There should be zero ambiguity with what I'm stating. When I say wearable electronic, I literally mean wearable electronics, which include headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I literally mean a device worn on the wrist.
... and I was talking about the Apple Watch and how I don't think Apple should have been so literal in its interpretation. How much more clear can that be.
It was you who started talking more about wearable devices.
... and I have never tried to wiggle out of anything. I have never had to so far and I just wouldn't do it anyway.
... and I was talking about the Apple Watch and how I don't think Apple should have been so literal in its interpretation. How much more clear can that be.
It was you who started talking more about wearable devices.
Are you talking about the name including watch the way the iPhone included phone? If not, then what else is so literal about ?Watch? As I stated in this thread, I have historically not been a fan of Apple's naming conventions but my dislike doesn't appear to be slowing them down.
... and I have never tried to wiggle out of anything. I have never had to so far and I just wouldn't do it anyway.
I know, which I thought I made very clear in my comment, but apparently not.
I ran across a cool app some time ago called "Bump." It allows 2 iPhone users to connect directly to share contact information. While cool, it always seemed clumsy to notice someone had an iPhone, ask if they had "Bump" then start fiddling etc etc.
With Apple Watch, you can see it on their wrist. "Hey, let me send you my contact info" Tap to the app and done. If native to the Apple Watch (no need to ask if the other person has the app) I can see it being a popular feature.
Is this a fault of the device or the app?
If sharing software was included with every phone then you wouldn't have to ask. Just bump and go.
... and, although slightly more convenient, the person would still have to have an Apple Watch... and it would have to be visible.
Prior to that the wrist hadn't been used for much over a period of thousands of years. The idea of a watch on the wrist was very novel and a perfect solution to keep both hands on the job while still being able to tell the time.
I don't think either one of those sentences are accurate.
Are you talking about the name including watch the way the iPhone included phone? If not, then what else is so literal about ?Watch? As I stated in this thread, I have historically not been a fan of Apple's naming conventions but my dislike doesn't appear to be slowing them down.
The literal interpretation of the watch face etc. ie. the watch as metaphor for a device which obviously does so much more. I'm sorry but the Apple Watch just reminds me of Newton type technology. Good idea... wrong implementation. Apple has the bucks to get it right if it's wrong. Maybe in 5-7 years we'll get the iPad version of the Newton in Apple wearables.
I know, which I thought I made very clear in my comment, but apparently not.
I was going by memory... and I flipped the 2 reasons in my mind.
But will iOS 8.2 finally FIX the Wi-Fi problem that's been plaguing this release, so that the watch, phone, and various Mac's won't always need to be reconnected at the most inopportune moments?
And people think this watch isn't going to be a big deal. The freaking thing looks like it does everything! Just exactly what your iPhone does but it's just a relay to the watch face, which is awesome.
Just like that smartphone was just for hardcore techies and business people before 2007.
Even in the same post you've gone from "wearables are not on the cusp of anything" and "a niche market that only hardcore techies find interesting" to a statement about the tech advancing that it could revolutionary. No shit, Cumberbatch!
Ah, now you're back to seeing the state of the art not advancing. No breakthroughs? You really want to say that wearables won't be a massive market? Even Beats, a very young company, has come in to make their wearables very popular in a short amount of time. Do you not think that ever shrinking electronics using even less power will never find their ways onto (and into) your person. The headphones have been around for many decades, and now we are on the cusp of advancing that goal.
@island hermit says it wasn't a major problem so you two can discuss that separately.
So solving a problem, major or otherwise, where other solution are already considered the status quo, it isn't adding convenience as the primary solution, especially when it's excessively more expensive than current solutions? You'll have to explain that to me.
There is no other way for me to say this except to say that if you truly ONLY see ?Watch as saving you the trouble of pulling your iPhone out of your pocket then I feel very sorry for you because you will undoubtedly be missing pretty much everything else this beautiful world has to offer if your view is that myopic. And, again, I say this a someone who has no intention of buying ?Watch at this point or any point in the future, just as I will likely never buy an iPad again, yet I can clearly see the utility it offers others.
PS: In the land of the lazy convenience is king. From that phrase and the level of laziness I read in your previous comment I predict you will eventually buy and/or "smartwatch."
