I still hate myself that i bought Apple Watch series 0 stainless steel without reading reviews first - it’s so slow, it drives me crazy every day, that’s why i use now only its activity and breathing apps. Following models probably work much better, but i just can’t think of spending another $500 just for a performance update.
Welcome to technology. I have the same and yes I do feel it ruins watchOS 4 slowly. But I like all the crap new versions of OSes do, so I upgrade. Then if I still like the platform I eventually upgrade hardware after a few years. This is the same for watches, phones, computers, whatever.
The conclusions in this article would be reasonable if Apple was 1/10th of its size and financial momentum. At it's current investment and patenting level it is just plain embarassing to bring out a phone with double glass sides, mediocre battery life, and 2015 level inductive charging - whatever it's accomplishments (faceID) that flourish up mediocre advancements in the most needed area's. And oh, the iPhone X design is nice but sorely needed if not 2/3 years late.
1. not sure how double glass sides could be considered an embarrassment. It’s a design decision, not a technological limitation. Would you prefer a plastic backside? Sure, they could’ve used ceramic, but not at the scale needed.
2. Battery life has a lot to do with the size of the battery you shove inside the device, which in turn has a lot to do with how much other stuff needs to go in it. Apple’s devices are much, much more efficient than any other device.
3. The Qi standard used by Apple is the latest version that Apple has extended into what they call “AirPower”. Just as they’ve extended bluetooth to meet their needs, the wireless charging they’ve implemented has benefits beyond that of the standard Qi spec.
Not to mention...
4. The OLED displays are custom Apple displays - not off the shelf Samsung parts. They are the best OLED displays ever put into a mobile device.
5. The A11 SoC is by far and away the most powerful and efficient SoC ever put into a mobile device.
6. The first fully capable, real-time facial recognition system in a mobile device.
The conclusions in this article would be reasonable if Apple was 1/10th of its size and financial momentum. At it's current investment and patenting level it is just plain embarassing to bring out a phone with double glass sides, mediocre battery life, and 2015 level inductive charging - whatever it's accomplishments (faceID) that flourish up mediocre advancements in the most needed area's. And oh, the iPhone X design is nice but sorely needed if not 2/3 years late.
Ah yes, the X is "embarrassing". Yeah buddy, thanks for the laugh. You don't have one and likely haven't even used one in person. The battery is larger, but you can't hate on apple for having the same limited core battery technology as the rest of mankind unless youre willing to hate on all your knockoffs too. The glass back is fine -- it looks sweet as hell, and we never had problems with our 4's. Tho I swapped a battery out on a 4 once and the glass back came off and could be swapped in about 30 seconds. Try harder.
This is an excellent, insightful article... But, I disagree with one thing in it: The implication that the Apple Watch was pretty much complete and perfect coming out of the gate. I would argue that it -- particularly its marketing and target audience -- has been a work in progress.
Specifically, Apple originally marketed it primarily as a fashion accessory to compete with traditional luxury brands like Rolex, etc... They even put out an all gold edition for what? $10K?
When that marketing ploy failed, they transitioned over into marketing it as a health, fitness and exercise tracker. And, they've done pretty well there. But, it still has not fulfilled its destiny there as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors. Instead, it has taken the Nike approach of primarily targeting casual, recreational exercisers and even non-exerisers with its rings and stand reminders.
That's not to criticize Apple or their Watch. Rather it is praise: a quality organization plans carefully and then reevaluates and adjusts and improves things on an ongoing basis -- and that is what Apple has done with their Watch. It continues to be a work in progress that I am excited to see what the future will bring. ... But, in the meantime, it has clearly served as an inspiration for the iPhone X.
I agree it is a work in progress but I wouldn't push that idea to the point of claiming that previous product positionings have failed. The gold model apparently was a one time Edition which has still a market value (or more than that, collector's value) today. The Watch is primarily (and still) a fashion accessory by design. That location on human body is unique, you can not attach whatever trinket there. What you attach to your wrist is unique, very personal, very representative of your very own self. That makes the Watch necessarily a fashion accessory. Next they enhanced it with further health and exercise capabilities. Why? Not because of previous failure but because there were demand.
Those dedicated exercise monitors are vertical markets and Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be, given its scale. As with many other Apple products, the Watch is ahead of its time, since we have yet to see a system integrator to come forward with a professional sports tracking device that would work in tandem with Apple Watch over Bluetooth LE. I don't see any reason for Apple to reject such proposals and just the opposite is true as seen with Nike and Hermes.
I got an Apple Watch but quickly sold it again because I didn’t like it. I will buy one again when they make it 50% slimmer - i think it’s way too bulky. Also - I personally don’t care about any of the fitness features - heart rate stuff etc.
I think they should make a super slim version that is just a watch with just the notifications/music control/app features. And make a bulky sports one with all the extras.
