The fitbits and other focused devices are dead enders. The wallet in your back pocket is under assault, as are the keys to your home and car. We already commonly use electronic access to our workspaces, in the form of swipe cards and fobs. And increasingly so in cars, with push button starters, leaving your key/fib in your pocket, but still carrying the damn thing. Hotel room access too is going this direction. And payments, to eliminate cards. One day our identification, licenses, passports, etc, will all be there in our phones and in our watches. As another poster says, you're going to have only one device on your wrist. Apple is playing the long game here. Putting in place all the pieces. It's day will come in this segment.
One side note: I recently saw a headline stating that the Google Pixel phone will outsell, in revenue terms, Fitbit and GoPro combined. Where is such an article stating the same about the Apple Watch? Why do we see only market share numbers against markets defined broadly? This tells you everything you need to know about the anti-Apple bias that has been prevalent for 40 years.
It's a shame they didn't put a barometer into the second gen watch. I mainly to hill work and this is something that my Garmin has offered for 15 years. Now that the watch has a GPS it should be possible in theory to display elevation but I doubt the results were that usable. Are any third party solutions available?
Correction - Garmin took 5.7%, not 1.3. The author was looking at the wrong column.
It's no mystery how Fitbit seems to be accelerating. My wife has been through four. Flex #1 - no longer could make contact with the charger. Flex #2 - same. Charge HR - bricked itself in a continual update loop. Now on Charge HR2. I won't touch a Fitbit device with a 10-foot pole, but she loves their app.
My Garmin Vivosmart - display lines missing after 8 months; replaced by Garmin, no questions asked. Currently loving my Garmin Forerunner 230 with custom watch face from their app. store, but seriously looking at Apple Watch now that it has GPS. I only worry about the shock of recharging daily instead of every four weeks.
The first gen watch was a little off target, but I think they righted the ship with version 3 of the OS and the current hardware lineup.
If they can just keep pushing the product forward I think they'll do fine.
The problem is -- that's a big "if". It seems difficult for Apple to continuously push multiple product lines forward at once. Only the iPhone consistently gets annual updates.
While I agree, I do think it took too long to get a second model out. We've been looking at the exact same design since September 2014, which despite being a substantial improvement over Series 1, nevertheless lends to the perception it's an old model offering nothing new. And, I have believed since the beginning that the Apple Watch did too much, and things that most people are clearly not buying smart watches for, requiring a more complicated interface for some. Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. But they are laying the groundwork for a big leap forward. If rumors are accurate, and the Apple Watch gains LTE and independence from the iPhone, it will likely take on a whole new life for some. A round watch, as alluded to by patent filings, will also help put the spotlight back on design as well, and keep pushing the innovation factor, over the fitness bands which seem to carry the bulk of the focus. And let's not forget Apple's health factor. The Trump presidency might well help Apple in that regulatory barriers to adding health features to the watch could be dropped, allowing them to bring truly useful features to the watch. I would generally trust Apple to thoroughly test their devices more than most vendors given the resulting lack of government regulation, and that will give Apple a leg up too in that area, since obviously Fitbit will benefit from the same deregulation.
Oh lord. More people who think design is how something looks, rather than how it works. And a rectangular display works better for information, which is why computer monitors, train/plane schedule displays, hell even just books, aren't round. Watches were round because of swinging arms, which, surprise, ain't dere no more.
People have expectations about what things should look like. I remember my mother making mashed potatoes and fresh bread for Easter, using food coloring to make the potatoes orange and the bread green. She had what she thought was a good reason too, celebrating spring and its colors. The taste probably didn't change at all but no one liked either of them. They didn't look like what they were expected to. No doubt there's a significant percentage of watch wearers that when they think of what a quality watch should look like one of the basics is that its round. A rectangular one doesn't look right to them.
That's fine, because those people are into watches as ornaments. In other words, form. But when it comes to function over form, rectangular won. See: books.
People always bitch that apple is too into form over function, but here's proof that they aren't. And yet still the people bitch. Therein lies the lesson.
Right, because there's nothing like reading a good book on your wrist, or watching a movie, or analyzing a spreadsheet?
Jony Ive couldn't have been more clear -- the watch was designed for glances. Anything more and he suggests one pull out their iPhone. Round or square works just fine for such purposes. Something worn on a person's body is subject to the frivolities and whims of taste and style -- and most people are going to want what they want regardless of the ability to most efficiently display the contents of a document. If Apple doesn't address that need, then they will lose some market share. It's as simple as that.