There's a huge difference between the smart phone and a watch. Only the most stubborn can't see that. The smart phone put a computer in your pocket. Coupled with wireless data service, it made all sorts of things possible that previously required one to be tethered to one's computer. The watch extends some of these things, but it offers nothing revolutionary in the way the smart phone itself did.
Wearables aren't on the cusp of anything today. They are boring and predictable and a very niche market. Of course there's always the POSSIBILITY that something truly revolutionary will emerge. I don't discount that. And that might change my personal opinion of wearables, as well as ignite the market. However, TODAY, that isn't the case. The Apple Watch looks like a great piece of hardware. I appreciate it. But I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that it will do anything revolutionary.
I agree with you on shrinking electronics. The future of wearables is definitely sensors and health-related functions. I mean, we're so sick as a society these days (1 in 3 getting cancer...) that monitoring our failing biology and tuning our drug regimens and alerting emergency services will probably be big selling points (sadly) in the coming decades.
I think a lot of the hype around the Apple Watch comes down to how impatient we've become when it comes to technology. It took decades to go from punch cards to the command line, the command line to the GUI, the GUI to touch...but now we expect revolutions every few years or we're not satisfied. The Apple Watch is no such revolution. It's a nice iPhone accessory, priced far too high in my opinion given its limited utility. I have no doubt that it will find a market among fanboys and gadget heads, but I don't see it becoming a mainstream device. Why did Apple have such a successful quarter? Because it finally released an iPhone with a BIGGER screen. Not because I can now check my notifications on the screen the size of a postage stamp on my wrist.
As for MP3s, only an idiot can't see how the MP3 player was a major improvement over previous portable music players. It solved a huge problem (the hassle of juggling/carrying physical media) and added major value to one's life (all of your music in your pocket). No smartwatch to date has solved a major problem or added major value. And that's why, despite years of such products being available, they haven't sold well. I have no doubt that Apple will raise the bar significantly with the Apple Watch, but I still see very little evidence that consumers are interested in wearables as a category. Maybe Apple Watch will change that.
You jump to a lot of conclusions about people who don't agree with you, don't you? Myopic. Lazy. Pretty much everything the Apple Watch does can be done using other devices. It's not bringing anything new to the table other than being tightly integrated into Apple's existing eco-system (which is a huge advantage). And, yes right now I see the Apple Watch as little more than a luxury. I don't need to pull my phone out of my pocket to see who just texted or emailed. It pops up on my watch. I don't need to pull my phone out to navigate. It's on my watch. But what else does it do?
You call me myopic. I'd say you're overly optimistic. Until I see something truly revolutionary from a wearable, I'll maintain my current general apathy to the entire product category. I don't need something monitoring my pulse and counting my steps. I don't need notifications popping up on my wrist all day long. I don't need my watch to remind me to stand up. As for your lazy comment, F you. You don't know me. I may be a lot of things, but lazy is not one of them. I haven't worn a watch in 15 years. Apple Watch isn't going to change that.
People can wear an Apple Watch that measures your pulse (among other biometrics). Sometime; later this year, there will be an Apple Watch app that detects irregularity in the wearer's pulse rate -- and through the tethered iPhone send an alert to your doctor, relative, 911, whomever ...
Now, for an anecdote:
At about midnight, on Feb 18 -- it will be 14 years since my wife died, unexpectedly, while watching TV in the family room, I was less that 40 feet away, on the computer in the den ...
Lucy was 59 years old! She would have been 73 on Jan 29.
I would give everything to have had the Apple Watch tech -- it could have saved her life.
I will buy an Apple Watch for My daughter and my 3 grandkids ...
I certainly cannot argue with this scenario. I think sensors and health-related features are definitely the future of the product. As we evolve into machines, first we'll wear the sensors, but soon they'll just be implanted. And health (and all the fear-based marketing associated with it) will drive the wearables market. We're also sicker and more drugged out as a society than we've ever been and that isn't likely to change thanks to the general ignorance of the public when it comes to diet and nutrition and the agriculture and pharmaceutical industry's unholy alliance. So I'm sure wearable products that monitor health metrics, tell you what drugs to take, etc. will become more and more popular. I can even see a day when your insurance company forces you to wear something like that. Personally, that future is one I want no part of.
