Apple Watch: First impressions from an afternoon with Cupertino's new wearable

1568101115

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 300
    Originally Posted by EauVive View Post

    That’s also what the Scots are going to say in a week (at least, I hope)…


     

    You sure you want to encourage separatism? Won’t the Bretons get all uppity (there’s no Occitan irredentism, is there?)?

     

    Catalonia’s basically guaranteed, isn’t it? Scotland seems iffy.

  • Reply 142 of 300
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post





    I would love to see a 100% waterproof version able to take a reasonable scuba depth. It seems the internals lend themselves to being made so, easily enough. Then I am back to worrying about the crown, is this the weak link for such a version I wonder.

     

    Why is waterproof and scuba depth important? First, how many people would be doing that? Second, this is a companion device to the iPhone. It has very limited functionality without it and probably doubt you are swimming with the phone. Don't forget this is a 1st generation device. However, there is also nothing from stopping Apple from coming out with enhanced or additional versions as the year or time progresses. This is Apple's real 1st entry into a fashion product with multiple SKU's and options. This could be the one line that changes frequently over time, versus iDevices which seem to have a 1 year cycle. 

  • Reply 143 of 300
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    What amazes me in watching the videos that show how the different bands work - why the hell is Apple the first to be showing a lot of this stuff off?

    Seriously - adding and removing links with my fingers - no tools required?!? No one else could come up with this before now?

    Ugh... and Apple doesn't innovate?
  • Reply 144 of 300
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by muppetry View Post





    Pay attention. It's reversible.

     

    Maybe the UI is reversible, but at this point I have seen no photos from Apple with the crown and button on the left side of the ?watch.  Telling a left-handed person (such as myself) to just turn the watch around and "deal" is odd.  They make left-handed scissors because most scissors are molded for right-handed use.  Like the ?watch, I CAN (and COULD) use them in a way other than designed, but it makes for an awkward experience.  As an engineer myself, when I design something, I have a use process in mind.  If someone starts using my software or hardware in a way I didn't envision, it's MY responsibility to find out why they're using it in that manner and (if necessary) improve upon my design to make the best user experience possible for the most number of people.  I imagine that before launch, Apple will have a lefty version with a left-sided crown / button arrangement.  Why alienate 10% of the population, when you could sell them a $350 watch?

  • Reply 145 of 300
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RadarTheKat View Post





    I hadn't seen any info on its measured thickness. Thanks for that. 11mm is about .44 inches, compared with the Moto 360 at .5" and with its considerably larger face. I think the Apple watch compares favorably in that regard.

     

    Moto 360 is only .4" Neither watch is too thick.

    This is a watch. It's a fashion accessory first and everyone has different tastes. For me, the Moto 360 is almost identical to the dimensions on my "traditional" watch, which I like, and others won't. More options are always a good thing.

     

    That being said, this article has some clear points where the author is in left field and being extremely biased.

    Google did not try to shrink Android. They did the exact opposite of that. It's completely different in looks, interactions and functionality. Apple's watch is much closer to a shrunk version of iOS than Android Wear is.

    And then voice control. Android had it years before iOS and it's never been advertised as a personal assistant. Why try and claim Google copied siri? They didn't in the slightest. Why would you even go there in a watch article?

    The copying nonsense has to stop. Google is not going to even look at this Apple watch. Google has a completely different vision of what a smartwatch should be which is only Google Now cards for quick and easy information. (Glances borrowed heavily from this - which is good, because it's great on wear)

     

    Apple got the customization options spot on here. Really impressed there. Really disappointed in the $350 for a no steel and off brand tempered glass version. Unfortunately I find the interface and navigation confusing and bloated. I look forward to interacting with it in person and hope to be proven wrong, even if the looks don't fit my specific tastes.

  • Reply 146 of 300
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    I confess that I suspect in version two or three of ?Watch this will be replaced with simply rubbing your finger around the outer edge to accomplish the same results.

