Agreed. There are maybe two third party apps I use, and only sparingly. So far, health tracking, Apple Pay, messages, and music are the primary features I'm using. Also, I find myself using the home screen very little. I find glances and complications work best. Just my thoughts.
People are hating on 3rd party apps because they take forever to load. I'll bet most people saying they have no use for 3rd party apps would feel differently if they loaded instantly. Apple probably should have waited with 3rd party apps but I get why they probably felt they needed to get developers on board right away and didn't want Android Wear or something else to become the platform of choice for developers.
I see on Twitter tech writers still complaining about battery life. I don't get it. I wear my 38mm watch go bed every night. I charge it for maybe a half hour before I got to bed and when I wake up it's about 80% so by the time I shower and get ready for the day it's fully charged again. Are these people spending 4 hours at the gym every day? Or is it just not wanting to have to charge another thing? I think that's a lame complaint. Takes 2 seconds to slap the watch on its charger and it doesn't take that long to charge at all.
agreed apps are too slow. even stock have some delay.
also agreed on battery life -- i charge mine before bed on a dock next to my phone and its routinely half full. even if I spend a couple hours in the gym tracking my HR. it gets better battery life than the device it's an accessory to, so there is no battery problem.
People are hating on 3rd party apps because they take forever to load. I'll bet most people saying they have no use for 3rd party apps would feel differently if they loaded instantly. Apple probably should have waited with 3rd party apps but I get why they probably felt they needed to get developers on board right away and didn't want Android Wear or something else to become the platform of choice for developers.
I see on Twitter tech writers still complaining about battery life. I don't get it. I wear my 38mm watch go bed every night. I charge it for maybe a half hour before I got to bed and when I wake up it's about 80% so by the time I shower and get ready for the day it's fully charged again. Are these people spending 4 hours at the gym every day? Or is it just not wanting to have to charge another thing? I think that's a lame complaint. Takes 2 seconds to slap the watch on its charger and it doesn't take that long to charge at all.
agreed apps are too slow. even stock have some delay.
also agreed on battery life -- i charge mine before bed on a dock next to my phone and its routinely half full. even if I spend a couple hours in the gym tracking my HR. it gets better battery life than the device it's an accessory to, so there is no battery problem.
This is just piss on Watch week plain and simple. Mashable has an article about all the ways Watch needs to change (of course including a cheap plastic version). Inc has an article up about how this is the beginning of the end for Watch, Fast Company running with that stupid survey claiming the watch is a dud. Good grief the product has only been out for year. And it's a product in a category that isn't even close to being mature. What amazes me most is how much ink a product that supposedly is so awful gets. If nobody cares about Watch and it's a dud why does the media spill so much ink over it?!?
I don't know it may just be me, but every time I read an article quoting Ming-Chi Kuo I always get the feeling that he is just throwing cow manure at the wall and hoping something will stick. Also I've been a "casual" reader since before I registered on the forum in 2004. Like I said that may just be me...
agreed apps are too slow. even stock have some delay.
also agreed on battery life -- i charge mine before bed on a dock next to my phone and its routinely half full. even if I spend a couple hours in the gym tracking my HR. it gets better battery life than the device it's an accessory to, so there is no battery problem.
This is just piss on Watch week plain and simple. Mashable has an article about all the ways Watch needs to change (of course including a cheap plastic version). Inc has an article up about how this is the beginning of the end for Watch, Fast Company running with that stupid survey claiming the watch is a dud. Good grief the product has only been out for year. And it's a product in a category that isn't even close to being mature. What amazes me most is how much ink a product that supposedly is so awful gets. If nobody cares about Watch and it's a dud why does the media spill so much ink over it?!?
Media for decades (or since its inception?) have always taken the approach that "bad news sells". It has only gotten worse with advent of online distribution as the only financial model the industry is following is the creation of click-bait articles to get ad impressions. Now add in "Apple" and the problem is magnified a 1000x - no other company is loved & hated so much I think. And there is nothing many people love more than to tear down success. In the end, it is just noise. Best to ignore it.
I may be way out on this, but I think that Apple Watch is (longer term) their most important product since the iPhone, in terms of growth potential. Only wearables have a market potential like a mobile smartphone (e.g. just about everyone on the planet). In fact the total potential is likely larger, as some consumers will purchase more than one for fashion or use reasons. However, it is only potential, and we have yet to see if the market will in fact take off - it is still every early. That is why I hope that Apple is going to push the product very hard to build that market.
While I of course want Apple to grow their iPad, Mac and Apple TV lines & bring big improvements there, their potential impact for growth is nowhere near what the Apple Watch is.