Are you really that daft? Nowhere did I suggest one read books on a wrist and never mentioned documents. But the display use case remains the same -- rendering blocks of content. This works best in a rectangle and not a circle; in the case of the watch it's text, lists, stacked content, etc... It makes the most sense for the same reason it makes sense in a book. Obviously that does not mean I'm saying "Read books on wrist!", so no idea what you're talking about.
Round watches exist because of swinging arms. The AW has no arms, thus it's not round -- it is function over form. So you keep waiting for your round AW...Meanwhile, I'll utilize the value I get from my actual product every day.
You said, "rectangular won. See: books. " If rectangular won, and you mentioned books only to later deny advocating reading books on a watch, your original point is moot. Let's all try being intellectually honest for a change, shall we? Is your speedometer a square? Your tachometer? You know, the other things designed for reading at a glance.
The first gen watch was a little off target, but I think they righted the ship with version 3 of the OS and the current hardware lineup.
If they can just keep pushing the product forward I think they'll do fine.
The problem is -- that's a big "if". It seems difficult for Apple to continuously push multiple product lines forward at once. Only the iPhone consistently gets annual updates.
While I agree, I do think it took too long to get a second model out. We've been looking at the exact same design since September 2014, which despite being a substantial improvement over Series 1, nevertheless lends to the perception it's an old model offering nothing new. And, I have believed since the beginning that the Apple Watch did too much, and things that most people are clearly not buying smart watches for, requiring a more complicated interface for some. Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. But they are laying the groundwork for a big leap forward. If rumors are accurate, and the Apple Watch gains LTE and independence from the iPhone, it will likely take on a whole new life for some. A round watch, as alluded to by patent filings, will also help put the spotlight back on design as well, and keep pushing the innovation factor, over the fitness bands which seem to carry the bulk of the focus. And let's not forget Apple's health factor. The Trump presidency might well help Apple in that regulatory barriers to adding health features to the watch could be dropped, allowing them to bring truly useful features to the watch. I would generally trust Apple to thoroughly test their devices more than most vendors given the resulting lack of government regulation, and that will give Apple a leg up too in that area, since obviously Fitbit will benefit from the same deregulation.
Oh lord. More people who think design is how something looks, rather than how it works.
I give no shits about the second-gen watch having the same case as the first-gen. No more than I would care about new Vitamix blenders looking the same as models from two years ago. Or the latest DVD/BR players. Why on earth would that matter?! And making it round doesn't fix any design issues, again, because design is about how it works. And a rectangular display works better for information, which is why computer monitors, train/plane schedule displays, hell even just books, aren't round. Watches were round because of swinging arms, which, surprise, ain't dere no more.
The first gen watch was a little off target, but I think they righted the ship with version 3 of the OS and the current hardware lineup.
If they can just keep pushing the product forward I think they'll do fine.
The problem is -- that's a big "if". It seems difficult for Apple to continuously push multiple product lines forward at once. Only the iPhone consistently gets annual updates.
While I agree, I do think it took too long to get a second model out. We've been looking at the exact same design since September 2014, which despite being a substantial improvement over Series 1, nevertheless lends to the perception it's an old model offering nothing new. And, I have believed since the beginning that the Apple Watch did too much, and things that most people are clearly not buying smart watches for, requiring a more complicated interface for some. Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. But they are laying the groundwork for a big leap forward. If rumors are accurate, and the Apple Watch gains LTE and independence from the iPhone, it will likely take on a whole new life for some. A round watch, as alluded to by patent filings, will also help put the spotlight back on design as well, and keep pushing the innovation factor, over the fitness bands which seem to carry the bulk of the focus. And let's not forget Apple's health factor. The Trump presidency might well help Apple in that regulatory barriers to adding health features to the watch could be dropped, allowing them to bring truly useful features to the watch. I would generally trust Apple to thoroughly test their devices more than most vendors given the resulting lack of government regulation, and that will give Apple a leg up too in that area, since obviously Fitbit will benefit from the same deregulation.
Oh lord. More people who think design is how something looks, rather than how it works. And a rectangular display works better for information, which is why computer monitors, train/plane schedule displays, hell even just books, aren't round. Watches were round because of swinging arms, which, surprise, ain't dere no more.
