The other staff at Apple were against the idea of the Watch, they hired Kevin Lynch the Flash guy from Adobe for the software rather than their existing team.
Did I miss something? Where has this info come from?
I don't understand why you think the hardware development has gone wrong?: There's nothing wrong with hiding the rectangular edges with vignetting?
They didn't implement the vignetting in the end, they realised that the sharp edges of the display didn't blend with the watch when the edge pixels are lit and tried to soften the edges in software because OLED allows you to turn pixels fully black. You can see the screens with full images showing don't look right:
They clearly weren't happy with it and tried to find a software fix and then just stopped trying to get it to blend.
"On Thursday, people familiar with Apple's plans shed light on the situation, saying that as of 2014 the company targeted battery life at 19 hours of mixed usage, reports 9to5Mac. More specifically, Apple was aiming to squeeze out 2.5 to 4 hours in "active" app use, 3 days in standby and 4 days in sleep mode.
However, sources warn that a first-generation version may not reach Apple's goals. The same people say current standard use estimates put Apple Watch battery life at around 3.5 hours, dropping to 2.5 hours under heavy load, while power-saving passive modes can milk 2 to 3 days."
"The Apple Watch is designed to remain dark until a wearer raises his or her arm. In the prototypes worn around the Cupertino campus at the end of last year, this feature was still glitchy. For Marc Newson, it took three attempts—an escalation of acting styles, from naturalism to melodrama—before his screen came to life."
Apple almost always launches months, years and even decades (as in the case of the iPad), after other companies come to market.
The iPad wasn't decades after a competing solution, there were no tablets that behaved like it. Apple is always first to do things the best way and the way Apple Watch operates will be the same as products that currently exist, which is unlike previous successful products they've made. Even the iPod had a very unique selling point.
There's something odd about the way people are appearing at Apple. Jony Ive has done loads of very commercially successful products and his designs are well regarded by hundreds of millions of people. Marc Newson doesn't design this way, he's like the modern art kind of people who get praise from the art world but commercially the products don't sell. Look through the designs:
The vast majority of those designs are horrendous and the mass market would never buy those, hence why his watch company went bankrupt because it wasn't selling handfuls of pieces to art collectors. Why was Newson involved in the design at all when Apple has a design team? Why was Kevin Lynch hired so late in development? Jony and Newson are friends so I can understand them wanting to work on a project together but the people at Apple weren't on board with the idea.
I imagine the projects Apple has done in the past started the same way with Steve Jobs and the high level executives brainstorming about which products they wanted to work on. They always managed to get the audience demand right though. This time, it seemed more like Jony Ive and possibly more Newson just deciding to make a watch because they wanted to make one rather than thinking about how everyday people would benefit from it the way they do from the likes of the Mac, iPad and iPhone.
Who was against the idea of the watch? Do you have a source/quote?
It was in the recent newyorker article linked above:
"Bob Mansfield, then closely involved in the watch project, said that Ive’s role was to be “himself and Steve” combined. Yet Ive still had to make a case to Apple, and Mansfield recalled “a lot of resistance.” It wasn’t clear how the company would display such things in stores; there were also concerns about creating a divide between wealthy and less wealthy customers. (As Mansfield said, “Apple wants to build products for everybody.”) But Ive won the argument, and in 2013 the company announced the high-level appointments of Angela Ahrendts, the former C.E.O. of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former C.E.O. of the Yves Saint Laurent Group. Patrick Pruniaux, from TAG Heuer, a part of the L.V.M.H. luxury conglomerate, was hired last year."
I don't understand why you think the hardware development has gone wrong?: There's nothing wrong with hiding the rectangular edges with vignetting?
They didn't implement the vignetting in the end, they realised that the sharp edges of the display didn't blend with the watch when the edge pixels are lit and tried to soften the edges in software because OLED allows you to turn pixels fully black. You can see the screens with full images showing don't look right:
They clearly weren't happy with it and tried to find a software fix and then just stopped trying to get it to blend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Huh? Most fitness trackers don't have GPS.