I recently purchased a 42 mm sport for heartbeat tracking. Contrasting to all I've read to date about the latency and battery, it appears to me blazingly fast with an excellent battery usage. I prefer to load no photo, no music and no apps except a very few glance or complication, maybe this is why it is still fast and good on battery. Is that the correct use for an Apple Watch? I don't care, I like it "as is" and I have no complaint. WatchOS 2.2...
Yeah, I tried 3rd party apps but stopped using them because they're so slow and they burn through battery life. I'm happy with the standard apps: weather, workout, activity tracking, notifications, directions when navigating with Maps on the iPhone, iMessage, glancing at incoming emails, taking phone calls while driving. It does so much. Great battery life too.
I got the 38 mm because it's about the same size as other watches I've worn and long sleeve shirt cuffs slide over it easily. I don't see a need for a thinner watch, but I guess I wouldn't object.
In that note to investors AppleInsider got a copy, apparently Kuo makes many more claims regarding Apple Watch than those reported above... Here are what he said and what AppleInsider has censored:
"the device lacks killer applications"
"the form factor needs improvement"
"limited battery life and its dependence on iPhone cut demand"
So, why did you censor all of these, AppleInsider?...
Holy crap Sog, Are you kidding? You just made yourself a laughing stock (though I continue to hold you in high esteme) by using, and then citing, the "financial" description of a "financial insider". Maybe try using a simple english dictionary for the definition of the word, as used in the article?
Are we going to use a simple english dictionary to define other financial terms like: margins, profits, earnings per share, dividends? I don't think so.
Insider is a financial term and should be used that way especially when its describing a person who works in the financial sector.
No. the term "insider" is not a financial term unless used 'specifically' in that way. That was my point.
You think when somebody mentions "people who live at the margins of society", that they are talking about people's stock positions? When somebody says "Washington insiders", you think they're talking about some shareholder of WASH?
I think more storage, so you can cache apps, or at least buffer their state (so it's ready when you need it, though that uses a bit more battery), would do a lot for latency. Latency can be fixed if the most of the info needed is already on the watch when you needed, going to the network is too slow for glances. So, some good AI in the background could help.
Yep and none of that has anything to do with aesthetic design. Seems to me the people calling for a design change are those who think people won't buy something new unless it looks completely different and everyone can see they have the latest and greatest thing. The same people freaking out that iPhone 7 isn't going to be a radical departure from iPhone 6.
Now you're just being obtuse and hypocritical.
Apple has entered a new field, like it or not. And it's not driven by tech -- sure the smartwatch portion of it is, but there's a fashion component that Apple has given every indication they are taking seriously. The larger market is tied to the latter.
People don't buy watches merely by what they can do. That may influence the watch they buy, but first and foremost they buy the watch for fashion purposes. Does it look good. And believe it or not, they don't buy them for what kind of watch band is attached to it.
If Apple wants to offer a single design, and switch up the bands every 6 months, fine. But that's not going to change the smartwatch business. They can cram every doo-dad, and whatnot into it, and that still won't make it more acceptable to those who don't care for its particular "look", no matter what high fashion leather band maker they get to endorse it. Moreover, the more doo-hickeys they cram into it, the more they will put the early adopters in a position to want to upgrade, and then it becomes one more tech item a person has to upgrade every year, nor is it something they are used to doing with wrist wear. No doubt putting everything but the kitchen sink on someones wrist will have enough utility for some that they can ignore that they don't love the way it looks, but at the end of the day, that's how Apple has set our to distinguish itself from the others that largely do the same things.
In that note to investors AppleInsider got a copy, apparently Kuo makes many more claims regarding Apple Watch than those reported above... Here are what he said and what AppleInsider has censored:
"the device lacks killer applications"
"the form factor needs improvement"
"limited battery life and its dependence on iPhone cut demand"
So, why did you censor all of these, AppleInsider?...
And what is he basing this on? The form factor needs improvement because???
In that note to investors AppleInsider got a copy, apparently Kuo makes many more claims regarding Apple Watch than those reported above... Here are what he said and what AppleInsider has censored:
"the device lacks killer applications"
"the form factor needs improvement"
"limited battery life and its dependence on iPhone cut demand"
So, why did you censor all of these, AppleInsider?...
And what is he basing this on? The form factor needs improvement because???
I don't know. Not much info on that "more accurate guy"s site...
... Maybe because he also claims that its dependence on the iPhone cuts demand... That means it is a wrong product which needs a total redesign from scratch.