    Gawd I hope not - I'm very pleased to see real, physical controls once again getting highlighted. It's a brilliant control and an excellent tie to tradition that is more functional than symbolic.
  • Reply 147 of 300
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by imt1 View Post

     

     

    Why is waterproof and scuba depth important?

     

    This could be the one line that changes frequently over time, versus iDevices which seem to have a 1 year cycle. 


     

    The watch is water-resistant which is what 90% of watches are. There are very few that could be termed "water-proof", so in the bigger scheme the Apple Watch is what people expect from a luxury or sport watch. Good in the rain and with sweat, but not a scuba companion.

     

    I doubt the Watch will be upgraded more often than once a year (unless next year version 2.0 comes out in the fall). But I agree that the bands may be upgraded more seasonally, so that people can always give their Watch a fresh look. (I imagine the sports bands will cost $30 or $40 and the leather and metal band will cost $60 or $70).

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post



    What amazes me in watching the videos that show how the different bands work - why the hell is Apple the first to be showing a lot of this stuff off?



    Seriously - adding and removing links with my fingers - no tools required?!? No one else could come up with this before now?



    Ugh... and Apple doesn't innovate?

     

    I agree. 

     

    Even the bands showed attention to detail not seen in any previous Watch (smart or not).

  • Reply 148 of 300
    jetzjetz Posts: 1,293member

    Beautiful watch.  Still skeptical about the market for it though.

     

    We're talking about spending at least $350 on what is essentially an iPhone accessory.  And it's one more device to charge and manage.   And you're still stuck with using the phone for quite a few things.

     

    I think it's possible that iCar (iOS in the car) could be more popular than Apple Watch. The use case for iCar is a whole lot better.

  • Reply 149 of 300
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    rsdofny wrote: »
    It is paired with an iPhone. If there is a bluetooth headphone, it can paired with the iPhone for music, not the iWatch.

    Wrong - the watch can store and play music independent of the phone, so being able to pair headphones would kind of be essential. It's been mentioned several times now.
  • Reply 150 of 300
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    blackbook wrote: »
    It seems that after Steve died, Apple completely stopped pushing for media partnerships to make their entertainment system work.

    1) What about their "entertainment system" isn't working?
    2) I'm curious as to why you think they bought Beats?
  • Reply 151 of 300

    I read several posts on analyst sites purporting to explain the possible revenue share model. I certainly didn't get the impression from the keynote that Apple would not receive anything. People on this site seem to think that Tim saying that Apple "doesn't know what you bought, where you bought it, or how much you paid for it” means that Apple does not get anything. I don't agree wit this. It would make no finical sense for Apple not to receive a piece of the pie, especially as they are the middleman in this scenario. The lead story on AppleInsider today states this:

     

    http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/10/apple-to-collect-swipe-fees-from-banks-for-apple-pay-payments---report

  • Reply 152 of 300
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post





    1) What about their "entertainment system" isn't working?

    2) I'm curious as to why you think they bought Beats?

     

    1) iTunes is not the media hub Steve had set out for it to be. Yes they are #1 in music but they've fallen behind in TV/movies, and it seems NO ONE has figured out how to communicate with media companies to get the content together for an alternative to the current cable system. Steve before he died said he had figured it out, but we have yet to see Apple make inroads in this area since his death. Instead they've been focusing on this watch since Steve died (Tim's words not mine).

     

    2) Beats is a music company not television, movies, and entertainment. Yes, there were rumors Jimmy Iovine had connections in Hollywood, but I haven't seen proof of that.

     

    As I said above the potential in TV is likely as big as the iPhone was.

  • Reply 153 of 300
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post



    2) I'm curious as to why you think they bought Beats?

     

    Being that nobody knew anything about the 4.7" and 5.5" iPhones and the Apple Watch until yesterday, we probably won't hear anything more about the Beats connection until it happens.  :p

  • Reply 155 of 300

    What? Are you blind? Seriously....