People have expectations about what things should look like. I remember my mother making mashed potatoes and fresh bread for Easter, using food coloring to make the potatoes orange and the bread green. She had what she thought was a good reason too, celebrating spring and its colors. The taste probably didn't change at all but no one liked either of them. They didn't look like what they were expected to. No doubt there's a significant percentage of watch wearers that when they think of what a quality watch should look like one of the basics is that its round. A rectangular one doesn't look right to them.
Yes, but it's also ironic that many traditional high-end watch designs are rectangular in shape too. The most well known being Cartier amongst others. Not to mention standard and ubiquitous digital watches, like those by Casio have always been rectangular.
The first gen watch was a little off target, but I think they righted the ship with version 3 of the OS and the current hardware lineup.
If they can just keep pushing the product forward I think they'll do fine.
The problem is -- that's a big "if". It seems difficult for Apple to continuously push multiple product lines forward at once. Only the iPhone consistently gets annual updates.
While I agree, I do think it took too long to get a second model out. We've been looking at the exact same design since September 2014, which despite being a substantial improvement over Series 1, nevertheless lends to the perception it's an old model offering nothing new. And, I have believed since the beginning that the Apple Watch did too much, and things that most people are clearly not buying smart watches for, requiring a more complicated interface for some. Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. But they are laying the groundwork for a big leap forward. If rumors are accurate, and the Apple Watch gains LTE and independence from the iPhone, it will likely take on a whole new life for some. A round watch, as alluded to by patent filings, will also help put the spotlight back on design as well, and keep pushing the innovation factor, over the fitness bands which seem to carry the bulk of the focus. And let's not forget Apple's health factor. The Trump presidency might well help Apple in that regulatory barriers to adding health features to the watch could be dropped, allowing them to bring truly useful features to the watch. I would generally trust Apple to thoroughly test their devices more than most vendors given the resulting lack of government regulation, and that will give Apple a leg up too in that area, since obviously Fitbit will benefit from the same deregulation.
Oh lord. More people who think design is how something looks, rather than how it works. And a rectangular display works better for information, which is why computer monitors, train/plane schedule displays, hell even just books, aren't round. Watches were round because of swinging arms, which, surprise, ain't dere no more.
People have expectations about what things should look like. I remember my mother making mashed potatoes and fresh bread for Easter, using food coloring to make the potatoes orange and the bread green. She had what she thought was a good reason too, celebrating spring and its colors. The taste probably didn't change at all but no one liked either of them. They didn't look like what they were expected to. No doubt there's a significant percentage of watch wearers that when they think of what a quality watch should look like one of the basics is that its round. A rectangular one doesn't look right to them.
I understand your point, and it has some merit (and is likely the reason some wouldn't buy an Apple Watch today, even if they wanted that functionality). However, that argument can also be used as to why Apple doesn't "just change" their exterior design all of the time. They pick a form and might evolve it a bit, but it remains mostly the same. Apple design look to classic products over time as examples, where the product can be identified by its "iconic design" even though it has been on the market for years. Thinking of Porsche, Leica, etc.
Compare that with a company like Samsung which puts out a square watch one year, a round one the next - all hoping that something, anything, will catch on.
Fitness tracker devices are what is selling today, this is true. And it is undoubtably a reason that Apple made fitness more of a focus with Series 2 on the H/W and S/W sides - target "a" market where there is the strongest interest in wearables. Fitbit has a strong lead, and they will be a competitor in the general "wearables" space as they add functionality to their products.
But an important point in the article is that Apple is still leading in the smartwatch category. This is the longer term market, where the wearable can do many functions (and no, I don't mean be a smartphone on the wrist - but take over some smart watch functions). Apple has a very clear vision here for glances, health, secure access, payments, etc.
For those of us with Apple Watches, in countries which have wide spread NFC contactless payments (UK, Canada, Australia,...), know how convenient Apple Pay is on the AW. I use it probably 10 times every day - never having to pull out my wallet at all. And knowing it is much more secure (especially for debit) than a traditional contactless card provides peace of mind. It is truly a "killer app", but does require all of that NFC infrastructure to be in place.
The pure quality and "fit and finish" of Apple's product is also an important point for long-term use. Apple clearly has the lead here.
Apple Watch and wearables have a strong future, but it will take longer to get there than with smart phones.