If fitness is to be a selling point, they should use all the supporting technology available to compete with other fitness options:
"On Thursday, people familiar with Apple's plans shed light on the situation, saying that as of 2014 the company targeted battery life at 19 hours of mixed usage, reports 9to5Mac. More specifically, Apple was aiming to squeeze out 2.5 to 4 hours in "active" app use, 3 days in standby and 4 days in sleep mode.
However, sources warn that a first-generation version may not reach Apple's goals. The same people say current standard use estimates put Apple Watch battery life at around 3.5 hours, dropping to 2.5 hours under heavy load, while power-saving passive modes can milk 2 to 3 days."
"The Apple Watch is designed to remain dark until a wearer raises his or her arm. In the prototypes worn around the Cupertino campus at the end of last year, this feature was still glitchy. For Marc Newson, it took three attempts—an escalation of acting styles, from naturalism to melodrama—before his screen came to life."
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Apple almost always launches months, years and even decades (as in the case of the iPad), after other companies come to market.
The iPad wasn't decades after a competing solution, there were no tablets that behaved like it. Apple is always first to do things the best way and the way Apple Watch operates will be the same as products that currently exist, which is unlike previous successful products they've made. Even the iPod had a very unique selling point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Why is Newson now a liability for ?Watch.
There's something odd about the way people are appearing at Apple. Jony Ive has done loads of very commercially successful products and his designs are well regarded by hundreds of millions of people. Marc Newson doesn't design this way, he's like the modern art kind of people who get praise from the art world but commercially the products don't sell. Look through the designs:
The vast majority of those designs are horrendous and the mass market would never buy those, hence why his watch company went bankrupt because it wasn't selling handfuls of pieces to art collectors. Why was Newson involved in the design at all when Apple has a design team? Why was Kevin Lynch hired so late in development? Jony and Newson are friends so I can understand them wanting to work on a project together but the people at Apple weren't on board with the idea.
I imagine the projects Apple has done in the past started the same way with Steve Jobs and the high level executives brainstorming about which products they wanted to work on. They always managed to get the audience demand right though. This time, it seemed more like Jony Ive and possibly more Newson just deciding to make a watch because they wanted to make one rather than thinking about how everyday people would benefit from it the way they do from the likes of the Mac, iPad and iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Who was against the idea of the watch? Do you have a source/quote?
It was in the recent newyorker article linked above:
"Bob Mansfield, then closely involved in the watch project, said that Ive’s role was to be “himself and Steve” combined. Yet Ive still had to make a case to Apple, and Mansfield recalled “a lot of resistance.” It wasn’t clear how the company would display such things in stores; there were also concerns about creating a divide between wealthy and less wealthy customers. (As Mansfield said, “Apple wants to build products for everybody.”) But Ive won the argument, and in 2013 the company announced the high-level appointments of Angela Ahrendts, the former C.E.O. of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former C.E.O. of the Yves Saint Laurent Group. Patrick Pruniaux, from TAG Heuer, a part of the L.V.M.H. luxury conglomerate, was hired last year."
Excellent post, Marvin.
It’s telling that all of the Apple watch faces displayed in that photo that mimic an analogue equivalent are of round faces, not rectangular. That's because round is more aesthetically pleasing for the face. It makes the rectangular chassis all the more incongruous.
I really don't like the digital crown at all. I think it will be a pain in the ass to use, and is a compromise too far that reflects the flawed nature of the whole enterprise. I don't think the way of turning the screen on will be good to use - moving your arm. I don't see how it won't constantly come on when you don't want it. What if you stretch in a dark theatre? Your wrist lights up, spoiling the atmosphere for everyone around you.
It worries me the direction Apple are moving in with the ugly, too big too thin iPhone 6 and the Apple Watch. At least the latest iPad is still excellent, removal of mute switch notwithstanding. And iMac.