The day when a wearable is not even noticed until it is needed... and even then "it" decides when you need it most of the time... that's what I want to see.
Bingo. This is when wearables become mainstream. When there's no interface. When it monitors and anticipates. When a voice-driven UI actually works. Not when I'm forced to interact with it on a tiny little screen.
And this is why ?Watch will wipe out all supposed competition. It's called being part of the world largest and best walled garden ... err I mean eco system.
I see Kasper's battery is running a bit low there!
When you define your concept as a metaphor you are forcing me to make interpretations. The only reasons I see people doing that is because they can try to wiggle out of their comments later (the intelligent troll) or those that don't really have a good foundation for their argument in the first place (clearly this is where I think your comment fall). There should be zero ambiguity with what I'm stating. When I say wearable electronic, I literally mean wearable electronics, which include headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I literally mean a device worn on the wrist.
I would definitely prefer if your language changed to remove the metaphor from the conversation entirely.
Knowing how something should be completed and being able to do all the streps to get it completely are very different things. ?Pay is how I thought it should be designed, but I would never be able to make that happen… so here I am posting crap to strangers. Or take a trainer v. trainee.
I don't remember anyone using the wrist prior to the wrist watch to convey information
People with medical conditions often wear a bracelet with that information written on it. Every hospital puts an ID bracelet on patients. There are other cases as well. In fact one might argue that any bracelet is meant to convey information about the wearer. I've heard of people putting a rubber band around their wrist to remind themselves to do some errand or task. Crude but effective I guess. The practicality of having something on your wrist for some personal purpose is not restricted to a wristwatch.
Honestly I didn't even read many of the posts because it seemed like an argument about splitting hairs, but whatever....
People with medical conditions often wear a bracelet with that information written on it. Every hospital puts an ID bracelet on patients. There are other cases as well. In fact one might argue that any bracelet is meant to convey information about the wearer. I've heard of people putting a rubber band around their wrist to remind themselves to do some errand or task. Crude but effective I guess.
Honestly I didn't even read many of the posts because it seemed like an argument about splitting hairs, but whatever....
You have to watch what you say or that hair will be shaved down to 1/10000 of an inch.
I wonder if they used those bands before the wrist watch was invented. The wrist watch for men is basically a 20th century invention.
[ I picture a 3rd Century BC Egyptian wearing a stone block with hieroglyphics on it around their wrist ]
You have to watch what you say or that hair will be shaved down to 1/10000 of an inch.
I wonder if they used those bands before the wrist watch was invented. The wrist watch for men is basically a 20th century invention.
Sorry I didn't quite finish my post before you replied. I'm not sure why it matters what came first. It is still a practical place to display some message either to yourself or others. A lot of people even get tattoos on their wrist. It is a very accessible and conspicuous location on the body. You have to put a colored band on your wrist when you go to the fair to indicate that you are old enough to buy beer. Even an American Football quarterback has a playbook pamphlet wrapped around his wrist. A wrist mounted computer seems like a no brainer.
Sorry I didn't quite finish my post before you replied. I'm not sure why it matters what came first. It is still a practical place to display some message either to yourself or others. A lot of people even get tattoos on their wrist. It is a very accessible and conspicuous location on the body. You have to put a colored band on your wrist when you go to the fair to indicate that you are old enough to buy beer. Even an American Football quarterback has a playbook pamphlet wrapped around his wrist. A wrist mounted computer seems like a no brainer.
Just curious... what makes you think that I thought the wrist was a bad place for information?
My 19-year-old granddaughter is aways on her phone!
She was home sick, bored, and we'd been trying to straighten out her finances -- she has her first credit card and is trying to build a credit history.
I thought that Apple Pay on the Apple Watch might appeal to her -- and hinted I might buy her an Apple Watch if she got control of her finances.
So, she watched the entire hour + of the Apple Watch announcement video ...
What she thought was the best thing ...
Transit! When in San Francisco, knowing when the next bus is coming and when to get off ...
Go figure???
My personal opinion, is Convenience -- most all the capabilities * of the iPhone without needing to pull out the iPhone.
* I don't like to be tethered to anything. Carrying an iPhone is being tethered to an iPhone! The Apple Watch can be setup to be less of a tether than the iPhone (less disruptive and more precise notifications).
