These imaginary people will be unhappy because the rumored next watch will be out in a rumored 6 months and will have some hypothetical specs and imagined features that these imaginary people would have wanted in the watch they received as a gift because imaginary people are always glass-half-empty when it comes to receiving gifts they didn't pay for.
To clarify, I specified 10 meters, because of possible issues of pressure. Actually depth would be 1 meter or less.
I use a watch while swimming to check time, calories consumed, laps, bpm, etc. I have a Swimovate watch, but it lacks the elegance of the Apple Watch and doesn't communicate with the iOS Health app.
Waterfi has come out with a waterproof Apple Watch; however, as other have mentioned, there are no apps for swimming. Perhaps there will be one now that WaterFi has a solution.
My thought is if Waterfi was able to waterproof the Apple Watch, why can't Apple?
While Waterfi is better than nothing, I wouldn't be the first to spend the money, unless I had the money to lose. Their process basically pumps glue into the innards, sealing everything. Not sure how that works with a replaceable battery. Either way, they used to offer an iPod nano, but they were never able to adequately water proof it, and had so many warranty issues with it they dropped it quickly. The shuffle is a much simpler device, and so they are able to effectively water proof it.
This is a poor mans way to water proof something. A Rolex is not pumped full of sealant to achieve IPX8 ratings. And that is not what I would expect Apple to do either. Real water resistance takes more care and work than Apple is willing to put into the first generation product.
They need to make it waterproof to at least 10 feet depth, so that swimmers could use it safely. Except for that flaw, I'm extremely happy with my Apple Watch..
You guys with your arbitrary depths need to take a physics lesson. The depth is not the primary issue, it's the force applied. Even if an ?Watch were rated to sit at the bottom of a 10 foot tank of static water for an hour, it's not the same as swimming a 200 meter butterfly. And that's definitely not enough protection for diving even into shallow water. ipx8 testing goes way beyond simple depth tests, including temperature and salinity. So Apple needs to do more than certify it to withstand submersion of "at least 10 feet" for swimmers, in order to guarantee it for swimming.
To clarify, I specified 10 meters, because of possible issues of pressure. Actually depth would be 1 meter or less.
I use a watch while swimming to check time, calories consumed, laps, bpm, etc. I have a Swimovate watch, but it lacks the elegance of the Apple Watch and doesn't communicate with the iOS Health app.
Waterfi has come out with a waterproof Apple Watch; however, as other have mentioned, there are no apps for swimming. Perhaps there will be one now that WaterFi has a solution.
I don't like the look to be perfectly honest. They seem to focus a lot on the fitness aspect of the Watch, but it's not very streamlined or sleek looking. But then at other times they seem to push the watch aspect of the device, but aside from the crown it's not like any watch I've ever seen.
I wonder if this will be similar to what happened with the original iPad. The 2nd generation was a big improvement in terms of thinness, weight, and power. I'd be interested if they could make the Watch faster and thinner while keeping the same battery life. I guess I'll wait until next year when the leaks of the new generation Apple Watch start happening.
Since the size of the watch limits the technology that can be crammed inside, I expect that additional functionality will be added through the watchband connectors. They should be able to make bands with extra batteries, antennas, and whatever chips that can be placed within the thickness of a watchband. And there are some big watchbands out there...
Yep! I had suggested adding more juice through the watchband long ago. I am surprised the after market hasn't taken up on that idea. Now we know that there are data port by the strap connector. I can see Apple offloading some stuff onto watchbands - Cameras (front and back facing), small screen, touchpoint, etc.
Especially in the modern (Steve Jobs 2.0) era and beyond, Apple has become very disciplined about product development and roll out. They don't wait for the product to be absolutely perfect. They ship when it's ready now, and then evolve it in a disciplined and strategic way.
Yep! I had suggested adding more juice through the watchband long ago. I am surprised the after market hasn't taken up on that idea. Now we know that there are data port by the strap connector. I can see Apple offloading some stuff onto watchbands - Cameras (front and back facing), small screen, touchpoint, etc.
With the location of the port, in relation to the notch that locks in bands, I suspect this is more difficult than it would seem at first glance. I don't see how a band could simultaneously push into the port AND lock into place.
I wonder if this will be similar to what happened with the original iPad. The 2nd generation was a big improvement in terms of thinness, weight, and power. I'd be interested if they could make the Watch faster and thinner while keeping the same battery life. I guess I'll wait until next year when the leaks of the new generation Apple Watch start happening.