You just described both the Series 0 and the Series One. (Software doesn't make it any thicker)
This is an excellent, insightful article... But, I disagree with one thing in it: The implication that the Apple Watch was pretty much complete and perfect coming out of the gate. I would argue that it -- particularly its marketing and target audience -- has been a work in progress.
Specifically, Apple originally marketed it primarily as a fashion accessory to compete with traditional luxury brands like Rolex, etc... They even put out an all gold edition for what? $10K?
When that marketing ploy failed, they transitioned over into marketing it as a health, fitness and exercise tracker. And, they've done pretty well there. But, it still has not fulfilled its destiny there as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors. Instead, it has taken the Nike approach of primarily targeting casual, recreational exercisers and even non-exerisers with its rings and stand reminders.
That's not to criticize Apple or their Watch. Rather it is praise: a quality organization plans carefully and then reevaluates and adjusts and improves things on an ongoing basis -- and that is what Apple has done with their Watch. It continues to be a work in progress that I am excited to see what the future will bring. ... But, in the meantime, it has clearly served as an inspiration for the iPhone X.
Where does DED say it came out of the clamshell fully formed and perfect?
Apple didn’t position it as fashion and then fail and pivot. The activity tracking features it does today were there on Day 1 and are exactly why i bought it (and marketed if you recall the videos and famous runner who tested for them)...for years it was rumored apple was doing a fitbit competitor, it didn’t disappoint. But they did indeed market it as a fashionable device *in addition*. This was to show non techies that this wearable computer, a gadget, was not to be feared, scorned, etc...that it was in fact nice looking and flexible with your style via the bands. And they accomplished this. In a big way. The gold also assisted in garnering attention, and from the keynote Cook said it wasn’t going to be around long.
"Where does DED say it came out of the clamshell fully formed and perfect?" ... Implied throughout the first part of his article
"Apple didn’t position it as fashion and then fail and pivot." ... You were apparently not paying attention.
'The activity tracking features it does today were there on Day 1" ... Damn! You should have told Tim Cook that so he didn't have to add a barometer, GPS, water proofing it to 50m -- and LTE...
I still hate myself that i bought Apple Watch series 0 stainless steel without reading reviews first - it’s so slow, it drives me crazy every day, that’s why i use now only its activity and breathing apps. Following models probably work much better, but i just can’t think of spending another $500 just for a performance update.
Welcome to technology. I have the same and yes I do feel it ruins watchOS 4 slowly. But I like all the crap new versions of OSes do, so I upgrade. Then if I still like the platform I eventually upgrade hardware after a few years. This is the same for watches, phones, computers, whatever.
Mine doesn't. The only time it hesitates is when it tries to get data such as pace and distance from the phone during a run.
This is an excellent, insightful article... But, I disagree with one thing in it: The implication that the Apple Watch was pretty much complete and perfect coming out of the gate. I would argue that it -- particularly its marketing and target audience -- has been a work in progress.
Specifically, Apple originally marketed it primarily as a fashion accessory to compete with traditional luxury brands like Rolex, etc... They even put out an all gold edition for what? $10K?
When that marketing ploy failed, they transitioned over into marketing it as a health, fitness and exercise tracker. And, they've done pretty well there. But, it still has not fulfilled its destiny there as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors. Instead, it has taken the Nike approach of primarily targeting casual, recreational exercisers and even non-exerisers with its rings and stand reminders.
That's not to criticize Apple or their Watch. Rather it is praise: a quality organization plans carefully and then reevaluates and adjusts and improves things on an ongoing basis -- and that is what Apple has done with their Watch. It continues to be a work in progress that I am excited to see what the future will bring. ... But, in the meantime, it has clearly served as an inspiration for the iPhone X.
I agree it is a work in progress but I wouldn't push that idea to the point of claiming that previous product positionings have failed. The gold model apparently was a one time Edition which has still a market value (or more than that, collector's value) today. The Watch is primarily (and still) a fashion accessory by design. That location on human body is unique, you can not attach whatever trinket there. What you attach to your wrist is unique, very personal, very representative of your very own self. That makes the Watch necessarily a fashion accessory. Next they enhanced it with further health and exercise capabilities. Why? Not because of previous failure but because there were demand.
Those dedicated exercise monitors are vertical markets and Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be, given its scale. As with many other Apple products, the Watch is ahead of its time, since we have yet to see a system integrator to come forward with a professional sports tracking device that would work in tandem with Apple Watch over Bluetooth LE. I don't see any reason for Apple to reject such proposals and just the opposite is true as seen with Nike and Hermes.
"The Watch is primarily (and still) a fashion accessory by design." ... I haven't seen an Apple ad touting it as a fashion accessory since the Series 2 with GPS came out. It's all about athletics -- even the latest one released with the keynote of the skateboarder listening to one of the 40 million tunes on his wrist...
"Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be" ... Except for an 'always on' face and ultra long batter life (due to the otherwise exquisite OLED screen) the Apple Watch has all the components it needs to not only compete with the high end exercise trackers but beat them. What it lacks is the excellence of their software -- which is an easily fixed deficiency with proper software analysis and design. Apple can do better and, if they want, they will do better. Either that, or they could better support third parties to develop high end native applications for the watch -- which have been very slow in coming
"the Watch is ahead of its time" True. It is an incredible, even miraculous product. One Steve would be proud of. But it, and its role, has been evolving and it will continue to evolve.
This is an excellent, insightful article... But, I disagree with one thing in it: The implication that the Apple Watch was pretty much complete and perfect coming out of the gate. I would argue that it -- particularly its marketing and target audience -- has been a work in progress.
Specifically, Apple originally marketed it primarily as a fashion accessory to compete with traditional luxury brands like Rolex, etc... They even put out an all gold edition for what? $10K?
When that marketing ploy failed, they transitioned over into marketing it as a health, fitness and exercise tracker. And, they've done pretty well there. But, it still has not fulfilled its destiny there as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors. Instead, it has taken the Nike approach of primarily targeting casual, recreational exercisers and even non-exerisers with its rings and stand reminders.
That's not to criticize Apple or their Watch. Rather it is praise: a quality organization plans carefully and then reevaluates and adjusts and improves things on an ongoing basis -- and that is what Apple has done with their Watch. It continues to be a work in progress that I am excited to see what the future will bring. ... But, in the meantime, it has clearly served as an inspiration for the iPhone X.
I agree it is a work in progress but I wouldn't push that idea to the point of claiming that previous product positionings have failed. The gold model apparently was a one time Edition which has still a market value (or more than that, collector's value) today. The Watch is primarily (and still) a fashion accessory by design. That location on human body is unique, you can not attach whatever trinket there. What you attach to your wrist is unique, very personal, very representative of your very own self. That makes the Watch necessarily a fashion accessory. Next they enhanced it with further health and exercise capabilities. Why? Not because of previous failure but because there were demand.
Those dedicated exercise monitors are vertical markets and Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be, given its scale. As with many other Apple products, the Watch is ahead of its time, since we have yet to see a system integrator to come forward with a professional sports tracking device that would work in tandem with Apple Watch over Bluetooth LE. I don't see any reason for Apple to reject such proposals and just the opposite is true as seen with Nike and Hermes.
"The Watch is primarily (and still) a fashion accessory by design." ... I haven't seen an Apple ad touting it as a fashion accessory since the Series 2 with GPS came out. It's all about athletics -- even the latest one released with the keynote of the skateboarder listening to one of the 40 million tunes on his wrist…
I wholeheartedly disagree with his statement. It's like saying the the iPhone or Mac is primarily about fashion, by design, simply because they make it look attractive and even have gold/rose gold colored options and tend to be relatively low-cost luxury items that some people like to flaunt. Wearable devices do need to be fashionable in some regard (as culture dictates), which we even see with Pebble and Fitbit, but the primary purpose of a simpler devices like Pebble or activity monitors like Fitbit up through more complex devices like the Apple Watch are inarguably primarily about their functionality.
I bought the original 42mm SS Apple Watch and handed it down to my son after I got the Gen 2. I wear it everyday use it mostly for fitness tracking. Swimming and cycling are mostly the activities that I use the AW for and LOVE it.
Remember when the braying jackasses all harmonized in unison that Apple couldn't introduce new product categories and was growing dangerously dependent upon just one product, the iPhone? That belief also supposed the Apple Watch had to fail. Just look! There were so many other cheaper watch options from all of the Android vendors and beyond!
This why I love Daniel’s articles. He calls a spade a spade. I can’t wait to plagiarize the “braying jackasses” moniker on MacRumors. I’ll probably get banned for five days again but it’ll be worth it.
The conclusions in this article would be reasonable if Apple was 1/10th of its size and financial momentum. At it's current investment and patenting level it is just plain embarassing to bring out a phone with double glass sides, mediocre battery life, and 2015 level inductive charging - whatever it's accomplishments (faceID) that flourish up mediocre advancements in the most needed area's. And oh, the iPhone X design is nice but sorely needed if not 2/3 years late.
The measurement of performance of a company should be by comparing it to what the competition has actually done (instead of coming up with imaginary products). 1. Samsung; Apple spent more time working on a small bezel phone. Samsung rushed out the Note 7 which had a complete recall. Apple was right to take more time to avoid a massive quality control blunder. 2. Google; the flagship Google Pixel 2X has a low quality LG screen (which shows burn in after only a few days). The Pixel 2 XL does not have wireless charging or a telephoto lens. Imo it's inferior compared with the iPhone X. Again, imo Apple was right to take more time to build a better quality phone.
This is an excellent, insightful article... But, I disagree with one thing in it: The implication that the Apple Watch was pretty much complete and perfect coming out of the gate...
