respect the space of others.
Quite simply, adding a camera to the ?watch subtracts far more than it adds
Well maybe not. There are legitimate uses just like there are legitimate uses for cell phone cameras or even Google Glass. The problem isn't the technology it is rather the user that is the problem. Much of this could be solved if one was free to beat the living hell out of some of these perverts. It is pretty obvious that jail time or the threat of jail time does nothing to deter these people. Broken bones and a deep cuncusion or two might though.
Sog35 - I don't recall whether I've agreed with you or disagreed with you in the past - but today, on this message thread, I say Bravo and offer my full support - particularly in your discussions with mstone (who appears to be the definition of indecisive and so self-important that he believes any of us would care the slightest about WHY he is not getting a watch! It's laughable! There are more than 7 billion people on the planet and the truth is that the VAST majority of them are also NOT going to buy the Apple watch. What makes him think his opinion would be of interest to ANYBODY reading this thread?). I also support your arguments against the viability of a round watch and all other points of debate with wizard. He sure seems to have a lot of delusions! I personally don't wear jewelry - but I do wear a square, Apple Watch every day and absolutely LOVE all the ways it makes my life easier! (and I know I'm not unique in that respect...)
Anyhow - keep up the good work Sog35! Casual readers who stumble upon this article should have a voice of reason to listen to amongst all of the trolling, rhetoric and delusions spewed forth by the small-minded!!!
Comments
If it's not GPS it's something else.
Trust me, the goal posts move, but not the criticism.
It's simply wrong because it's an Apple product, period.
First you say you won't get even if it was less bulky.
Then you say you would buy it if it was less bulky.
Make up your damn mind. Sounds to me you are just trolling and have something negative to say about the Watch NO MATTER WHAT.
I'm just sick and tired of all this unnecessary negativity about the Watch. If you are not interested in it, fine. Why waste space make comments on it here when it is obvious you will never buy one no matter how thin it is.
I don't understand how people's emotional connection to an Apple product can have such a detrimental affect on their reading comprehension. I didn't say I would never buy it. I said it is unnecessary for me. As a matter of fact I did buy one, I just canceled it later. Some people are so defensive they perceive every comment that is not raving admiration of the product as completely negative trolling. I'm always willing to reevaluate my opinion especially if the product becomes more compelling. Right now I'm simply ambivalent about it, not negative, except I do think it is a little unattractive, but I'm not ruling out buying one in the future.
First you say its totally unneccessary ....
I buy many things that are completely unnecessary and I can change my mind from day to day.
However I would not underestimate Apples long term potential here to deliver a highly integrated device. I can literally see the functionality of an entire iPhone built into a watch in the future. Near term GPS wouldn't be impossible in at least a couple of models. That is elfin obvious!
Technology is a problem for this rev. However they are already using extremely advanced technology, the density of the "logic" board is amazing for a consumer device. Given that the main chip could certainly add a number of features with a process shrink. GPS actually has two problems to consider, one is power usage and the other is antenna size/performance. Apple might be successful in addressing power usage via a GPS receiver integrated into the main SOC but the antenna problem is a bit more difficult to deal with due to physical size.
So tradition. Yeah, I heard people decry the original iPhone as not having a traditional smartphone physical keyboard. Thank goodness form factors evolve. Acceptance lags for some people more than others. You'll come around.
Maybe you're right but I was under the impression that the apps would run better and faster but that's because there would be less wireless handoff from phone to watch required. But since the processing would all be done on the watch, I would think that battery would only suffer more.
Yes but mechanical watches have been that way for centuries now. Such a face can offer a surprising amount of information to the user. Obviously the digital age offers dramatically more variety when it comes to information that can be embedded in a display but that doesn't counter indicate the general acceptance of round watch displays.
Classical confusion of cause and effect. Analog watches (at least the majority) are round, because a hand describes a circle and most complications are most easily implemented above the (also roundish) clockwork. Pretty much all major manufacturers also had square and rectangle shaped luxury watches, mostly in combination with complications (like power reserve gauges, moon phase, second dial etc.) which just made more sense outside of the main dial's surface (e.g. to avoid the hands covering these features multiple times a day).
A digital watch can use the "hands" metaphor, but it dosn't have to. Actually, I see many people using their Apple Watches with non-conventional dial faces. And this makes perfect sense. Why display a format that needs translation and interpretation (is it am or pm?) when there is no need to? Creating a round GUI is certainly possible, but all programming tools in existence rely on rectangular models. This can easily be seen when looking at all the truncated and oddly wrapped content on a Moto 270... They just made it despite it making no sense, Apple is luckily better than that. And in the same vein... if it is really the form factor, why don't people buy the Moto in droves?