Ive may be the greatest tech designer in the world, but without Jobs to guide him and perhaps focus his talent, I fear that he will struggle to reach the glory of his design pre-Cook. I suspect that Cook is much more easy-going to work with, but doesn't criticise Ive or even get involved with the design or vision. I think the burden may be too much for Ive.
"Bob Mansfield, then closely involved in the watch project, said that Ive’s role was to be “himself and Steve” combined. Yet Ive still had to make a case to Apple, and Mansfield recalled “a lot of resistance.” It wasn’t clear how the company would display such things in stores; there were also concerns about creating a divide between wealthy and less wealthy customers. (As Mansfield said, “Apple wants to build products for everybody.”) But Ive won the argument, and in 2013 the company announced the high-level appointments of Angela Ahrendts, the former C.E.O. of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former C.E.O. of the Yves Saint Laurent Group. Patrick Pruniaux, from TAG Heuer, a part of the L.V.M.H. luxury conglomerate, was hired last year."
Yeah I read that but I took it as a reference to the gold version not the entire project. Are we really supposed to believe that Tim Cook is some puppet doing whatever Jony Ive says? And when he says he uses ?Watch every day and can't live without it its all a bunch of BS, all stuff he's forced to say even though deep down he doesn't believe it? Sorry not buying it.
Go back and watch the September keynote after Tim announced the Watch. He had a huge smile on his face and raised his arms with clenched fists as Apple employees in the crowd gave it a standing ovation.
And at the very end of the Watch announcement when Cook said they were so excited about this product he actually choked up a bit. Are we really supoosed to believe this is all for show?
1) Now you're quoting gossip and rumours as conclusive evidence? :no:
2) And what about the short coming of the original iPhone? Battery life, performance, large size, no physical keyboard, lack of '3G', lack of GPS, lack of video camera, poor carrier support, too expensive, no cut/copy/paste, no 3rd-party apps, no Adobe Flash, widely unsupported WebKit browser engine, unsupported HTML5 and H.264 video playback, and on-and-on. How about the rumours of no YouTube app until right before the release, or all the SW issues that plagued the first several builds of iOS 2.0 to about 2.2. Fuçk, if we go by all the gossip, rumours, and bellyaching we heard from 2007 to 2008 the iPhone should not exist at all today.
2) And what about the short coming of the original iPhone? Battery life, performance, large size, no physical keyboard, lack of '3G', lack of GPS, lack of video camera, poor carrier support, too expensive, no cut/copy/paste, no 3rd-party apps, no Adobe Flash, widely unsupported WebKit browser engine, unsupported HTML5 and H.264 video playback, and on-and-on. How about the rumours of no YouTube app until right before the release, or all the SW issues that plagued the first several builds of iOS 2.0 to about 2.2. Fuçk, if we go by all the gossip, rumours, and bellyaching we heard from 2007 to 2008 the iPhone should not exist at all today.
That's quite a list...and it's true, the naysayers were really brutal when it came to finding fault with the first iPhone. I think the competition, while publicly talking the iPhone down, had a sinking suspicion it was a game changer. Whether the ?Watch may not be quite as strong a disruptor, as the iPhone, it likely will do well in the market from the first day onward.
Just as the iPhone of today can do so much more then what any user of 2007 expected, Apple has always had a secret timeline of enhancements in the works. I expect no less in the case of the ?Watch. It's amusing to speculate on what the ?Watch of seven years hence may be capable of doing...
Does anyone really think that Apple didn't test the hell out of such features before announcing anything. This is their first totally new product in how many years. Of course they know everyone is watching. So yeah they verified everything was good before saying a word
I think the competition, while publicly talking the iPhone down, had a sinking suspicion it was a game changer.
I can see that. I certainly saw the raw potential of the original iPhone as it was there in the original 2007 demo — my favourite keynote up until WWDC 2014 — and knew I was going to buy one that day, even without first testing it. I certainly don't feel that way about ?Watch even though I'm holding off on buying my Fitbit Force HR until I at least get to see the next special event, which I assume will happen and will offer more details and features.
At this point I'll want to wait for different look before jumping on board.
