T-Pain demos GarageBand for iOS updates while wearing an iced out Apple Watch

Posted:
in Apple Watch
Despite persistent rumors that the Apple Watch isn't performing as well as expected, the wearable doesn't seem to have lost its cultural cachet as it continues to appear on famous wrists -- including GarageBand ambassador and autotune enthusiast T-Pain.


Via The Verge


The Rappa Ternt Sanga wore what appears to be a space black stainless steel model with some sparkly additions while demoing Wednesday's GarageBand for iOS updates to The Verge. T-Pain is the second rapper to give the Apple Watch an ice bath -- Ludacris did so when the device launched.

Apple made a point of putting the Watch in the hands of tastemakers after its debut, offering exclusive bands to fashion insiders and the glitterati. Singer Beyonce and Chanel creative chief Karl Lagerfeld famously received gold Edition models with matching all-gold link bracelets, a style still unavailable to the public.

Continuing that upmarket trend, Apple partnered with French fashion house Hermes for an exclusive variant on the stainless steel model. Apple Watch Hermes comes with high-end leather bands and a custom Hermes face.

Apple has yet to give detailed sales information on the Watch, and is unlikely to do so any time in the near future. The company will almost certainly address the Watch's progress, however, during its upcoming earnings call on Jan. 26.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 14
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    creative chief Karl Lagerfeld famously received gold Edition models with matching all-gold link bracelets, a style still unavailable to the public.

    I'm actually still kind of surprised by that. I thought for sure that gold-link band would show up in time for Christmas. Then again, I thought they'd stop selling the Edition by now. It's 10 months after the launch and despite Tim Cook explicitly stating the Edition would be sold in "very limited" quantities, I thought surely he meant with respect to its availability, not how many they would likely sell. When Apple partner Colette sold their Editions for 50% off until they were sold out, I was surprised to say the least.

    I'm kinda surprised these rappers didn't put the diamonds on the 18k gold Edition, for that extra touch of bling. But maybe that speaks to the fashion aspect -- Sanga likes silver maybe, and is bucking the stereotype? One more reason Apple should probably do a Platinum Edition. I wonder if Apple would ever get into diamond studded models, or rather partner with another company like Tiffany to design a diamond studded watch in Platinum?
  • Reply 2 of 14
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    When Apple Watch came out, for the next few months (even after store sales started) I saw little activity at the AW area in my local Apple Store.  However by holiday season I noticed a substantial increase, such that every time I went there there was always activity there, and sometimes a lot.  Also, I am getting more people asking me about my AW, and they indicate they are thinking of getting one.  Despite a lot of the advertising by Apple, out in the real world many people still didn't know much about it, what it looked like, or what it did.  It just takes time for such this to diffuse into the masses.

    Anyone who thought that AW would be an instant "smash" (selling in excess of 5M a quarter & growing from day 1, with supply always constrained) did not think at all about the market it was entering.  The market itself will take time to develop, but Apple has already established itself as the leader of "smart watches" of any value.  If Apple can do a very solid update for Apple Watch 2 (and Watch OS3), then I would estimate AW sales of gen2 will double gen1 (so anywhere from 20-30M potential I figure, and for a device with an ASP of likely $450-$500 including additional bands).  Any media "journalist" / blogger / analyst / forum troll that says those numbers are "a fail", will clearly identify themselves as the real failure.
    calijbdragonjahblade
  • Reply 3 of 14
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 2,753member
    Dunno about sales performance but I find the performance of third party apps is still awful, whether they're on the watch or streamed from the phone. The dots go on and on and on and....
    braderunner
  • Reply 4 of 14
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    This guy is really talented.
  • Reply 5 of 14
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,301member
    brucemc said:
    When Apple Watch came out, for the next few months (even after store sales started) I saw little activity at the AW area in my local Apple Store.  However by holiday season I noticed a substantial increase, such that every time I went there there was always activity there, and sometimes a lot.  Also, I am getting more people asking me about my AW, and they indicate they are thinking of getting one.  Despite a lot of the advertising by Apple, out in the real world many people still didn't know much about it, what it looked like, or what it did.  It just takes time for such this to diffuse into the masses.