There is a huge misconception about "success" here. There is no way on earth to sell an amount of watches that is even close to smartphone territory. Apple will outsell all Swiss makers of certified watches in less than three months. That is success. Gauging success by own desires and the own interest in something... is not going to work.
That is an unknown at this time? Swatch for example had some amazing sales figures at one time. Early adopters have never sustained a product anywhere. Have you seen a 17" MBP in Apples lineup lately? Nope, that is because residual sales couldn't sustain its development. This I understand completely which is likely why the watch has been positioned as it has been. However Apple Watch isn't like many watches from the past, it has a very expensive development history behind it. That is exactly what I meant by bias. If you allocate funds to other products then you have biased that allocation due to your needs or preferences. Sure they can. They did it with smart phones that before iPhone was a sector that just couldn't get any traction. To make a fundamental change here they need to make the wearing of an Applee Watch compelling just as iPhone was compelling. I don't see that in this release but then again iPhone took awhile to come into its own.
Maybe - maybe not. I really don't know. What I do know is that we have a very good generation one device from Apple (a surprise in and of itself) that has the potential to go mainstream. I don't think it is there yet because it doesn't offer enough functionality to attract those biased against it. In other wires people don't look at Watch and say to themselves I need to rethink how I spend my money.
I think your problem is an inability to think outside the box so to speak. Round watches are impossible because you can't imagine such.
In any event I think you mised the point of my argument, which is that a round face isn't impossible on an Apple Warch, I wasn't saying it is required I'm simply at odds with people that think it is impossible.
It is a matter of coming around because I haven't worn a watch for decades now. I'm just at odds with people saying a round Apple Watch is impossible or stupid. Realistically it is anything but impossible. That isn't to say Apple will do a round watch, but that there is no reason they can't.
As for what might get me to wear an Apple Watch, more sensor capability would be a big draw, especially if they can work in blood glucose monitoring. For me telling time just isn't a compelling reason to wear a watch and at the moment Apple Watch doesn't offer a lot more of value to me.
Mine's been fine with battery.. Usually between 23-50% at end of day.. and I start at 5am and end usually around 10-11pm at night.. 30 min of exercise in there, a few voice calls, avg 6-10 emails/texts notifications per hour throughout the day, etc.
Agree, I have about the same usage and battery life.
After an initial fascination, I found I didn't use the watch as much as I thought, but now with some of the new/updated apps I am using it more than I ever have. For me the key is to keep the number of apps, glances, notifications pared down to only what I really need to see.
Although I have the autoupdate for apps turned off, it still adds new apps when an existing iPhone app gets updated to include AppleWatch - very frustrating, as I then have to manually delete or turn them off. Its an everyday thing that I hope will be fixed in the next software update
Early adopters have never sustained a product anywhere. Have you seen a 17" MBP in Apples lineup lately? Nope, that is because residual sales couldn't sustain its development.
...
Sure they can. They did it with smart phones that before iPhone was a sector that just couldn't get any traction. To make a fundamental change here they need to make the wearing of an Applee Watch compelling just as iPhone was compelling. I don't see that in this release but then again iPhone took awhile to come into its own.
Not sure the 17" MBP was about early adopters. It existed for many years and had a purpose (additional screen real estate needed for some tasks). I had every 17" PowerBook and MBP because of that. With the arrival of the 15" rMBP in 2012 most of the need for the 17" model just vanished for many people. I know several people who went down that road, and nobody wants the bigger device back. So, maybe Apple just killed it for good (for most)? I do not think that the 17" model ate that much additional R&D cost, but I can't say for sure.
...
The big difference between a watch and all other products before it is that all of them addressed needs that existed. People want private entertainment, people want communication. It is "just" (ok, biggest "just" ever) a matter of creating the right product to deliver. A watch is obviously not the ideal communication device (unless you pair it with wireless headsets etc., all things that never took off), it is too small for entertainment, and quite obviously, you can find out the current time by many other means most of the time. So, IMHO, the task here is much more difficult: instead of satisfying a need, you need to identify or create one. Possible, but certainly not overnight.
Are people really that much into fitness and health? If so, why do we eat what we eat? Why hasn't any fitness product made a fortune? Who needs all this constant GPS, barometric pressure etc. information all the time? And in how many devices do we need it? Not even 1% of the people I know is some "outdoor type", and "trekking" destinations are usually defined by pubs or restaurants...
I do not mean to say there are no applications that could be useful (to a relevant mass of people), but I am not sure we really know what these might be. I would assume that e.g. controlling home automation is a (future) biggie, I consider it a prime example where a wearable solution makes a lot of sense. But this is, for the time being, only relevant in the richest households of the richest countries. And even there the penetration is still rather low.