When that marketing ploy failed, they transitioned over into marketing it as a health, fitness and exercise tracker. And, they've done pretty well there. But, it still has not fulfilled its destiny there as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors. Instead, it has taken the Nike approach of primarily targeting casual, recreational exercisers and even non-exerisers with its rings and stand reminders.
* I don't see where the article claimed that the Apple Watch was "pretty much complete and perfect out of the gate". - After all, DED knows that the Series 2/3 and improvements to Watch OS exist. Therefore the claim that the article implied that the initial Apple Watch was pretty much a complete/perfect product which suggests it had no need for updates, is not an accurate view of the article. - Instead what DED has done is make comparisons to actual products. The influence of the Apple Watch design and the iPhone X. As well as the Apple Watch and the once main US Android Wear competitor, the now discontinued Moto 360.
* Second, there is the claim that the Apple Watch product line "has not fulfilled its destiny ... as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors". - Dedicated fitness devices for highest level competition athletes, like the Garmin wearables and chest straps (from Polar), are not the "destiny" of the Apple Watch. - Apple Watch is a mass market smartwatch. Its competition would be other mass market smartwatches. The RIZNOWS fitness YouTube channel has a video titled; "Best GPS Running Watches" which rated the Apple Watch as the best mass market smartwatch for fitness over the Samsung devices. - Also, Mashable has an article from May 05, 2017 titled; "Apple is now the world's top wearable company". - Imo Apple Watch has reached its destiny.
This is an excellent, insightful article... But, I disagree with one thing in it: The implication that the Apple Watch was pretty much complete and perfect coming out of the gate. I would argue that it -- particularly its marketing and target audience -- has been a work in progress.
Specifically, Apple originally marketed it primarily as a fashion accessory to compete with traditional luxury brands like Rolex, etc... They even put out an all gold edition for what? $10K?
When that marketing ploy failed, they transitioned over into marketing it as a health, fitness and exercise tracker. And, they've done pretty well there. But, it still has not fulfilled its destiny there as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors. Instead, it has taken the Nike approach of primarily targeting casual, recreational exercisers and even non-exerisers with its rings and stand reminders.
That's not to criticize Apple or their Watch. Rather it is praise: a quality organization plans carefully and then reevaluates and adjusts and improves things on an ongoing basis -- and that is what Apple has done with their Watch. It continues to be a work in progress that I am excited to see what the future will bring. ... But, in the meantime, it has clearly served as an inspiration for the iPhone X.
Where does DED say it came out of the clamshell fully formed and perfect?
Apple didn’t position it as fashion and then fail and pivot. The activity tracking features it does today were there on Day 1 and are exactly why i bought it (and marketed if you recall the videos and famous runner who tested for them)...for years it was rumored apple was doing a fitbit competitor, it didn’t disappoint. But they did indeed market it as a fashionable device *in addition*. This was to show non techies that this wearable computer, a gadget, was not to be feared, scorned, etc...that it was in fact nice looking and flexible with your style via the bands. And they accomplished this. In a big way. The gold also assisted in garnering attention, and from the keynote Cook said it wasn’t going to be around long.
"Where does DED say it came out of the clamshell fully formed and perfect?" ... Implied throughout the first part of his article
"Apple didn’t position it as fashion and then fail and pivot." ... You were apparently not paying attention.
'The activity tracking features it does today were there on Day 1" ... Damn! You should have told Tim Cook that so he didn't have to add a barometer, GPS, water proofing it to 50m -- and LTE...
1) OK so you can't say where and are attributing your own made up statements to DED. Got it.
2) To the contrary, I've apparently been following it closer than you. You apparently didn't even realize they worked with high profile athletes during its development. As for fashion, I explained my points clearly -- it's always been a fitbit-killer, and *in addition* they exposed its fashion appeal side; which, if you were paying attention, you'd know is still here -- Heremes editions? Fact: the AW is sole wearable computer gadget that normals (especially women) are comfortable wearing and accessorizing with. That's remarkable.
3) Adding features like LTE and waterproofing in no way supports your argument that it wasn't a fitbit-killer from Day 1. Activity tracking has always been a tentpole feature, dur. While it's gotten even better and added support for water activity, that in no way means it wasn't a major activity tracker at launch. It was. I and many others like me have been using the activity tracking for years now.
I still hate myself that i bought Apple Watch series 0 stainless steel without reading reviews first - it’s so slow, it drives me crazy every day, that’s why i use now only its activity and breathing apps. Following models probably work much better, but i just can’t think of spending another $500 just for a performance update.
Welcome to technology. I have the same and yes I do feel it ruins watchOS 4 slowly. But I like all the crap new versions of OSes do, so I upgrade. Then if I still like the platform I eventually upgrade hardware after a few years. This is the same for watches, phones, computers, whatever.
Mine doesn't. The only time it hesitates is when it tries to get data such as pace and distance from the phone during a run.