Yep and none of that has anything to do with aesthetic design. Seems to me the people calling for a design change are those who think people won't buy something new unless it looks completely different and everyone can see they have the latest and greatest thing. The same people freaking out that iPhone 7 isn't going to be a radical departure from iPhone 6.
Now you're just being obtuse and hypocritical.
Apple has entered a new field, like it or not. And it's not driven by tech -- sure the smartwatch portion of it is, but there's a fashion component that Apple has given every indication they are taking seriously. The larger market is tied to the latter.
People don't buy watches merely by what they can do. That may influence the watch they buy, but first and foremost they buy the watch for fashion purposes. Does it look good. And believe it or not, they don't buy them for what kind of watch band is attached to it.
If Apple wants to offer a single design, and switch up the bands every 6 months, fine. But that's not going to change the smartwatch business. They can cram every doo-dad, and whatnot into it, and that still won't make it more acceptable to those who don't care for its particular "look", no matter what high fashion leather band maker they get to endorse it. Moreover, the more doo-hickeys they cram into it, the more they will put the early adopters in a position to want to upgrade, and then it becomes one more tech item a person has to upgrade every year, nor is it something they are used to doing with wrist wear. No doubt putting everything but the kitchen sink on someones wrist will have enough utility for some that they can ignore that they don't love the way it looks, but at the end of the day, that's how Apple has set our to distinguish itself from the others that largely do the same things.
I'm not sure what your point is. My point is the biggest issues with the watch aren't it's "looks" and most of those calling for a new design are doing so because they believe people will only buy something if they can show everyone it's the latest and greatest by having it look different. I think of more importance is internal improvements, software improvements and band comparability. If Apple can tweak the aesthetics and still have the watch be compatible with current bands, fine. Also I assume by "look" you mean round. I don't see round smart watches setting the world on fire so IF Watch has a problem I don't think it's that it's not round. Bottom line is I think there are a lot of ways Apple can improve the watch that have nothing to do with the look of the case.
This is breaking news? Anybody with half a brain would know the external design isn't going to radically change. Apple isn't releasing all these new bands so they become incompatible in 3-6 months. And anyone who has a watch knows what it needs most is reduced latency. Open an app or glance and it launches immediately not 10-30 seconds later (or never at all).
I think the bands that work today will always work no matter the design.
probably not -- they have a very specific curvature that matches the thickness and roundness of the current design's case.
I think the bands that work today will always work no matter the design.
probably not -- they have a very specific curvature that matches the thickness and roundness of the current design's case.
I think it would be a bad decision for Apple to not make the bands compatible with future Watchs*. There are many people who have spent a small fortune on them -- in my case, I've spent about the same amount on bands as I have my SS watch itself -- and Apple would not be stupid enough to compromise that revenue stream. Part of my band purchases was based on the expectation (I'll admit that it was only my expectation, not something that Apple has ever hinted at) that Apple would make their Watchs forward-compatible with the current banks.
I'll wager that Apple will make the bands compatible.
*Given that it's a proper noun, what is the correct plural for Watch?!
In that note to investors AppleInsider got a copy, apparently Kuo makes many more claims regarding Apple Watch than those reported above... Here are what he said and what AppleInsider has censored:
"the device lacks killer applications"
"the form factor needs improvement"
"limited battery life and its dependence on iPhone cut demand"
So, why did you censor all of these, AppleInsider?...
Because this crap is incoherent clap trap, that's as useless as Kuo is, and would cut their hero worship narrative of him. The fact that dweep cited "limited battery life" tells you everything about him; and yet they praise him relentless here! Bet you could dig up, limited battery life, as a comment for the original Iphone too hey... (which sold way less in the same time period in 2007).
probably not -- they have a very specific curvature that matches the thickness and roundness of the current design's case.
I think it would be a bad decision for Apple to not make the bands compatible with future Watchs*. There are many people who have spent a small fortune on them -- in my case, I've spent about the same amount on bands as I have my SS watch itself -- and Apple would not be stupid enough to compromise that revenue stream. Part of my band purchases was based on the expectation (I'll admit that it was only my expectation, not something that Apple has ever hinted at) that Apple would make their Watchs forward-compatible with the current banks.
I'll wager that Apple will make the bands compatible.
*Given that it's a proper noun, what is the correct plural for Watch?!
You're not thinking like a watch person, which almost all of the Watch designers seem to be. There's a reason Apple went to the trouble to allow you to pair more than one watch with a single iPhone in the last software update.