That's interesting, Dick. Hopefully she can get on the transit with the watch as well.
Here's my story about convenience... our new Honda Civic. Never do I have to pull anything out of my pocket. I put the key fob in my pocket and the car opens and starts without every having to reach to get the keys. That's convenience.
The Apple Watch might be a start but it is already anachronistic imo. We still have to look at it, we still have to fiddle with it, we still have to charge it...
The day when a wearable is not even noticed until it is needed... and even then "it" decides when you need it most of the time... that's what I want to see.
I meant to respond to this earlier, but was distracted ...
I agree with your take on convenience ...
My daughter Just bought a 2015 Jeep Cherokee & has a similar key fob. She prefers to manually lock/unlock the car -- 3 kids, active church, school, soccer mom ... Interesting -- she prefers to know (confirm) it is locked.
Edit:
Interesting read, including the linked triple A article:
Apple to Offer a Little Roadside Assistance? Check This Patent.
Comments
There should be zero ambiguity with what I'm stating. When I say wearable electronic, I literally mean wearable electronics, which include headphones. When I say wrist-worn device I literally mean a device worn on the wrist.
... and I was talking about the Apple Watch and how I don't think Apple should have been so literal in its interpretation. How much more clear can that be.
It was you who started talking more about wearable devices.
... and I have never tried to wiggle out of anything. I have never had to so far and I just wouldn't do it anyway.
Are you talking about the name including watch the way the iPhone included phone? If not, then what else is so literal about ?Watch? As I stated in this thread, I have historically not been a fan of Apple's naming conventions but my dislike doesn't appear to be slowing them down.
I know, which I thought I made very clear in my comment, but apparently not.
Getting away from some of the angst...
I ran across a cool app some time ago called "Bump." It allows 2 iPhone users to connect directly to share contact information. While cool, it always seemed clumsy to notice someone had an iPhone, ask if they had "Bump" then start fiddling etc etc.
With Apple Watch, you can see it on their wrist. "Hey, let me send you my contact info" Tap to the app and done. If native to the Apple Watch (no need to ask if the other person has the app) I can see it being a popular feature.
Is this a fault of the device or the app?
If sharing software was included with every phone then you wouldn't have to ask. Just bump and go.
... and, although slightly more convenient, the person would still have to have an Apple Watch... and it would have to be visible.
I don't think either one of those sentences are accurate.
Are you talking about the name including watch the way the iPhone included phone? If not, then what else is so literal about ?Watch? As I stated in this thread, I have historically not been a fan of Apple's naming conventions but my dislike doesn't appear to be slowing them down.
The literal interpretation of the watch face etc. ie. the watch as metaphor for a device which obviously does so much more. I'm sorry but the Apple Watch just reminds me of Newton type technology. Good idea... wrong implementation. Apple has the bucks to get it right if it's wrong. Maybe in 5-7 years we'll get the iPad version of the Newton in Apple wearables.
I was going by memory... and I flipped the 2 reasons in my mind.
I don't think either one of those sentences are accurate.
Well, I do.
... and
[ I don't remember anyone using the wrist prior to the wrist watch to convey information ]
Yea iWatch! Yea Customization! Yea Features! Yea!
But will iOS 8.2 finally FIX the Wi-Fi problem that's been plaguing this release, so that the watch, phone, and various Mac's won't always need to be reconnected at the most inopportune moments?
</bitterness>
Just like that smartphone was just for hardcore techies and business people before 2007.
Even in the same post you've gone from "wearables are not on the cusp of anything" and "a niche market that only hardcore techies find interesting" to a statement about the tech advancing that it could revolutionary. No shit, Cumberbatch!
Ah, now you're back to seeing the state of the art not advancing. No breakthroughs? You really want to say that wearables won't be a massive market? Even Beats, a very young company, has come in to make their wearables very popular in a short amount of time. Do you not think that ever shrinking electronics using even less power will never find their ways onto (and into) your person. The headphones have been around for many decades, and now we are on the cusp of advancing that goal.
@island hermit says it wasn't a major problem so you two can discuss that separately.
So solving a problem, major or otherwise, where other solution are already considered the status quo, it isn't adding convenience as the primary solution, especially when it's excessively more expensive than current solutions?