    Anyone who thought that AW would be an instant "smash" (selling in excess of 5M a quarter & growing from day 1, with supply always constrained) did not think at all about the market it was entering.  The market itself will take time to develop, but Apple has already established itself as the leader of "smart watches" of any value.  If Apple can do a very solid update for Apple Watch 2 (and Watch OS3), then I would estimate AW sales of gen2 will double gen1 (so anywhere from 20-30M potential I figure, and for a device with an ASP of likely $450-$500 including additional bands).  Any media "journalist" / blogger / analyst / forum troll that says those numbers are "a fail", will clearly identify themselves as the real failure.
    All you have to do is look at sales of the original iPhone to sales now! It's a HUGE difference. I expected that with the AW also. I got mine in late Nov. I wear it every day. I hadn't worn a watch in YEARS!!! Now I'd miss not having it. I still wouldn't want to wear a plain, old only tells Time, maybe date, watch!!! I don't expect big hardware changes. I expect the same bands will be usable. WatchOS3 could see a number of big changes after a much larger group of people using them. See what works, what could work better and what just doesn't work at all.
  • Reply 6 of 14
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,301member
    elijahg said:
    Dunno about sales performance but I find the performance of third party apps is still awful, whether they're on the watch or streamed from the phone. The dots go on and on and on and....
    I don't think it's all that BAD. It could be better, sure. You can to take Performance and battery life into consideration. Adding GPS which so many want is a HUGE power drain. What to kill you Apple Watch battery in a hour or less, just add GPS. Stand Alone GPS takes a lot longer to lock onto Satellites without CELL service which is used to greatly speed things up.
    latifbp
  • Reply 7 of 14
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    jbdragon said:
    brucemc said:
    When Apple Watch came out, for the next few months (even after store sales started) I saw little activity at the AW area in my local Apple Store.  However by holiday season I noticed a substantial increase, such that every time I went there there was always activity there, and sometimes a lot.  Also, I am getting more people asking me about my AW, and they indicate they are thinking of getting one.  Despite a lot of the advertising by Apple, out in the real world many people still didn't know much about it, what it looked like, or what it did.  It just takes time for such this to diffuse into the masses.

    Anyone who thought that AW would be an instant "smash" (selling in excess of 5M a quarter & growing from day 1, with supply always constrained) did not think at all about the market it was entering.  The market itself will take time to develop, but Apple has already established itself as the leader of "smart watches" of any value.  If Apple can do a very solid update for Apple Watch 2 (and Watch OS3), then I would estimate AW sales of gen2 will double gen1 (so anywhere from 20-30M potential I figure, and for a device with an ASP of likely $450-$500 including additional bands).  Any media "journalist" / blogger / analyst / forum troll that says those numbers are "a fail", will clearly identify themselves as the real failure.
    All you have to do is look at sales of the original iPhone to sales now! It's a HUGE difference. I expected that with the AW also. I got mine in late Nov. I wear it every day. I hadn't worn a watch in YEARS!!! Now I'd miss not having it. I still wouldn't want to wear a plain, old only tells Time, maybe date, watch!!! I don't expect big hardware changes. I expect the same bands will be usable. WatchOS3 could see a number of big changes after a much larger group of people using them. See what works, what could work better and what just doesn't work at all.
    I similarly used to wear a watch for many years, but stopped, primarily because I found that for at least the lower priced watches ($100-$200 stainless variety), the fit was poor, watches didn't last, and it was a pain to get that battery replaced every year (trip to store & wait).  Got used to just looking at phone.  AW though has a great fit, quality is great, and it does so much more than a traditional watch.