Does anyone really think that Apple didn't test the hell out of such features before announcing anything. This is their first totally new product in how many years. Of course they know everyone is watching. So yeah they verified everything was good before saying a word
Not only a new product category, but one with a very unique focus since it steps firmly into jewelry side of things. It's also Cook's first product category as CEO. It's hard to imagine Apple and Cook not really thinking this through or jumping the gun, even though I personally feel this first ?Watch design isn't very attractive or very useful for my specific needs at this point.
Does anyone really think that Apple didn't test the hell out of such features before announcing anything. This is their first totally new product in how many years. Of course they know everyone is watching. So yeah they verified everything was good before saying a word
Here's the thing: Apple never publicly said, or even hinted that there would be all these advanced sensors in this Watch. All we have are a few rumors that Apple was working on stuff. Last year on Charlie Rose's show Tim Cook said the Watch would start with the heart. He was very explicit as far as what it woud START with. And if you look on the back of the Watch, that's a pretty elaborate set of sensors compared to the competition. That, along with all the hires we know about from the medical field makes me belive Apple has ambitious plans and future generations of ?Watch will have more of this advanced tracking once Apple is able to ensure accuracy. Other devices might have more sensors but how accurate are they? From what I've read the accuracy isn't that great. I'd rather have one thing nailed than a bunch of things that don't work well but were thrown in just to litter up a spec sheet.
Yet, by holding the line on quality, and rigorously evaluating – and appropriately rejecting – candidate features, the company is demonstrating a respect for the customer that’s lacking in the many businesses — not all startups — rushing into this space with specious claims of efficacy and impact.[/QUOTE]
They didn't implement the vignetting in the end, they realised that the sharp edges of the display didn't blend with the watch when the edge pixels are lit and tried to soften the edges in software because OLED allows you to turn pixels fully black. You can see the screens with full images showing don't look right:
They clearly weren't happy with it and tried to find a software fix and then just stopped trying to get it to blend.
If fitness is to be a selling point, they should use all the supporting technology available to compete with other fitness options:
"On Thursday, people familiar with Apple's plans shed light on the situation, saying that as of 2014 the company targeted battery life at 19 hours of mixed usage, reports 9to5Mac. More specifically, Apple was aiming to squeeze out 2.5 to 4 hours in "active" app use, 3 days in standby and 4 days in sleep mode.
However, sources warn that a first-generation version may not reach Apple's goals. The same people say current standard use estimates put Apple Watch battery life at around 3.5 hours, dropping to 2.5 hours under heavy load, while power-saving passive modes can milk 2 to 3 days." http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
"The Apple Watch is designed to remain dark until a wearer raises his or her arm. In the prototypes worn around the Cupertino campus at the end of last year, this feature was still glitchy. For Marc Newson, it took three attempts—an escalation of acting styles, from naturalism to melodrama—before his screen came to life."
The iPad wasn't decades after a competing solution, there were no tablets that behaved like it. Apple is always first to do things the best way and the way Apple Watch operates will be the same as products that currently exist, which is unlike previous successful products they've made. Even the iPod had a very unique selling point.
There's something odd about the way people are appearing at Apple. Jony Ive has done loads of very commercially successful products and his designs are well regarded by hundreds of millions of people. Marc Newson doesn't design this way, he's like the modern art kind of people who get praise from the art world but commercially the products don't sell. Look through the designs:
The vast majority of those designs are horrendous and the mass market would never buy those, hence why his watch company went bankrupt because it wasn't selling handfuls of pieces to art collectors. Why was Newson involved in the design at all when Apple has a design team? Why was Kevin Lynch hired so late in development? Jony and Newson are friends so I can understand them wanting to work on a project together but the people at Apple weren't on board with the idea.
I imagine the projects Apple has done in the past started the same way with Steve Jobs and the high level executives brainstorming about which products they wanted to work on. They always managed to get the audience demand right though. This time, it seemed more like Jony Ive and possibly more Newson just deciding to make a watch because they wanted to make one rather than thinking about how everyday people would benefit from it the way they do from the likes of the Mac, iPad and iPhone.