Mine certainly does. From sliding faces to (most notably) opening the Home app from its complication, scrolling down to a target scene, and loading it. And don't even get me started on Siri on Series 0 -- it's no longer usable, far too slow. My SO's Series 2 is much more responsive for these same tasks.
My Series 0 Watches only major hesitation is in responding to messages - the quick relies take teens of seconds to be avaliable and the way it shows the message gives no clue that they are is are not available. That has been slow since I had it originally.
This is an excellent, insightful article... But, I disagree with one thing in it: The implication that the Apple Watch was pretty much complete and perfect coming out of the gate. I would argue that it -- particularly its marketing and target audience -- has been a work in progress.
Specifically, Apple originally marketed it primarily as a fashion accessory to compete with traditional luxury brands like Rolex, etc... They even put out an all gold edition for what? $10K?
When that marketing ploy failed, they transitioned over into marketing it as a health, fitness and exercise tracker. And, they've done pretty well there. But, it still has not fulfilled its destiny there as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors. Instead, it has taken the Nike approach of primarily targeting casual, recreational exercisers and even non-exerisers with its rings and stand reminders.
That's not to criticize Apple or their Watch. Rather it is praise: a quality organization plans carefully and then reevaluates and adjusts and improves things on an ongoing basis -- and that is what Apple has done with their Watch. It continues to be a work in progress that I am excited to see what the future will bring. ... But, in the meantime, it has clearly served as an inspiration for the iPhone X.
I agree it is a work in progress but I wouldn't push that idea to the point of claiming that previous product positionings have failed. The gold model apparently was a one time Edition which has still a market value (or more than that, collector's value) today. The Watch is primarily (and still) a fashion accessory by design. That location on human body is unique, you can not attach whatever trinket there. What you attach to your wrist is unique, very personal, very representative of your very own self. That makes the Watch necessarily a fashion accessory. Next they enhanced it with further health and exercise capabilities. Why? Not because of previous failure but because there were demand.
Those dedicated exercise monitors are vertical markets and Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be, given its scale. As with many other Apple products, the Watch is ahead of its time, since we have yet to see a system integrator to come forward with a professional sports tracking device that would work in tandem with Apple Watch over Bluetooth LE. I don't see any reason for Apple to reject such proposals and just the opposite is true as seen with Nike and Hermes.
"The Watch is primarily (and still) a fashion accessory by design." ... I haven't seen an Apple ad touting it as a fashion accessory since the Series 2 with GPS came out. It's all about athletics -- even the latest one released with the keynote of the skateboarder listening to one of the 40 million tunes on his wrist...
"Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be" ... Except for an 'always on' face and ultra long batter life (due to the otherwise exquisite OLED screen) the Apple Watch has all the components it needs to not only compete with the high end exercise trackers but beat them. What it lacks is the excellence of their software -- which is an easily fixed deficiency with proper software analysis and design. Apple can do better and, if they want, they will do better. Either that, or they could better support third parties to develop high end native applications for the watch -- which have been very slow in coming
There is nothing excellent in their software. This is mostly collected from publicly available open-source code then converted into embedded systems architecture.
How Apple supports third parties is appearant with thousands of developers making earnings on the AppStore. If some people are very slow Apple is not among them, those are 3d parties who are unable to evaluate the new market opportunities Apple Watch brings. There is nothing surprising in that, everything is “social” these days. If it is not “social” then no finances, it is not worth to develop or finance it. Apple’s job is not to fight with such narrow minds. Apple has already released three generations of Apple Watch whilst others were still struggling to figure out what a wearable is...
By the way no Apple ad positioned it as a fashion accessory, ever... To see a previous failure in recent Apple ads featuring fitness and alike you’d have to work very hard for building up a distopic mind.
With a vibrant, full-faced OLED screen sporting handsomely-rounded corners edged in polished stainless steel, passive biometrics that "just work" to authenticate you without conscious effort, buttery smooth swipe navigation for multitasking and a simple side control to invoke Siri and Apple Pay, iPhone X is nothing like other phones. But it's exactly like Apple Watch, which began paving the way for a generational iPhone leap back in 2014 at its introduction next to the more basic styling of iPhone 6 and 6 Plus.
When Apple Watch was introduced, critics bemoaned that its base aluminum Sport version was also offered in a premium-price tier for stainless steel, as well as a more breathtakingly expensive Edition with a solid gold body, even though all three versions used the same technical internals.
Why was Apple so arrogantly offering technology differentiated by luxury materials, the way car makers have for decades with luxury marques sporting chrome, leather and rosewood detailing? The nerve! Tech bloggers all know that computers can only come in basic tin and plastic boxes with no style. A PC never got anyone laid. Apple was investigating--and investing in--the market demand for luxury class styling
A more astute observation would have been that Apple was investigating--and investing in--the market demand for luxury class styling using a brand new product category. We noted this direction even before Apple Watch arrived.