  • Reply 156 of 300
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    blackbook wrote: »
    we have yet to see Apple make inroads in this area since his death. Instead they've been focusing on this watch since Steve died (Tim's words not mine).

    Why focus on something that's unattainable? You would think the movie execs would "get it" about DRM after watching how the online music sales exploded once Apple coerced them to finally allow them to drop DRM.

    But they don't. So why beat a dead horse?
    2) Beats is a music company not television, movies, and entertainment.

    With streaming contracts for music.
    Yes, there were rumors Jimmy Iovine had connections in Hollywood, but I haven't seen proof of that.

    lol - and why would you expect to? You really think Apple paid a billion dollars just for some crappy headphones? Priceless!
    As I said above the potential in TV is likely as big as the iPhone was.

    Based on what? TV makers are dying. People buy a TV, set it up and then don't think about it again for 10-15 years. 3D flopped, and 4K is going to be a hard sell to all but the die hards (and I find the calls for 4K hilarious given how over-compressed cable/satellite/FIOS is compared to OTA broadcasts).

    The value in TV is the content, and we already established the current content creators are dinosaurs stuck in the past and unwilling to acknowledge the successes in music.

    It matters not. Time grinds on. With the rise of efforts of Netflix, Amazon and others to create their own compelling content the eventual demise of the current system is just a matter of time - even with the moves of companies like Comcast in buying NBC.

    What I do find puzzling is given their relationship to Disney why there isn't more Disney content predominantly featured on things like the Apple TV.
  • Reply 157 of 300

    Price insensitive means no matter the price, the target public will buy it.  No goods are truly price insensitive. But, demand can be pretty stable in a pretty large price band for Apple products. In that case, Apple would want to price as high as possible without alienating its buyers.

  • Reply 158 of 300
    onhkaonhka Posts: 1,025member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AgNuke1707 View Post

     

     

    Maybe the UI is reversible, but at this point I have seen no photos from Apple with the crown and button on the left side of the ?watch.  Telling a left-handed person (such as myself) to just turn the watch around and "deal" is odd.  They make left-handed scissors because most scissors are molded for right-handed use.  Like the ?watch, I CAN (and COULD) use them in a way other than designed, but it makes for an awkward experience.  As an engineer myself, when I design something, I have a use process in mind.  If someone starts using my software or hardware in a way I didn't envision, it's MY responsibility to find out why they're using it in that manner and (if necessary) improve upon my design to make the best user experience possible for the most number of people.  I imagine that before launch, Apple will have a lefty version with a left-sided crown / button arrangement.  Why alienate 10% of the population, when you could sell them a $350 watch?


     

    So where did you get your left-handed keyboard?

     

    Seriously, I doubt that 10% of the population will be alienated. This is not to say that Apple should not consider a watch that is suitable for those that would wear it on the right wrist. Unfortunately, much of the discussion will come down to cost. And cost does not only consist of manufacturing. 

     

    As you know, right-handed watches are rare. As are for most products. Perhaps it will be universal when printed materials are written right to left and left-handers will be able to scribe with a pen without having to crank their left hand over or getting their palms smudge with ink. 

  • Reply 159 of 300
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AgNuke1707 View Post

     

    Why alienate 10% of the population, when you could sell them a $350 watch?


     

    It's not 10% of the population of course, as this ?Watch is only intended for iPhone users. So 10% of iPhone users would be a more accurate statement.

     

    And do you not think that there are any lefties working at Apple? Of course Apple hasn't forgotten about lefties.

     

    It's just that the watch is not completed yet, and it makes perfect sense for Apple to concentrate on the main version first, the version for the overwhelming majority of people.

  • Reply 160 of 300
    docno42docno42 Posts: 3,710member
    eauvive wrote: »
    The patter of marketing does miracles.

    I know! It's amazing how these companies can completely brainwash people into buying expensive devices that provide no other value than having the Apple logo on them!

    Wizards, they truly are :p
Sign In or Register to comment.