It was in the recent newyorker article linked above:
"Bob Mansfield, then closely involved in the watch project, said that Ive’s role was to be “himself and Steve” combined. Yet Ive still had to make a case to Apple, and Mansfield recalled “a lot of resistance.” It wasn’t clear how the company would display such things in stores; there were also concerns about creating a divide between wealthy and less wealthy customers. (As Mansfield said, “Apple wants to build products for everybody.”) But Ive won the argument, and in 2013 the company announced the high-level appointments of Angela Ahrendts, the former C.E.O. of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former C.E.O. of the Yves Saint Laurent Group. Patrick Pruniaux, from TAG Heuer, a part of the L.V.M.H. luxury conglomerate, was hired last year."
Tim said they mulled over a variety of projects and this was the one they settled on.
It's better doing a new project than Apple doing no new projects and it'll make money because it's linked to Apple but none of this sounds good about what's happening behind the scenes.
Tim has since said that he can't live without one.
The Watch is going to extend what is desirable about the iPhone and the iOS ecosystem to your wrist. Two things alone will drive sales beyond your modest expectations: Apple Pay, and silent but feelable and visible notifications.
When you see people using these things and THEY say they couldn't live without one, you will see the $359.00 light.
Are we really supposed to believe that Tim Cook is some puppet doing whatever Jony Ive says? And when he says he uses ?Watch every day and can't live without it its all a bunch of BS, all stuff he's forced to say even though deep down he doesn't believe it? Sorry not buying it.
Go back and watch the September keynote after Tim announced the Watch. He had a huge smile on his face and raised his arms with clenched fists as Apple employees in the crowd gave it a standing ovation.
And at the very end of the Watch announcement when Cook said they were so excited about this product he actually choked up a bit. Are we really supoosed to believe this is all for show?
Tim Cook is an operations guy, that doesn't make him a puppet, his job is to make sure the artists ship. Tim's excitement over the watch seems to me to come more from the idea that they can still pull off the same operation of delivering a new worldwide product, which is worth being happy about. I think he does like his watch because he's a fitness guy and has worn sports watches:
(unlike the slacker next to him) but I don't think his excitement is primarily about the watch (which he calls the iwatch), it's that he's managing to hold together the company and continue the operation successfully.
what about the short coming of the original iPhone?
This isn't the original iPhone. The iPad didn't launch with the limitations of the original iPhone. It does help to leave some features out though to encourage future upgrades so missing features can fall under that. It's a difficult balance to hit - being better than the competition while not being so good in the first revision that people don't want to upgrade.
I certainly saw the raw potential of the original iPhone as it was there in the original 2007 demo and knew I was going to buy one that day, even without first testing it. I certainly don't feel that way about ?Watch
What would it have needed to make you feel that way about the Watch?
"I asked Jeff Williams, the senior vice-president, if the Apple Watch seemed more purely Ive’s than previous company products. After a silence of twenty-five seconds, during which Apple made fifty thousand dollars in profit, he said, “Yes.”"
Tim has since said that he can't live without one. When you see people using these things and THEY say they couldn't live without one, you will see the $359.00 light.
No iPhone user will feel fully wired without one.
Tim Cook is the CEO of the biggest company in the world, he probably gets dozens of emails every second and needs to manage a dozen different problems. He's also not going to say anything negative.
I think there will be some demand for it, I don't think anywhere near every iPhone user will feel compelled to own one. My criticism of it isn't mainly about sales volume potential. They sell those colored polka-dot cases too. I think their focus with health is misguided among other things.
Tim Cook is an operations guy, that doesn't make him a puppet, his job is to make sure the artists ship. Tim's excitement over the watch seems to me to come more from the idea that they can still pull off the same operation of delivering a new worldwide product, which is worth being happy about. I think he does like his watch because he's a fitness guy and has worn sports watches:
[image]
(unlike the slacker next to him) but I don't think his excitement is primarily about the watch (which he calls the iwatch), it's that he's managing to hold together the company and continue the operation successfully.