The first gen watch was a little off target, but I think they righted the ship with version 3 of the OS and the current hardware lineup.
If they can just keep pushing the product forward I think they'll do fine.
The problem is -- that's a big "if". It seems difficult for Apple to continuously push multiple product lines forward at once. Only the iPhone consistently gets annual updates.
While I agree, I do think it took too long to get a second model out. We've been looking at the exact same design since September 2014, which despite being a substantial improvement over Series 1, nevertheless lends to the perception it's an old model offering nothing new. And, I have believed since the beginning that the Apple Watch did too much, and things that most people are clearly not buying smart watches for, requiring a more complicated interface for some. Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. But they are laying the groundwork for a big leap forward. If rumors are accurate, and the Apple Watch gains LTE and independence from the iPhone, it will likely take on a whole new life for some. A round watch, as alluded to by patent filings, will also help put the spotlight back on design as well, and keep pushing the innovation factor, over the fitness bands which seem to carry the bulk of the focus. And let's not forget Apple's health factor. The Trump presidency might well help Apple in that regulatory barriers to adding health features to the watch could be dropped, allowing them to bring truly useful features to the watch. I would generally trust Apple to thoroughly test their devices more than most vendors given the resulting lack of government regulation, and that will give Apple a leg up too in that area, since obviously Fitbit will benefit from the same deregulation.
Oh lord. More people who think design is how something looks, rather than how it works. And a rectangular display works better for information, which is why computer monitors, train/plane schedule displays, hell even just books, aren't round. Watches were round because of swinging arms, which, surprise, ain't dere no more.
People have expectations about what things should look like. I remember my mother making mashed potatoes and fresh bread for Easter, using food coloring to make the potatoes orange and the bread green. She had what she thought was a good reason too, celebrating spring and its colors. The taste probably didn't change at all but no one liked either of them. They didn't look like what they were expected to. No doubt there's a significant percentage of watch wearers that when they think of what a quality watch should look like one of the basics is that its round. A rectangular one doesn't look right to them.
I understand your point, and it has some merit (and is likely the reason some wouldn't buy an Apple Watch today, even if they wanted that functionality). However, that argument can also be used as to why Apple doesn't "just change" their exterior design all of the time. They pick a form and might evolve it a bit, but it remains mostly the same. Apple design look to classic products over time as examples, where the product can be identified by its "iconic design" even though it has been on the market for years. Thinking of Porsche, Leica, etc.
Compare that with a company like Samsung which puts out a square watch one year, a round one the next - all hoping that something, anything, will catch on.
I love my first gen. Apple Watch for running...two taps and I'm ready to run. I bought it to measure my heart rate to keep in the Max fat-burning zone.
I don't carry an iPhone so I'm not fooling with it or EarPods.
I just wish I could have one or two readings in large text like the large text time display. The current displays are a little too crowded with small hard to read sized fonts.
All I need is Distance and current pace. Mainly current pace. It beeps at every mile, and the half-way point. It auto stops when I stop to tie a shoe or drink and auto starts when I start running again.
I'll eventually get the second gen w/ GPS, but for now, the 1st gen is just excellent. I run on trails in the Arizona desert that are known posted distances and I find the Apple Watch to be accurate to about 5%-10% which is fine by me...It's about "time on the trail," not so much about speed.
I fully agree. Apple provided some user customization to the display -- but not enough. The tiny, crowded numbers are just too hard to read while running. People complain about the delay when you bring the watch up -- but even though I use an original series, that is not a problem... What is a problem is staring at it long enough for my eyes to make out the numbers I'm looking for.
I've been saying all along that the Apple Watch has great potential but the Apple Geeks just don't understand serious athletics well enough to design a great product. The capability is there -- all it needs is more attention to the detail design that distinguishes between a insanely great product and a mediocre one....
In my opinion, the Apple Watch is trying to be too many things, and have too many features (some of which are downright silly and awkward: sending someone your heartbeat?). Think of the ipod, did some things really well, did not try to be too many things. I recently purchased a fitbit charge 2, and I like that is cheaper than the Apple Watch and has longer battery life. It is also smaller. I don't need hi res screen on my wrist. Another thing, who goes jogging with a watch without a phone? What if there is an emergency? How about listening to music? So, Apple should have specialized the Apple watch more, and cut some features. Too late now, they'll probably just wait for the battery life and technology to catch up, and barring Ive's not trying to make it thinner than it is, in a few years, the battery will be acceptable, for all the features it has. I definitely would have taken an Apple watch, cheaper, led screen, and much longer battery life, and more simple. Remember the "people don't want a computer on their TV"? Well, people don't want a computer on their wrist.