All the bands you bought already will continue to work with the first generation Watch design, which Apple will more than likely continue to sell well after they introduce new generations, and even multiple styles, of future watches. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple maintain the first gen watch in some capacity with updates (just like the iPhone SE), for years after it's technically fallen off of the officially supported list. The reason for this is because Apple is creating fashion pieces. And as each new generation adds new technological features, the designs endure. This is absolutely no different than something like the Rolex Sub-Mariner which has remained essentially unchanged for over 50 years, despite Rolex offering dozens of other models and designs over the years.
So when Apple releases a new model, its unlikely -- at least in every case -- that they will make the previous models bands compatible. Apple likely wants you to buy a second watch and continue wearing both. Your first gen watch will still function just as well as it always did, and likely will until its battery dies -- at which point you can replace it, and it will likely continue to function for years more until Apple drops support for it. If Apple introduces new must-have features for you on their new watches, and the design requires a new investment in bands, so be-it. That's the nature of technology and jewelry alike. True most watch bands are standard sizes, but they are not all interchangeable. Your demands would be just as limiting in some cases trying to move your link bracelet from one Rolex model to another.
"Hold on didn't he just say it would be 20-40% thinner? As I said on the last article with this apparently "well-connected insider" as the source, I don't understand why anyone listens to this bloke. He changes his mind on a weekly basis, and these for some reason aren't seen as guesses but "updates".
So, you you either cannot read or have a reading comprehension problem. What a whiner.
Why do the bands not have to fit if the external appearance is changed? Can't they change everything else except the band connectors?
Some of us have also bought cases for our WATCHes. I love my ActionProof Bumper a lot on my Space Gray 42mm WATCH SPORT. But I also want to buy a new matt Gold body Midnight Blue band WATCH SPORT 2. So I'd rather they keep the body the same with Bluetooth 4.2, WiFi 802.11ac, a faster smaller 16nm SOC and a bigger longer lasting battery inside. Keeping the WATCH body the same size maximally supports the third party band and case ecosystem as it should in the first few years. I also do not think the WATCH is too thick at all. I think it's already very slim and love it's original size.
I will stake my entire Apple shares on Apple not releasing a new watch that makes the existing bands incompatible. Just using myself as an example...I've spent over $250 on new bands...$150 in just the last month. If come June or September there's a brand new watch and none of the 3 bands I bought in March are compatible I will be pissed off and will definitely not be buying a 2nd gen Watch. I think most people that own an Watch would agree the biggest issues are around performance and software not external aesthetic design.
I think it would be a bad decision for Apple to not make the bands compatible with future Watchs*. There are many people who have spent a small fortune on them -- in my case, I've spent about the same amount on bands as I have my SS watch itself -- and Apple would not be stupid enough to compromise that revenue stream. Part of my band purchases was based on the expectation (I'll admit that it was only my expectation, not something that Apple has ever hinted at) that Apple would make their Watchs forward-compatible with the current banks.
I'll wager that Apple will make the bands compatible.
*Given that it's a proper noun, what is the correct plural for Watch?!
You're not thinking like a watch person, which almost all of the Watch designers seem to be. There's a reason Apple went to the trouble to allow you to pair more than one watch with a single iPhone in the last software update.
All the bands you bought already will continue to work with the first generation Watch design, which Apple will more than likely continue to sell well after they introduce new generations, and even multiple styles, of future watches. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple maintain the first gen watch in some capacity with updates (just like the iPhone SE), for years after it's technically fallen off of the officially supported list. The reason for this is because Apple is creating fashion pieces. And as each new generation adds new technological features, the designs endure. This is absolutely no different than something like the Rolex Sub-Mariner which has remained essentially unchanged for over 50 years, despite Rolex offering dozens of other models and designs over the years.
So when Apple releases a new model, its unlikely -- at least in every case -- that they will make the previous models bands compatible. Apple likely wants you to buy a second watch and continue wearing both. Your first gen watch will still function just as well as it always did, and likely will until its battery dies -- at which point you can replace it, and it will likely continue to function for years more until Apple drops support for it. If Apple introduces new must-have features for you on their new watches, and the design requires a new investment in bands, so be-it. That's the nature of technology and jewelry alike. True most watch bands are standard sizes, but they are not all interchangeable. Your demands would be just as limiting in some cases trying to move your link bracelet from one Rolex model to another.
LOL "Not thinking like a Watch person"? Ok, Watch Person, tell me which version of Rolex Sub-Mariner offers you easily changeable bands? These people had been around for well over a century, and they could not think up something as basic and simple as being able to switch watch bands? What aspect of that Luddite business model is Apple emulating?