Calling Cook an operations guy seems very limiting to his set of skills. I can't imagine a better CEO at Apple's helm.
What does the iPhone not excel at doing?
How can I check my pulse rate on my iPhone? I have to download any number of clever yet simple apps that will have me place a finger over the camera and LED flash for a duration. ?Watch does this without the user doing anything but placing it on my wrist in the morning.
Which if those features (besides ?Pay) are unique to Apple's watch or more advanced than elsewhere?
1) Why exclude ?Pay?
2) Off the top of my head the Digital Crown, the capacitance+pressure sensitive display, the changing solution that requires virtual no precision (compare with FItBit), the SIP, and the mapping directions that will tap your wrist in a particular way when you're to either turn left or right thereby allowing you to get to a new location efficiency while both enjoying the scenery and paying attention to potential hazards by not having your face buried in a smartphone's map display.
This isn't the original iPhone. The iPad didn't launch with the limitations of the original iPhone. It does help to leave some features out though to encourage future upgrades so missing features can fall under that. It's a difficult balance to hit - being better than the competition while not being so good in the first revision that people don't want to upgrade.
Your first sentence is a non-starter. No one said it was the iPhone, but the iPhone is an excellent example of a new product category from Apple that was missing a lot of features compared to the status quo for that product category. I don't see how you can have a realistic view of ?Watch or any other new product if you're willing to ignore the well known shortcomings that had plenty neither wanting nor accepting it as a solid foundation moving forward.
What would it have needed to make you feel that way about the Watch?
For me, a declaration that the S-series chip and other components would be upgradable by Authorized Apple Jewelers with a certain commitment for time (like a decade), that it has at least an IP67 rating*, that it will allow a Mac, iPhone and iPad (and potentially Windows with the iCloud syncing app installed) to auto-lock when the user gets outside of a certain BT range**, and giving me the option to have certain devices unlock when within a particular range within a trusted area (e.g.: Mac auto-unlocks when I'm at home and ?Watch is within approximate 2 meter radius while on my wrist, since that means I've authenticated***).
* IP 6_ = Dust tight - No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact (dust tight); IP _7 = Immersion up to 1 meter - Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 meter of submersion). Test duration: 30 minutes: The lowest point of enclosures with a height less than 850 mm is located 1000 mm below the surface of the water, the highest point of enclosures with a height equal to or greater than 850 mm is located 150 mm below the surface of the water :: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code).
** iPhone stolen from hand on Czech subway while in use :: ().
*** If Touch ID finally comes to the Mac then this will likely no longer be a desire, for me, but I would still like the auto-locking when I move a certain distance away from my devices.
How can I check my pulse rate on my iPhone? I have to download any number of clever yet simple apps that will have me place a finger over the camera and LED flash for a duration. ?Watch does this without the user doing anything but placing it on my wrist in the morning.
Why would you check your pulse in the morning? It's not something where the iPhone lags behind other phones. The iPhone excelled beyond other phones at the time and it took over 2 years for them to catch up. Other tablets still haven't really caught up to the iPad because of a lack of optimized apps. The ?Watch doesn't seem like it will be 2 or more years ahead of what is in the market just now.
Off the top of my head the Digital Crown, the capacitance+pressure sensitive display, the changing solution that requires virtual no precision (compare with FItBit), the SIP, and the mapping directions that will tap your wrist in a particular way when you're to either turn left or right thereby allowing you to get to a new location efficiency while both enjoying the scenery and paying attention to potential hazards by not having your face buried in a smartphone's map display.
I wouldn't agree that the crown is a feature worth having - it's supposed to be a minimally interactive device so you'd hardly ever use the crown. Pressure sensitivity is a useful feature. What's the 'changing solution'? All the watches will have some SoC. The tapping engine with directions will be useful for some users like cyclists/motorcyclists but other watches have directions too with variable vibration motors for left/right.