Can't innovate anymore? Phil Schiller's ass!
Remember when the braying jackasses all harmonized in unison that Apple couldn't introduce new product categories and was growing dangerously dependent upon just one product, the iPhone? That belief also supposed the Apple Watch had to fail. Just look! There were so many other cheaper watch options from all of the Android vendors and beyond!
Those competitors have since largely dried up and blown away. Motorola, once honked about as having a "gorgeous" round Android Wear watch face, failed so miserably with its garish, slow, flat tire of a wrist-worn tuna can that it now has humbly slithered out of the watch business entirely. Few in the real world agreed to vote with their dollars that the Moto 360 was worth wearing. Google's Android software was unfinished and the watch hardware was a middling gimmick only a reviewer with a free product loan could pretend to admire.
Google has been patted on the back so frequently for trying bold new things--from Google TV to Google Glass headsets to Project Ara modularity to Project Tango AR--that those abandoned money pits are deemed "almost worth the effort" as creative experiments, a set of smoldering participation trophies of pyrrhic busy-work victories.
In parallel, Apple has been portrayed as a boring monolith that could only manage to crank out refreshed new versions of Macs, iPods, iPhone and iPad--essentially stuck in a rut improving upon the things Steve Jobs single-handedly invented before his untimely passing in 2011, the point at which Apple's creative spirit left with him. But that's a lie.
Apple Watch: the profitable product concept
Between 2012 and 2014, Apple pulled its wrist-wearable "Fat" iPad nano off the market and initiated a dramatic rethinking of what a wearable could be. More than just a clunky iPod strapped to the wrist, Tim Cook's Apple envisioned a fashionable luxury product with advanced biometrics for athletes, offered in a broad range of finishes, materials and stylish bands that could suit anyone's personal sense of style.
Apple Watch is the kind of thing Jobs would have loved. His original vision for the Macintosh was inspired by the Cuisinart, an ambitious project initiated in the 1970s to deliver high-end, sophisticated, premium kitchen appliances using state-of-the-art design and engineering.
Apple Watch similarly advances tech into a new frontier by rethinking the status quo of existing tools and targeting ways to fix things that could be done better. And it has paved the way for new classes of wearables, including AirPods, which integrate flawlessly with it and with iPhones other devices in a way that is magical and delightful.
Hated it!
How could the original product introduction of Apple Watch--involving its new tier of high-end engineering, precision manufacturing and complete rethinking of a custom new user interface on the level of the original 1984 Mac or Phone's first 2007 iOS--have been met with such derision, contempt and scathing ridicule by tech bloggers who supposedly cheer on advancement of the state of the art?
That's summed up the image posted by Jean-Louis Gassee in his 2015 Monday Noteskewering the generally low value of tech product reviewers' capacity to offer a useful evaluation of style and design, contrasting Nilay Patel's derision of Apple's Milanese Loop band for the The Verge as looking "ridiculous" while sporting a cuff that looked like it came from Hot Topic.
Jean-Louis Gassee took Nilay Patel to task for his fashion critique of Apple Watch bands in his Monday Note
Patel responded with profanity-laced series of Tweets that attacked Gassee's age and appearance, apparently unaware of his respected stature in Silicon Valley, or cognizant of the absence of ranting from Apple's executives and designers, who professionally refrain from making defensive comments every time Patel and his colleagues regularly ridicule their best work, even as they assign high review ratings to Google products--even ones that they warn shouldn't be purchased.
While bloggers where trying to poke holes in Apple Watch--desperately looking for any hint that Apple had finally delivered a flop that could be extrapolated into a slippery slope of failure that might finally open up the playing field for less competent companies--Apple kept marching ahead with engineering work on new materials, new display technology, new silicon and new fabrication methods that would not only improve upon the original Apple Watch but would also cross-pollinate with iOS devices.
Back to the Mac-style tech sharing for iPhone
Several years ago, as sales of iPods and then iPhones ramped up into the tens of millions, many fans of the Mac grew concerned that Apple's attention would shift to its new revenue drivers, leaving them behind. One of the first technologies that came from Apple Watch to iPhones was water resistance
In 2010, Jobs delivered his "Back to the Mac" a keynote outlining how Apple would be taking many of the lessons learned with iOS and applying them to improve and enhance the Mac platform. This included a new Mac App Store and support for FaceTime (introduced on iPhone 4), as well as the introduction of distraction-free, full screen apps like those on the iPad.
Apple is now doing a similar thing with its work for Apple Watch. One of the first technologies that came from Apple Watch to iPhones was water resistance. It also pioneered OLED, as well as a full screen display navigated almost entirely by swipes, a screen that could wake with a touch and register a hard press as different from a tap. iPhone 6s subsequently delivered 3D Touch, iPhone 7 brought IP67 water intrusion resistance and now iPhone X gets tap to wake and a full panel OLED display.