Long story short. I do not think that most of the complaints and suggestions we are hearing are really making a difference for the time being. Products with all these capabilities (round form factor, millions of sensors etc.) do exist, and none of them is making a killing. Apple doing the same thing is not the answer. Being "there" whenever these new needs and possibilities develop is most important.
It doesn't even need SIM card coaability at first. They could easily do FaceTime on Watch and have a lot of sakes simply due to that capability. FaceTime especially if limited to audio, would be a great addition to the watch at a minimal power burn. Video would of course use more power but that isn't a long term problem. However either way being able to communicate via your Watch, over WiFi (not slaved to an iPhone), would be a huge improvement.
In other words I suspect Watch will come into its own when it can do much over WiFi. FaceTime is just one of those things.
Naaa... A watch with a camera is "mega purvey"perhaps even more so than the googol glasses (which are pretty pervey in their own right.) Besides it would get it on the restricted list in many sensitive locations. (and perhaps banned from many restaurants/nightclubs because of the restroom issue.)
Quite simply, adding a camera to the ?watch subtracts far more than it adds
The desire for some of these features are hard to justify with today's hardware and functionality. But this isn't a static world, I fully expect Watch to become far more powerful in the future. Actually I've never really gotten a grip on the home automation kick. I have an automatic thermostat for the furnace that does just fine. Do I really need Siri talking to Apple just to turn on my lights?
By the way this is why I believe Apple is off base with Siri, that AI needs to run locally to handle local needs. Not to pull the thread off track but Siri and home automation just strikes me as stupid in its current form. Nothing said now will make a difference because sales are going to people that are at best early adopters. Think about it, Apple isn't even shipping its mainstream operating system for the watch. The concern is will the Watch have what it takes to sustain sales after this period of early adoption. That I really don't know but for me it needs to have more functionality then it has now. It just isn't compelling for somebody that doesn't wear a watch now.
In any event I think you are mis representing the current Watch as there really isn't anything like it out there right now. Apple in fact has not done the same thing, it just has to do more and that will come with the next technology leap.
Naaa... A watch with a camera is "mega purvey"perhaps even more so than the googol glasses (which are pretty pervey in their own right.) Besides it would get it on the restricted list in many sensitive locations. (and perhaps banned from many restaurants/nightclubs because of the restroom issue.)
Quite simply, adding a camera to the ?watch subtracts far more than it adds
Couldn't disagree more. If any of what you suggest is true, the iPhone would be banned from restaurants/nightclubs. Google Glass was a problem because the camera looked at whatever you looked at, and no one knew whether it was on or not. Just like the iPhone it would be pretty easy to spot someone using the camera on a watch, or at least as easy, since it's pretty easy to take pictures of someone on a iPhone now without them knowing. And I'm not sure what any camera could capture in a bathroom without it being blatantly obvious, including Google Glass.
The benefits of the camera will allow people to take spontaneous selfies without taking their phone out of their bag or pocket, and that will make it a huge seller for some people. And if you don't think Apple isn't aware of it, then go back and look at the keynote where Tim Cook spent a good deal of time extolling the virtues of the burst feature on the iPhone's front facing camera, specifically for taking selfies.
So there's that, and then the potential of the camera to be used for turning the watch backlight on and off, and keeping it on, with a face recognition feature.
So no, not "mega puervy" at all, at least not any more than the iPhone. If you're in the restroom and see someone pointing their watch face at you while they press buttons on it, or better yet, holding it over the urinal stall and pressing buttons on it, then maybe you have some cause for concern. But then they could do that with their iPhone too. No the benefits of the camera far outweigh any of these privacy concerns.
Well maybe not. There are legitimate uses just like there are legitimate uses for cell phone cameras or even Google Glass. The problem isn't the technology it is rather the user that is the problem. Much of this could be solved if one was free to beat the living hell out of some of these perverts. It is pretty obvious that jail time or the threat of jail time does nothing to deter these people. Broken bones and a deep cuncusion or two might though.
Sog35 - I don't recall whether I've agreed with you or disagreed with you in the past - but today, on this message thread, I say Bravo and offer my full support - particularly in your discussions with mstone (who appears to be the definition of indecisive and so self-important that he believes any of us would care the slightest about WHY he is not getting a watch! It's laughable! There are more than 7 billion people on the planet and the truth is that the VAST majority of them are also NOT going to buy the Apple watch. What makes him think his opinion would be of interest to ANYBODY reading this thread?). I also support your arguments against the viability of a round watch and all other points of debate with wizard. He sure seems to have a lot of delusions! I personally don't wear jewelry - but I do wear a square, Apple Watch every day and absolutely LOVE all the ways it makes my life easier! (and I know I'm not unique in that respect...)
Anyhow - keep up the good work Sog35! Casual readers who stumble upon this article should have a voice of reason to listen to amongst all of the trolling, rhetoric and delusions spewed forth by the small-minded!!!