Many people on this forum say that they find the watch "way too thick / bulky", but to that I respond:
- It is thinner and smaller than most mechanical watches
- It is thinner and smaller than other smart watches (excluding pure fitness trackers)
- Due to the strap connecting in the middle, it pulls the bottom bulge into your wrist a bit (important for the heat rate measurement), and thus it does not sit as high as other watches.
- Weight is a non issue.
It is definitely the case that you need to try it on to really see.
I will agree (as a watch owner for 5 months) that a little bit thinner would be even more enjoyable (easier going under the shirt cuffs), but given that (to me) it is not bulky at all, I definitely want more functionality and better battery life.
1. 2016 update sounds great! Doesn't seem like the current iteration is appealing enough.
2. Updates needed: longer battery life, thinner and GPS.
3. Updates hopeful: an "always on" setting and a water proof version.
For AW to hit mainstream, it really needs to be always on. A watch is a fashion statement, which is hard to make when it's a blank screen 80% of the time. Hopefully battery life and screen technology can resolve this?
My hunch is that the Watch is a long way from being able to support "always on".
I love my Apple Watch. But less since it completely cracked after dropping out of my locker 3-4' onto a tile floor. My fault - I hadn't counted on a "Sport" watch being so fragile. Lesson learned the hard way (I slapped a screen protector on it to protect *me* from the broken glass - im not paying $200 for a replacement screen!)
So my wish is obvious: a sturdier model - hopefully one that allows for the sport of swimming - i.e. Is water resistant!
Comments
I think that's a little pessimistic ...
While Waterfi is better than nothing, I wouldn't be the first to spend the money, unless I had the money to lose. Their process basically pumps glue into the innards, sealing everything. Not sure how that works with a replaceable battery. Either way, they used to offer an iPod nano, but they were never able to adequately water proof it, and had so many warranty issues with it they dropped it quickly. The shuffle is a much simpler device, and so they are able to effectively water proof it.
This is a poor mans way to water proof something. A Rolex is not pumped full of sealant to achieve IPX8 ratings. And that is not what I would expect Apple to do either. Real water resistance takes more care and work than Apple is willing to put into the first generation product.
Neat!
I don't like the look to be perfectly honest. They seem to focus a lot on the fitness aspect of the Watch, but it's not very streamlined or sleek looking. But then at other times they seem to push the watch aspect of the device, but aside from the crown it's not like any watch I've ever seen.
You mean unlike the rest of this thread? This thread is a celebration of glass half emptyism.
Sometimes a joke doesn't need explaining. Rarely on AI I admit.
Since the size of the watch limits the technology that can be crammed inside, I expect that additional functionality will be added through the watchband connectors. They should be able to make bands with extra batteries, antennas, and whatever chips that can be placed within the thickness of a watchband. And there are some big watchbands out there...
Yep! I had suggested adding more juice through the watchband long ago. I am surprised the after market hasn't taken up on that idea. Now we know that there are data port by the strap connector. I can see Apple offloading some stuff onto watchbands - Cameras (front and back facing), small screen, touchpoint, etc.
I guess we designers think alike ????
With the location of the port, in relation to the notch that locks in bands, I suspect this is more difficult than it would seem at first glance. I don't see how a band could simultaneously push into the port AND lock into place.
I wonder if this will be similar to what happened with the original iPad. The 2nd generation was a big improvement in terms of thinness, weight, and power. I'd be interested if they could make the Watch faster and thinner while keeping the same battery life. I guess I'll wait until next year when the leaks of the new generation Apple Watch start happening.
Many people on this forum say that they find the watch "way too thick / bulky", but to that I respond:
- It is thinner and smaller than most mechanical watches
- It is thinner and smaller than other smart watches (excluding pure fitness trackers)
- Due to the strap connecting in the middle, it pulls the bottom bulge into your wrist a bit (important for the heat rate measurement), and thus it does not sit as high as other watches.
- Weight is a non issue.
It is definitely the case that you need to try it on to really see.
I will agree (as a watch owner for 5 months) that a little bit thinner would be even more enjoyable (easier going under the shirt cuffs), but given that (to me) it is not bulky at all, I definitely want more functionality and better battery life.
My hunch is that the Watch is a long way from being able to support "always on".
So my wish is obvious: a sturdier model - hopefully one that allows for the sport of swimming - i.e. Is water resistant!