There is no other way for me to say this except to say that if you truly ONLY see ?Watch as saving you the trouble of pulling your iPhone out of your pocket then I feel very sorry for you because you will undoubtedly be missing pretty much everything else this beautiful world has to offer if your view is that myopic. And, again, I say this a someone who has no intention of buying ?Watch at this point or any point in the future, just as I will likely never buy an iPad again, yet I can clearly see the utility it offers others.
PS: In the land of the lazy convenience is king. From that phrase and the level of laziness I read in your previous comment I predict you will eventually buy and/or "smartwatch."
There's a huge difference between the smart phone and a watch. Only the most stubborn can't see that. The smart phone put a computer in your pocket. Coupled with wireless data service, it made all sorts of things possible that previously required one to be tethered to one's computer. The watch extends some of these things, but it offers nothing revolutionary in the way the smart phone itself did.
Wearables aren't on the cusp of anything today. They are boring and predictable and a very niche market. Of course there's always the POSSIBILITY that something truly revolutionary will emerge. I don't discount that. And that might change my personal opinion of wearables, as well as ignite the market. However, TODAY, that isn't the case. The Apple Watch looks like a great piece of hardware. I appreciate it. But I haven't seen anything yet to suggest that it will do anything revolutionary.
I agree with you on shrinking electronics. The future of wearables is definitely sensors and health-related functions. I mean, we're so sick as a society these days (1 in 3 getting cancer...) that monitoring our failing biology and tuning our drug regimens and alerting emergency services will probably be big selling points (sadly) in the coming decades.
I think a lot of the hype around the Apple Watch comes down to how impatient we've become when it comes to technology. It took decades to go from punch cards to the command line, the command line to the GUI, the GUI to touch...but now we expect revolutions every few years or we're not satisfied. The Apple Watch is no such revolution. It's a nice iPhone accessory, priced far too high in my opinion given its limited utility. I have no doubt that it will find a market among fanboys and gadget heads, but I don't see it becoming a mainstream device. Why did Apple have such a successful quarter? Because it finally released an iPhone with a BIGGER screen. Not because I can now check my notifications on the screen the size of a postage stamp on my wrist.
As for MP3s, only an idiot can't see how the MP3 player was a major improvement over previous portable music players. It solved a huge problem (the hassle of juggling/carrying physical media) and added major value to one's life (all of your music in your pocket). No smartwatch to date has solved a major problem or added major value. And that's why, despite years of such products being available, they haven't sold well. I have no doubt that Apple will raise the bar significantly with the Apple Watch, but I still see very little evidence that consumers are interested in wearables as a category. Maybe Apple Watch will change that.
You jump to a lot of conclusions about people who don't agree with you, don't you? Myopic. Lazy. Pretty much everything the Apple Watch does can be done using other devices. It's not bringing anything new to the table other than being tightly integrated into Apple's existing eco-system (which is a huge advantage). And, yes right now I see the Apple Watch as little more than a luxury. I don't need to pull my phone out of my pocket to see who just texted or emailed. It pops up on my watch. I don't need to pull my phone out to navigate. It's on my watch. But what else does it do?
You call me myopic. I'd say you're overly optimistic. Until I see something truly revolutionary from a wearable, I'll maintain my current general apathy to the entire product category. I don't need something monitoring my pulse and counting my steps. I don't need notifications popping up on my wrist all day long. I don't need my watch to remind me to stand up. As for your lazy comment, F you. You don't know me. I may be a lot of things, but lazy is not one of them. I haven't worn a watch in 15 years. Apple Watch isn't going to change that.
Let me give you a hypothetical:
~ 25% of the US population is age 55 and over.
People can wear an Apple Watch that measures your pulse (among other biometrics). Sometime; later this year, there will be an Apple Watch app that detects irregularity in the wearer's pulse rate -- and through the tethered iPhone send an alert to your doctor, relative, 911, whomever ...
Now, for an anecdote:
At about midnight, on Feb 18 -- it will be 14 years since my wife died, unexpectedly, while watching TV in the family room, I was less that 40 feet away, on the computer in the den ...
Lucy was 59 years old! She would have been 73 on Jan 29.
I would give everything to have had the Apple Watch tech -- it could have saved her life.