Apple Watch also introduced a "luxurious" setup process where you simply view the watch display from your iPhone to establish a secure wireless link between them. This year's iOS 11 brings the same kind of Quick Start setup to iPhone upgrades. Samsung, meanwhile, advertises that you can plug in a 90s-style dongle to upgrade between Galaxy phones.
iOS 11 got its wireless Quick Start from Apple Watch. Samsung didn't.
Passive biometric authentication
Another concept that began with the watch is using biometrics to passively authenticate. While Touch ID introduced the idea of explicitly providing a fingerprint when requested, Apple Watch uses its rear pulse sensor to detect if you're still there after entering your passcode. When you take the device off, it stops verifying you until you put it on and reenter your passcode to unlock it. This allows users to start an Apple Pay transaction without explicitly logging in or typing in a code.
iPhone isn't able to constantly, reliably verify that you're in contact with the device. So to bring passive biometrics to iPhone X, Apple had to develop its new TrueDepth camera to deliver Face ID, which does a just-in-time authentication based a scan of your facial structures, something that others can't easily spoof. This passively initiated step is done when you swipe up, but also occurs when you enter a locked app (such as a banking or dating app that requires login at each use) or want to unlock data including Notes or your iCloud Keychain.
Go to a website that asks for credentials that you've saved on your Mac, and you can simply tap the key icon and iPhone X will instantly verify you with Face ID, then supply your password. No need to even lift a finger to authenticate. It just happens.Most unlocking scenarios occur when you're looking at the phone and it's looking at you, making authentication an invisible event
There are some cases where Touch ID lets you explicitly login quick, such as when you have your phone plugged into a car where the screen isn't facing you; Face ID requires that you move or tilt the display. However, that sort of corner case is relatively rare. Most unlocking scenarios occur when you're looking at the phone and it's looking at you, making authentication an invisible event.
If Apple hadn't worked to build an easy-to-use, passive mechanism for authenticating Apple Pay on Apple Watch, it may not have ever considered the need to replace Touch ID with something superior in almost every respect. Certainly all of the Android makers haven't given much thought to ditching their catchup versions of Touch ID, and Google's own vision of Pure Android, embodied in Pixel 2, makes no effort to think beyond fingerprint authentication.
When Google, Samsung and others took their shot at facial recognition, they delivered systems that could easily be fooled, because they didn't want to invest in the development of expensive components that would drive up the cost of hardware. For Apple, developing advanced technology isn't a problem, because it can afford to take big leaps and aggressively work to bring down costs across high volumes of premium sales.
Material differentiation
Another thing iPhone X got from Apple Watch: a sense of luxury differentiation using advanced materials. Beyond its display and front-facing 3D camera, iPhone X shares a lot in common with iPhone 8: similar rear cameras, the same internal processors, identical memory and storage and a variety of shared new features including Qi and Fast Charging. Yet iPhone X can command a premium in part because it signals its value using materials.
Related
The outward difference in appearance of iPhone 8 and iPhone X has a lot in common with the difference between the entry aluminum-cased Apple Watch with standard rear glass and the premium stainless steel models with a back involving an additional component process (on Apple Watch it's sapphire; iPhone X, it's another layer of color there to deliver a more lustrous appearance).
That communicates a difference in value even to people who don't think about technical differences, and sets apart the more expensive iPhone X as distinctive, the same way a Cadillac, Audi, Maybach, Lincoln or Infiniti fetches a higher price than a Chevy, Volkswagen, Mercedes, Ford or Nissan, despite often sharing much of the same chassis and other designs.
Google and Microsoft have also followed suit, creating the Pixel and Surface brands that similarly aspire to grab a higher price. The difference is that Google and Microsoft are directly competing against their own platform partners, and the tiny volumes of premium products they are actually selling are evidence that there isn't really much demand for upscale versions of Android or Windows products.
Yesterday, Apple sold more iPhone X models than Google will sell in Pixel 2 units over the next year.
Did pig faced Patel ever get a mirror stable enough to show his reflection? Clothes from the Gap and jewelry from a street vendor around the corner in an alley near a “legacy”rock concert, nobody was listening to him anyway.
Comments
1. not sure how double glass sides could be considered an embarrassment. It’s a design decision, not a technological limitation. Would you prefer a plastic backside? Sure, they could’ve used ceramic, but not at the scale needed.
2. Battery life has a lot to do with the size of the battery you shove inside the device, which in turn has a lot to do with how much other stuff needs to go in it. Apple’s devices are much, much more efficient than any other device.
3. The Qi standard used by Apple is the latest version that Apple has extended into what they call “AirPower”. Just as they’ve extended bluetooth to meet their needs, the wireless charging they’ve implemented has benefits beyond that of the standard Qi spec.
Not to mention...
4. The OLED displays are custom Apple displays - not off the shelf Samsung parts. They are the best OLED displays ever put into a mobile device.