Who? A LOT of runners. Not me. But at least as many and probably more run without a phone. Music? You can download music to the Apple Watch and listen to it via Apple's wireless ear buds.
No, you are wrong that Apple should have specialized the product. Do you suggest that they sell one watch for glamour, one for messages, etc..., one for fitness and one for running? ... That's silly when one is fully capable of doing all of those things.
For me: my main justification for an Apple Watch was for running. And, frankly, right now a Garmin watch probably does a better job at that. But, I am confident that Apple can match the capabilities of the Garmin and plus I still have all those other capabilities. Nope, Apple did it right.
Fitness tracker devices are what is selling today, this is true. And it is undoubtably a reason that Apple made fitness more of a focus with Series 2 on the H/W and S/W sides - target "a" market where there is the strongest interest in wearables. Fitbit has a strong lead, and they will be a competitor in the general "wearables" space as they add functionality to their products.
But an important point in the article is that Apple is still leading in the smartwatch category. This is the longer term market, where the wearable can do many functions (and no, I don't mean be a smartphone on the wrist - but take over some smart watch functions). Apple has a very clear vision here for glances, health, secure access, payments, etc.
For those of us with Apple Watches, in countries which have wide spread NFC contactless payments (UK, Canada, Australia,...), know how convenient Apple Pay is on the AW. I use it probably 10 times every day - never having to pull out my wallet at all. And knowing it is much more secure (especially for debit) than a traditional contactless card provides peace of mind. It is truly a "killer app", but does require all of that NFC infrastructure to be in place.
The pure quality and "fit and finish" of Apple's product is also an important point for long-term use. Apple clearly has the lead here.
Apple Watch and wearables have a strong future, but it will take longer to get there than with smart phones.
Yep... All true... ... Execution will be the key. Can the Apple geeks overcome their limitations and design an "insanely great" product? Right now for health, fitness and athletics they have, so far, relied on mainstream advisors (such as mainstream healthcare pros, and Nike) to point them in the right direction. But that takes a potentially great product and limits it to merely mainstream thinking. They can go beyond that. I hope that they will...
Until they do that, we will continue with these discussions where: - The Rolex fans say it ain't as pretty - The Fitbit fans say it's too big - The Garmin fans say the numbers are too small or the screen doesn't work with sweaty fingers...
The Apple Watch has the capability to crush all of that. Will Apple execute?
The first gen watch was a little off target, but I think they righted the ship with version 3 of the OS and the current hardware lineup.
If they can just keep pushing the product forward I think they'll do fine.
The problem is -- that's a big "if". It seems difficult for Apple to continuously push multiple product lines forward at once. Only the iPhone consistently gets annual updates.
While I agree, I do think it took too long to get a second model out. We've been looking at the exact same design since September 2014, which despite being a substantial improvement over Series 1, nevertheless lends to the perception it's an old model offering nothing new. And, I have believed since the beginning that the Apple Watch did too much, and things that most people are clearly not buying smart watches for, requiring a more complicated interface for some. Combined with a relatively high price compared to the fitness trackers most people seem to be opting for, and it becomes something of a luxury for the mass markets Apple needs to woo in order to make this thing as successful as their other product lines. But they are laying the groundwork for a big leap forward. If rumors are accurate, and the Apple Watch gains LTE and independence from the iPhone, it will likely take on a whole new life for some. A round watch, as alluded to by patent filings, will also help put the spotlight back on design as well, and keep pushing the innovation factor, over the fitness bands which seem to carry the bulk of the focus. And let's not forget Apple's health factor. The Trump presidency might well help Apple in that regulatory barriers to adding health features to the watch could be dropped, allowing them to bring truly useful features to the watch. I would generally trust Apple to thoroughly test their devices more than most vendors given the resulting lack of government regulation, and that will give Apple a leg up too in that area, since obviously Fitbit will benefit from the same deregulation.
Oh lord. More people who think design is how something looks, rather than how it works. And a rectangular display works better for information, which is why computer monitors, train/plane schedule displays, hell even just books, aren't round. Watches were round because of swinging arms, which, surprise, ain't dere no more.