I will buy an Apple Watch for My daughter and my 3 grandkids ...
I certainly cannot argue with this scenario. I think sensors and health-related features are definitely the future of the product. As we evolve into machines, first we'll wear the sensors, but soon they'll just be implanted. And health (and all the fear-based marketing associated with it) will drive the wearables market. We're also sicker and more drugged out as a society than we've ever been and that isn't likely to change thanks to the general ignorance of the public when it comes to diet and nutrition and the agriculture and pharmaceutical industry's unholy alliance. So I'm sure wearable products that monitor health metrics, tell you what drugs to take, etc. will become more and more popular. I can even see a day when your insurance company forces you to wear something like that. Personally, that future is one I want no part of.
Sad to see no reference to syncing with the Reminders app. I use it a lot.
Bingo. This is when wearables become mainstream. When there's no interface. When it monitors and anticipates. When a voice-driven UI actually works. Not when I'm forced to interact with it on a tiny little screen.
And this is why ?Watch will wipe out all supposed competition. It's called being part of the world largest and best walled garden ... err I mean eco system.
I see Kasper's battery is running a bit low there!
Is there really any competition?![VIDEO]
People with medical conditions often wear a bracelet with that information written on it. Every hospital puts an ID bracelet on patients. There are other cases as well. In fact one might argue that any bracelet is meant to convey information about the wearer. I've heard of people putting a rubber band around their wrist to remind themselves to do some errand or task. Crude but effective I guess. The practicality of having something on your wrist for some personal purpose is not restricted to a wristwatch.
Honestly I didn't even read many of the posts because it seemed like an argument about splitting hairs, but whatever....
People with medical conditions often wear a bracelet with that information written on it. Every hospital puts an ID bracelet on patients. There are other cases as well. In fact one might argue that any bracelet is meant to convey information about the wearer. I've heard of people putting a rubber band around their wrist to remind themselves to do some errand or task. Crude but effective I guess.
Honestly I didn't even read many of the posts because it seemed like an argument about splitting hairs, but whatever....
You have to watch what you say or that hair will be shaved down to 1/10000 of an inch.
I wonder if they used those bands before the wrist watch was invented. The wrist watch for men is basically a 20th century invention.
[ I picture a 3rd Century BC Egyptian wearing a stone block with hieroglyphics on it around their wrist ]
I wonder if they used those bands before the wrist watch was invented. The wrist watch for men is basically a 20th century invention.
Sorry I didn't quite finish my post before you replied. I'm not sure why it matters what came first. It is still a practical place to display some message either to yourself or others. A lot of people even get tattoos on their wrist. It is a very accessible and conspicuous location on the body. You have to put a colored band on your wrist when you go to the fair to indicate that you are old enough to buy beer. Even an American Football quarterback has a playbook pamphlet wrapped around his wrist. A wrist mounted computer seems like a no brainer.
Sorry I didn't quite finish my post before you replied. I'm not sure why it matters what came first. It is still a practical place to display some message either to yourself or others. A lot of people even get tattoos on their wrist. It is a very accessible and conspicuous location on the body. You have to put a colored band on your wrist when you go to the fair to indicate that you are old enough to buy beer. Even an American Football quarterback has a playbook pamphlet wrapped around his wrist. A wrist mounted computer seems like a no brainer.
Just curious... what makes you think that I thought the wrist was a bad place for information?
I meant to respond to this earlier, but was distracted ...
I agree with your take on convenience ...
My daughter Just bought a 2015 Jeep Cherokee & has a similar key fob. She prefers to manually lock/unlock the car -- 3 kids, active church, school, soccer mom ... Interesting -- she prefers to know (confirm) it is locked.
Edit:
Interesting read, including the linked triple A article:
Apple to Offer a Little Roadside Assistance? Check This Patent.
http://recode.net/2015/02/05/apple-to-offer-a-little-roadside-assistance-check-this-patent/
I agree the Apple Watch is a first step ... in some ways a baby step, in other ways a giant step!
By itself, the Apple Watch can't do much!
Paired with an iPhone, the Apple Watch is capable of amazing things:
Most of these capabilities won't be there in April -- when the first baby steps are taken ...
But, someone once said "it's a long, long while from May to December ..."