In any event, an SS AppleWatch is in a completely different price league than a Rolex, so your point is rather moot. No one buys replacement bands for a Rolex that cost more than the watch itself.
This is the day... the day that AI fights for Kuo's connectedness! I knew this day would come... things were definitely coming to a boil with every podcast with Kuo mentioned had a line about "I don't know why our readers don't like this guy..."!
Comments
also agreed on battery life -- i charge mine before bed on a dock next to my phone and its routinely half full. even if I spend a couple hours in the gym tracking my HR. it gets better battery life than the device it's an accessory to, so there is no battery problem.
I may be way out on this, but I think that Apple Watch is (longer term) their most important product since the iPhone, in terms of growth potential. Only wearables have a market potential like a mobile smartphone (e.g. just about everyone on the planet). In fact the total potential is likely larger, as some consumers will purchase more than one for fashion or use reasons. However, it is only potential, and we have yet to see if the market will in fact take off - it is still every early. That is why I hope that Apple is going to push the product very hard to build that market.
While I of course want Apple to grow their iPad, Mac and Apple TV lines & bring big improvements there, their potential impact for growth is nowhere near what the Apple Watch is.
I got the 38 mm because it's about the same size as other watches I've worn and long sleeve shirt cuffs slide over it easily. I don't see a need for a thinner watch, but I guess I wouldn't object.
"the device lacks killer applications"
"the form factor needs improvement"
"limited battery life and its dependence on iPhone cut demand"
So, why did you censor all of these, AppleInsider?...
You think when somebody mentions "people who live at the margins of society", that they are talking about people's stock positions?
When somebody says "Washington insiders", you think they're talking about some shareholder of WASH?
Apple has entered a new field, like it or not. And it's not driven by tech -- sure the smartwatch portion of it is, but there's a fashion component that Apple has given every indication they are taking seriously. The larger market is tied to the latter.
People don't buy watches merely by what they can do. That may influence the watch they buy, but first and foremost they buy the watch for fashion purposes. Does it look good. And believe it or not, they don't buy them for what kind of watch band is attached to it.
If Apple wants to offer a single design, and switch up the bands every 6 months, fine. But that's not going to change the smartwatch business. They can cram every doo-dad, and whatnot into it, and that still won't make it more acceptable to those who don't care for its particular "look", no matter what high fashion leather band maker they get to endorse it. Moreover, the more doo-hickeys they cram into it, the more they will put the early adopters in a position to want to upgrade, and then it becomes one more tech item a person has to upgrade every year, nor is it something they are used to doing with wrist wear. No doubt putting everything but the kitchen sink on someones wrist will have enough utility for some that they can ignore that they don't love the way it looks, but at the end of the day, that's how Apple has set our to distinguish itself from the others that largely do the same things.
... Maybe because he also claims that its dependence on the iPhone cuts demand... That means it is a wrong product which needs a total redesign from scratch.
I'll wager that Apple will make the bands compatible.
*Given that it's a proper noun, what is the correct plural for Watch?!
The fact that dweep cited "limited battery life" tells you everything about him; and yet they praise him relentless here!
Bet you could dig up, limited battery life, as a comment for the original Iphone too hey... (which sold way less in the same time period in 2007).
All the bands you bought already will continue to work with the first generation Watch design, which Apple will more than likely continue to sell well after they introduce new generations, and even multiple styles, of future watches. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Apple maintain the first gen watch in some capacity with updates (just like the iPhone SE), for years after it's technically fallen off of the officially supported list. The reason for this is because Apple is creating fashion pieces. And as each new generation adds new technological features, the designs endure. This is absolutely no different than something like the Rolex Sub-Mariner which has remained essentially unchanged for over 50 years, despite Rolex offering dozens of other models and designs over the years.
So when Apple releases a new model, its unlikely -- at least in every case -- that they will make the previous models bands compatible. Apple likely wants you to buy a second watch and continue wearing both. Your first gen watch will still function just as well as it always did, and likely will until its battery dies -- at which point you can replace it, and it will likely continue to function for years more until Apple drops support for it. If Apple introduces new must-have features for you on their new watches, and the design requires a new investment in bands, so be-it. That's the nature of technology and jewelry alike. True most watch bands are standard sizes, but they are not all interchangeable. Your demands would be just as limiting in some cases trying to move your link bracelet from one Rolex model to another.
In any event, an SS AppleWatch is in a completely different price league than a Rolex, so your point is rather moot. No one buys replacement bands for a Rolex that cost more than the watch itself.
We'll have to wait and see, won't we.