People have expectations about what things should look like. I remember my mother making mashed potatoes and fresh bread for Easter, using food coloring to make the potatoes orange and the bread green. She had what she thought was a good reason too, celebrating spring and its colors. The taste probably didn't change at all but no one liked either of them. They didn't look like what they were expected to. No doubt there's a significant percentage of watch wearers that when they think of what a quality watch should look like one of the basics is that its round. A rectangular one doesn't look right to them.
That's fine, because those people are into watches as ornaments. In other words, form. But when it comes to function over form, rectangular won. See: books.
People always bitch that apple is too into form over function, but here's proof that they aren't. And yet still the people bitch. Therein lies the lesson.
Right, because there's nothing like reading a good book on your wrist, or watching a movie, or analyzing a spreadsheet?
Jony Ive couldn't have been more clear -- the watch was designed for glances. Anything more and he suggests one pull out their iPhone. Round or square works just fine for such purposes. Something worn on a person's body is subject to the frivolities and whims of taste and style -- and most people are going to want what they want regardless of the ability to most efficiently display the contents of a document. If Apple doesn't address that need, then they will lose some market share. It's as simple as that.
Are you really that daft? Nowhere did I suggest one read books on a wrist and never mentioned documents. But the display use case remains the same -- rendering blocks of content. This works best in a rectangle and not a circle; in the case of the watch it's text, lists, stacked content, etc... It makes the most sense for the same reason it makes sense in a book. Obviously that does not mean I'm saying "Read books on wrist!", so no idea what you're talking about.
Round watches exist because of swinging arms. The AW has no arms, thus it's not round -- it is function over form. So you keep waiting for your round AW...Meanwhile, I'll utilize the value I get from my actual product every day.
You said, "rectangular won. See: books. " If rectangular won, and you mentioned books only to later deny advocating reading books on a watch, your original point is moot. Let's all try being intellectually honest for a change, shall we? Is your speedometer a square? Your tachometer? You know, the other things designed for reading at a glance.
You still don't get it. For rendering stacked or listed content, rectangles won: see books and computer displays. In no way does that mean "READ BOOKS ON WRIST! DUR!!". If you don't understand why an example is not an equivalency, there's little i can do for you.
The meters you've cited are round because they have spinning arms. Like a watch. Seeing the pattern yet?
I love my first gen. Apple Watch for running...two taps and I'm ready to run. I bought it to measure my heart rate to keep in the Max fat-burning zone.
I don't carry an iPhone so I'm not fooling with it or EarPods.
I just wish I could have one or two readings in large text like the large text time display. The current displays are a little too crowded with small hard to read sized fonts.
All I need is Distance and current pace. Mainly current pace. It beeps at every mile, and the half-way point. It auto stops when I stop to tie a shoe or drink and auto starts when I start running again.
I'll eventually get the second gen w/ GPS, but for now, the 1st gen is just excellent. I run on trails in the Arizona desert that are known posted distances and I find the Apple Watch to be accurate to about 5%-10% which is fine by me...It's about "time on the trail," not so much about speed.
I fully agree. Apple provided some user customization to the display -- but not enough. The tiny, crowded numbers are just too hard to read while running. People complain about the delay when you bring the watch up -- but even though I use an original series, that is not a problem... What is a problem is staring at it long enough for my eyes to make out the numbers I'm looking for.
I've been saying all along that the Apple Watch has great potential but the Apple Geeks just don't understand serious athletics well enough to design a great product. The capability is there -- all it needs is more attention to the detail design that distinguishes between a insanely great product and a mediocre one....
I love my first gen. Apple Watch for running...two taps and I'm ready to run. I bought it to measure my heart rate to keep in the Max fat-burning zone.
I don't carry an iPhone so I'm not fooling with it or EarPods.
I just wish I could have one or two readings in large text like the large text time display. The current displays are a little too crowded with small hard to read sized fonts.
All I need is Distance and current pace. Mainly current pace. It beeps at every mile, and the half-way point. It auto stops when I stop to tie a shoe or drink and auto starts when I start running again.
I'll eventually get the second gen w/ GPS, but for now, the 1st gen is just excellent. I run on trails in the Arizona desert that are known posted distances and I find the Apple Watch to be accurate to about 5%-10% which is fine by me...It's about "time on the trail," not so much about speed.