5. The A11 SoC is by far and away the most powerful and efficient SoC ever put into a mobile device.
6. The first fully capable, real-time facial recognition system in a mobile device.
Troll Score: 2 of 10.
Those dedicated exercise monitors are vertical markets and Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be, given its scale. As with many other Apple products, the Watch is ahead of its time, since we have yet to see a system integrator to come forward with a professional sports tracking device that would work in tandem with Apple Watch over Bluetooth LE. I don't see any reason for Apple to reject such proposals and just the opposite is true as seen with Nike and Hermes.
... Implied throughout the first part of his article
"Apple didn’t position it as fashion and then fail and pivot."
... You were apparently not paying attention.
'The activity tracking features it does today were there on Day 1"
... Damn! You should have told Tim Cook that so he didn't have to add a barometer, GPS, water proofing it to 50m -- and LTE...
The only time it hesitates is when it tries to get data such as pace and distance from the phone during a run.
... I haven't seen an Apple ad touting it as a fashion accessory since the Series 2 with GPS came out. It's all about athletics -- even the latest one released with the keynote of the skateboarder listening to one of the 40 million tunes on his wrist...
"Apple is not into vertical markets and cannot be"
... Except for an 'always on' face and ultra long batter life (due to the otherwise exquisite OLED screen) the Apple Watch has all the components it needs to not only compete with the high end exercise trackers but beat them. What it lacks is the excellence of their software -- which is an easily fixed deficiency with proper software analysis and design. Apple can do better and, if they want, they will do better. Either that, or they could better support third parties to develop high end native applications for the watch -- which have been very slow in coming
"the Watch is ahead of its time"
True. It is an incredible, even miraculous product. One Steve would be proud of. But it, and its role, has been evolving and it will continue to evolve.
1. Samsung; Apple spent more time working on a small bezel phone.
Samsung rushed out the Note 7 which had a complete recall.
Apple was right to take more time to avoid a massive quality control blunder.
2. Google; the flagship Google Pixel 2X has a low quality LG screen (which shows burn in after only a few days).
The Pixel 2 XL does not have wireless charging or a telephoto lens.
Imo it's inferior compared with the iPhone X.
Again, imo Apple was right to take more time to build a better quality phone.
- After all, DED knows that the Series 2/3 and improvements to Watch OS exist. Therefore the claim that the article implied that the initial Apple Watch was pretty much a complete/perfect product which suggests it had no need for updates, is not an accurate view of the article.
- Instead what DED has done is make comparisons to actual products.
The influence of the Apple Watch design and the iPhone X.
As well as the Apple Watch and the once main US Android Wear competitor, the now discontinued Moto 360.
* Second, there is the claim that the Apple Watch product line "has not fulfilled its destiny ... as it is still not on the same level as the dedicated exercise monitors".
- Dedicated fitness devices for highest level competition athletes, like the Garmin wearables and chest straps (from Polar), are not the "destiny" of the Apple Watch.
- Apple Watch is a mass market smartwatch. Its competition would be other mass market smartwatches.
The RIZNOWS fitness YouTube channel has a video titled; "Best GPS Running Watches" which rated the Apple Watch as the best mass market smartwatch for fitness over the Samsung devices.
- Also, Mashable has an article from May 05, 2017 titled; "Apple is now the world's top wearable company".
- Imo Apple Watch has reached its destiny.
2) To the contrary, I've apparently been following it closer than you. You apparently didn't even realize they worked with high profile athletes during its development. As for fashion, I explained my points clearly -- it's always been a fitbit-killer, and *in addition* they exposed its fashion appeal side; which, if you were paying attention, you'd know is still here -- Heremes editions? Fact: the AW is sole wearable computer gadget that normals (especially women) are comfortable wearing and accessorizing with. That's remarkable.
3) Adding features like LTE and waterproofing in no way supports your argument that it wasn't a fitbit-killer from Day 1. Activity tracking has always been a tentpole feature, dur. While it's gotten even better and added support for water activity, that in no way means it wasn't a major activity tracker at launch. It was. I and many others like me have been using the activity tracking for years now.
Mine certainly does. From sliding faces to (most notably) opening the Home app from its complication, scrolling down to a target scene, and loading it. And don't even get me started on Siri on Series 0 -- it's no longer usable, far too slow. My SO's Series 2 is much more responsive for these same tasks.
How Apple supports third parties is appearant with thousands of developers making earnings on the AppStore. If some people are very slow Apple is not among them, those are 3d parties who are unable to evaluate the new market opportunities Apple Watch brings. There is nothing surprising in that, everything is “social” these days. If it is not “social” then no finances, it is not worth to develop or finance it. Apple’s job is not to fight with such narrow minds. Apple has already released three generations of Apple Watch whilst others were still struggling to figure out what a wearable is...
By the way no Apple ad positioned it as a fashion accessory, ever... To see a previous failure in recent Apple ads featuring fitness and alike you’d have to work very hard for building up a distopic mind.