What would it have needed to make you feel that way about the Watch?
For me, a declaration that the S-series chip and other components would be upgradable by Authorized Apple Jewelers with a certain commitment for time (like a decade)
The route I could see them going would be to offer upgrades of the whole unit. They must be planning to shrink the watch down over time. Offering internal upgrades would be very limiting because they'll want people to buy the newer design. The gold one can be melted down so they can offer trade-in value for it.
They don't offer internal upgrades for their $2k MBPs and I don't think the watches will cost that much.
I'd like my pulse and numerous other health-related aspects measured either constantly or periodically so I, as well as my doctor(s), can see change over time, as well the potential for immediate information to potentially help save my life. There are service dogs specifically trained for people with diabetes. If this could be moved to a wrist-worn device that would be a huge savings to a great number of people since not everyone can either care for or be around a dog, not to mention the cost of training and keeping a service dog.
It's not something where the iPhone lags behind other phones. The iPhone excelled beyond other phones at the time and it took over 2 years for them to catch up.
But the iPhone did lag behind other smartphones, as I previously noted in my list of common complaints about the tech. That isn't those people didn't agree the iPhone was very advanced in many ways, but that it also was lacking in many features many came to associate and want with a smartphone. Some reasonable, like cut/copy/paste, and others unreasonable, like a physical keyboard.
Other tablets still haven't really caught up to the iPad because of a lack of optimized apps.
They didn't build well. Apple built off the iPhone but optimizing for the HW interface. This is not how either Android nor their OEMs tried to come at the problem after the iPad was announced, nor was it how anyone else tried to do it the decades before the iPad was announced.
The ?Watch doesn't seem like it will be 2 or more years ahead of what is in the market just now.
Looking only the features, I would agree, but I would say the same about the iPhone. Now if we look at the technology foundation each are built upon I see many years of development that others won't be able to easily copy. Sure, Samsung can copy the Digital Crown and LG can use both a capacitance and pressure sensitive display, but can they really take all that Mac engineering, NeXT engineering, iPod engineering, iPhone engineering, iPad engineering, and all the step-by-step learning that has gone into making ?Watch use what is likely a very power yet small, and relatively power efficient SIP that runs a more efficient OS using Swift (speculation) that will do everything ?Watch can, with at least the same level of accuracy, and a similar user experience (e.g.: look and feel of HW, speed of operation, etc.), while being firmly in the realm of being deemed jewelry?
They had years to do it and so far I've seen nothing that comes close.
I wouldn't agree that the crown is a feature worth having - it's supposed to be a minimally interactive device so you'd hardly ever use the crown.
At this point I have no personal experience in which to pull an example as to why I think that's incorrect, but from watching the demo I can see why the Digital Crown is a must have. I think it's akin to the inertial scrolling successfully brought to the iPhone. I can't imagine using that tiny display for all your scrolling needs. In fact, years ago when talking about a wearable I stated that I think something is missing from the equation if a wrist-worn device was to ever be successful. You can say it's not as an important feat to the UX as Apple's inertial scrolling in iOS — and I would agree — but the Digital Crown is definitely not something I would scoff at.
Pressure sensitivity is a useful feature.
I wonder how they do this? If the sapphire is thin enough I guess it could actually use pressure, but I also wonder if it may instead use an algorithm to interpret the pressure by reading the way your finger is pressing on the display.
What's the 'changing solution'?
Sorry, charing solution. The magnetic plug on the back, which is probably how you access the internals. Perhaps even those sensors can get smaller and then have more included while the charging ring still has plenty of room to do its thing.
All the watches will have some SoC.
I'm not sure why you'd make such an obvious statement. How does that take away from ?Watch? Is ?Watch suppose to not have an SoC or SiP in order to be successful? :???:
The tapping engine with directions will be useful for some users like cyclists/motorcyclists but other watches have directions too with variable vibration motors for left/right.