I fully agree. Apple provided some user customization to the display -- but not enough. The tiny, crowded numbers are just too hard to read while running. People complain about the delay when you bring the watch up -- but even though I use an original series, that is not a problem... What is a problem is staring at it long enough for my eyes to make out the numbers I'm looking for.
I've been saying all along that the Apple Watch has great potential but the Apple Geeks just don't understand serious athletics well enough to design a great product. The capability is there -- all it needs is more attention to the detail design that distinguishes between a insanely great product and a mediocre one....
Another that I will suggest is that they expand their reporting of heart rate. Right now they only report the average heart rate over the length of a work out. But, if running intervals for instance, that is worthless. You need to know the detail (such as a graph). They have the data, they just have to present it in a meaningful format.
Comments
One side note: I recently saw a headline stating that the Google Pixel phone will outsell, in revenue terms, Fitbit and GoPro combined. Where is such an article stating the same about the Apple Watch? Why do we see only market share numbers against markets defined broadly? This tells you everything you need to know about the anti-Apple bias that has been prevalent for 40 years.
Now that the watch has a GPS it should be possible in theory to display elevation but I doubt the results were that usable. Are any third party solutions available?
It's no mystery how Fitbit seems to be accelerating. My wife has been through four. Flex #1 - no longer could make contact with the charger. Flex #2 - same. Charge HR - bricked itself in a continual update loop. Now on Charge HR2. I won't touch a Fitbit device with a 10-foot pole, but she loves their app.
My Garmin Vivosmart - display lines missing after 8 months; replaced by Garmin, no questions asked. Currently loving my Garmin Forerunner 230 with custom watch face from their app. store, but seriously looking at Apple Watch now that it has GPS. I only worry about the shock of recharging daily instead of every four weeks.
But an important point in the article is that Apple is still leading in the smartwatch category. This is the longer term market, where the wearable can do many functions (and no, I don't mean be a smartphone on the wrist - but take over some smart watch functions). Apple has a very clear vision here for glances, health, secure access, payments, etc.
For those of us with Apple Watches, in countries which have wide spread NFC contactless payments (UK, Canada, Australia,...), know how convenient Apple Pay is on the AW. I use it probably 10 times every day - never having to pull out my wallet at all. And knowing it is much more secure (especially for debit) than a traditional contactless card provides peace of mind. It is truly a "killer app", but does require all of that NFC infrastructure to be in place.
The pure quality and "fit and finish" of Apple's product is also an important point for long-term use. Apple clearly has the lead here.
Apple Watch and wearables have a strong future, but it will take longer to get there than with smart phones.
I've been saying all along that the Apple Watch has great potential but the Apple Geeks just don't understand serious athletics well enough to design a great product. The capability is there -- all it needs is more attention to the detail design that distinguishes between a insanely great product and a mediocre one....
Music? You can download music to the Apple Watch and listen to it via Apple's wireless ear buds.
No, you are wrong that Apple should have specialized the product. Do you suggest that they sell one watch for glamour, one for messages, etc..., one for fitness and one for running?
... That's silly when one is fully capable of doing all of those things.
For me: my main justification for an Apple Watch was for running. And, frankly, right now a Garmin watch probably does a better job at that. But, I am confident that Apple can match the capabilities of the Garmin and plus I still have all those other capabilities. Nope, Apple did it right.
... Execution will be the key. Can the Apple geeks overcome their limitations and design an "insanely great" product? Right now for health, fitness and athletics they have, so far, relied on mainstream advisors (such as mainstream healthcare pros, and Nike) to point them in the right direction. But that takes a potentially great product and limits it to merely mainstream thinking. They can go beyond that. I hope that they will...
Until they do that, we will continue with these discussions where:
- The Rolex fans say it ain't as pretty
- The Fitbit fans say it's too big
- The Garmin fans say the numbers are too small or the screen doesn't work with sweaty fingers...
The Apple Watch has the capability to crush all of that. Will Apple execute?
The meters you've cited are round because they have spinning arms. Like a watch. Seeing the pattern yet?
Another that I will suggest is that they expand their reporting of heart rate. Right now they only report the average heart rate over the length of a work out. But, if running intervals for instance, that is worthless. You need to know the detail (such as a graph). They have the data, they just have to present it in a meaningful format.