    For AW 2 (h/w), I think it can make great strides if it has:
    - Integrated GPS (covers more of the fitness needs for some, and helps with perception of use without iPhone)
    - Longer battery & faster charging (either for longer time between charges, supporting a low-power always on watch face, sleep tracking, etc)
    - Some small design changes - just enough to distinguish from gen1
    - New casing materials for a broader line
    - An update to the water resistance would similarly spur more sales (potentially a lot more), although I think this one is a more "iffy" update for AW2

    I expect existing watch bands of course to work on gen2 (and many to come), but AW2 might bring in the rumoured smart band support (that would only work with AW2 perhaps due to a new interface like how iPad Pro works with its keyboard.
  • Reply 8 of 14
    brucemc said:
    Anyone who thought that AW would be an instant "smash" (selling in excess of 5M a quarter & growing from day 1, with supply always constrained) did not think at all about the market it was entering.  The market itself will take time to develop, but Apple has already established itself as the leader of "smart watches" of any value.  If Apple can do a very solid update for Apple Watch 2 (and Watch OS3), then I would estimate AW sales of gen2 will double gen1 (so anywhere from 20-30M potential I figure, and for a device with an ASP of likely $450-$500 including additional bands).  Any media "journalist" / blogger / analyst / forum troll that says those numbers are "a fail", will clearly identify themselves as the real failure.
    overnight billion-dollar business sounds like a smash to me.

    http://carlhowe.com/blog/apple-watch-an-overnight-multi-billion-dollar-business/
    latifbp
  • Reply 9 of 14
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    jbdragon said:
    I don't think it's all that BAD. It could be better, sure. You can to take Performance and battery life into consideration. Adding GPS which so many want is a HUGE power drain. What to kill you Apple Watch battery in a hour or less, just add GPS. Stand Alone GPS takes a lot longer to lock onto Satellites without CELL service which is used to greatly speed things up.
    Really? Adding GPS will kill your Watch battery "in an hour or less"? Where are you getting your data about GPS? 

    The Rip Curl Search GPS watch has a 10 hour battery life for continuous GPS tracking. Heck my dog's Whistle tracker has GPS and cellular radios and lasts a week between charges.
  • Reply 10 of 14
    I was a little disappointed with this article. I was hoping for some commentary from what the rapper did while in demo and how he liked it. That would have been a nice touch. The fact that he iced out a watch is not that big of deal...really it is no big deal.
  • Reply 11 of 14
    cali said:
    This guy is really talented.
    It's more like this guy makes himself look talented thanks to autotune. 
  • Reply 12 of 14
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    mac_128 said:
    jbdragon said:
    I don't think it's all that BAD. It could be better, sure. You can to take Performance and battery life into consideration. Adding GPS which so many want is a HUGE power drain. What to kill you Apple Watch battery in a hour or less, just add GPS. Stand Alone GPS takes a lot longer to lock onto Satellites without CELL service which is used to greatly speed things up.
    Really? Adding GPS will kill your Watch battery "in an hour or less"? Where are you getting your data about GPS? 

    The Rip Curl Search GPS watch has a 10 hour battery life for continuous GPS tracking. Heck my dog's Whistle tracker has GPS and cellular radios and lasts a week between charges.
    Simple, most GPS watches have batteries 2.5 times the size of the Apple Watch 38mm. The Forerunner 220, has very basic function and lasts 10h.
    Right now, the 38mm on average for most people lasts about 21h (it's at 25-30% at the end of a 16h day).

    An Apple watch that does no BT music, no other app, no pulse monitoring, would do about 4h (10/2.5).
    If you add the pulse monitoring function that's also a battery hog, you'd get about 2h of exercising before you killed your watch.
    Most time, you don't run 2h, say you run 1h minutes, and the rest of the day you use your watch as usual; so used 1/2 of your whole battery budget in 1h.
    Then your 38mm watch would not make it to the end of the day after your GPS run session; it would likely die as just around 6 pm for the average user. (heavy users would obviously be dying much sooner).
    The 42mm maybe would make it to 10pm with 0-10%

    They may be able to put a GPS in the next watch, but I sort of don't think so, not yet.
    The problem is that the CPU is not the biggest battery hog; even if they go to 14nm, there still won't be enough battery for the 38mm to reach the end of the day,
    The 42mm probably would get about 20% at the the end of the day with the 14nm CPU, borderline OK.




  • Reply 13 of 14
    How many of the other smartwatches with GPS also have an OLED display. What kind of display does the Whistle tracker use?

    I doubt there'll be GPS in the next Watch. Maybe not even the one after that.
  • Reply 14 of 14
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    foggyhill said:
    mac_128 said:
    Really? Adding GPS will kill your Watch battery "in an hour or less"? Where are you getting your data about GPS? 

    The Rip Curl Search GPS watch has a 10 hour battery life for continuous GPS tracking. Heck my dog's Whistle tracker has GPS and cellular radios and lasts a week between charges.
    Simple, most GPS watches have batteries 2.5 times the size of the Apple Watch 38mm. The Forerunner 220, has very basic function and lasts 10h.
    Right now, the 38mm on average for most people lasts about 21h (it's at 25-30% at the end of a 16h day).

    An Apple watch that does no BT music, no other app, no pulse monitoring, would do about 4h (10/2.5).
    If you add the pulse monitoring function that's also a battery hog, you'd get about 2h of exercising before you killed your watch.
    Most time, you don't run 2h, say you run 1h minutes, and the rest of the day you use your watch as usual; so used 1/2 of your whole battery budget in 1h.
    Then your 38mm watch would not make it to the end of the day after your GPS run session; it would likely die as just around 6 pm for the average user. (heavy users would obviously be dying much sooner).
    The 42mm maybe would make it to 10pm with 0-10%

    They may be able to put a GPS in the next watch, but I sort of don't think so, not yet.
    The problem is that the CPU is not the biggest battery hog; even if they go to 14nm, there still won't be enough battery for the 38mm to reach the end of the day,
    The 42mm probably would get about 20% at the the end of the day with the 14nm CPU, borderline OK.

    As I stated before, I'd love to see actual data to back up your claims.

    I couldn't find much info on the battery capacity of the Garmin GPS, but the Polar M400 GPS seems to counter your massive battery theory. The 38mm Watch has a 205mAh  battery, and the 42mm is 246mAh. The Polar has a 190mAh, which lasts 9 hours of continuous GPS. So on that basis alone, I'd say your estimate of 2.5 times the battery size of the Watch being the reason GPS can last so long is bunk, and that pretty much voids the rest of your argument. 

    But let's take a look at it: Polar also monitors heart rate continuously, and Polar publishes an 8 hour train time with GPS and Bluetooth heart rate sensor (which is borne out by reviews). Given that, I'd say the Watch, doing nothing else but GPS and heart monitoring would last 10 hours considering it has a much LARGER battery than the Polar -- gain based purely on your assertion that the size of the battery is what makes GPS possible on those other devices over the Watch.

    Also, you make the assumption that someone is going to use the watch to train, and then use the rest of the day without recharging it while they shower, or in their car, or in their office, or their home, etc. For someone who values GPS, there are all sorts of tradeoffs they can choose. Much better to have the option than not. In my case, I would actually have two watches, especially now that Apple allows me to pair two watches with one phone. I'd have a fully charged GPS training watch, and then a regular wear watch -- assuming this is actually even a problem, which it doesn't appear to be based on the Polar battery capacity, which is the basis of your argument against GPS.

    You also make the assumption that GPS would be used continuously, which of course wouldn't necessarily be the case. For many, GPS would only be engaged by some athletes when training outdoors, and when the maps application is being used, or with turn-by-turn directions. The point being, it wouldn't necessarily be on all the time, but used as needed -- which when the iPhone's around would be NEVER.

    And then there's the battery life for the stuff Apple actually lets you do with the watch:

    Talk Time -- 3 hours only making a call (and nothing else)
    Audio Playback -- 6.5 hours only listening to music via bluetooth
    Workout -- 6.5 hours only using an active workout session with heart rate sensor on

    I'd hate to think how badly those times would be impacted by doing anything else on the watch at the same time, as you suggest with GPS would otherwise impact the battery life.

    The reality is, nobody is likely going to make 3 hours worth of phone calls on the watch during a day. Nobody is likely going to stream 6.5 hours from the watch during a day. And nobody is likely going to work out 6.5 hours a day. Likewise, nobody is going to use GPS 10 hours a day. So the benefit of having GPS on the watch for those who need it, or just want the option occasionally, far outweighs what appears to be a minimal battery impact at best.
     
    edited January 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.