No one else has that as far as I know. I like the subtle things. I look for the subtle features that make the UX just a little bit better. These add up. These aren't easily counted but they mean a lot. I think that and other features are why it's always been difficult to explain to people why you prefer your Mac over WinPC (think pre-2004) when all the overwhelming evidence said that Macs were a niche with very few apps in comparison.
The route I could see them going would be to offer upgrades of the whole unit. They must be planning to shrink the watch down over time. Offering internal upgrades would be very limiting because they'll want people to buy the newer design. The gold one can be melted down so they can offer trade-in value for it.
I can see that. The gold will certainly be valuable. That said, I also see how being able to keep a design (read: jewelry) for many, many years while it's still highly useful (read: consumer electronic) could allow more people to buy this year's styling, especially those that collect watches, knowing that it won't be obsolesced immediately. I'm expecting a new style each year.
They don't offer internal upgrades for their $2k MBPs and I don't think the watches will cost that much.
A MacBook Pro isn't jewelry.
This is where the wearable market was always going to be difficult for CE companies. We can look at certain sic-fi films to see a wide range of fanciful designs, but the true intersection of CE and jewelry is difficult. I speculated well before ?Watch was announced that for a company to make this market work they would have to start with a large number of SKUs whose only difference is how they look. This is highly atypical for Apple , and it hasn't been done by any of the other "smartwatch" makers that came before. For tthat reason alone I believe Apple is on the right track, even if the current look and functionality for this initial release is not compelling me to want to hand over my money just year.
I'd like my pulse and numerous other health-related aspects measured either constantly or periodically so I, as well as my doctor(s), can see change over time, as well the potential for immediate information to potentially help save my life. There are service dogs specifically trained for people with diabetes. If this could be moved to a wrist-worn device that would be a huge savings to a great number of people since not everyone can either care for or be around a dog, not to mention the cost of training and keeping a service dog.
The real reason to take your pulse in the morning is that "resting pulse" is a key health metric that informs general health and is the most accurate way to estimate maximum and various optimal exercise and performance/competition heart rates. The resting heart rate is measured just after waking and before moving or arising from bed. The best solution would allow one to measure resting heart rate without even having to put the watch on in the morning (e.g. not taking it off in the evening.) Indeed, a whole slough of important, interesting and informative data can be collected during sleep and at waking, which is another reason having to charge the device every night is unacceptable for medical monitoring (IMO.)
I'd like my pulse and numerous other health-related aspects measured either constantly or periodically so I, as well as my doctor(s), can see change over time, as well the potential for immediate information to potentially help save my life. There are service dogs specifically trained for people with diabetes. If this could be moved to a wrist-worn device that would be a huge savings to a great number of people since not everyone can either care for or be around a dog, not to mention the cost of training and keeping a service dog.
Quote:
It's not something where the iPhone lags behind other phones. The iPhone excelled beyond other phones at the time and it took over 2 years for them to catch up.
But the iPhone did lag behind other smartphones, as I previously noted in my list of common complaints about the tech. That isn't those people didn't agree the iPhone was very advanced in many ways, but that it also was lacking in many features many came to associate and want with a smartphone. Some reasonable, like cut/copy/paste, and others unreasonable, like a physical keyboard.
Quote:
Other tablets still haven't really caught up to the iPad because of a lack of optimized apps.
They didn't build well. Apple built off the iPhone but optimizing for the HW interface. This is not how either Android nor their OEMs tried to come at the problem after the iPad was announced, nor was it how anyone else tried to do it the decades before the iPad was announced.
Quote:
The ?Watch doesn't seem like it will be 2 or more years ahead of what is in the market just now.
Looking only the features, I would agree, but I would say the same about the iPhone.
The Apple Watch hasn't officially launched, so I won't come down too hard on you, but your comment about the iPhone is nuts.
The iPhone wasn't 2 years ahead of the competition? It was light years ahead! It was BOOM. You have a short memory. To say that it lagged other smartphones is preposterous. Yes, it lacked some basic features like copy/paste, but it blew away all others in usability and therefore functionality. It was a nuclear blast into the mobile phone world, let alone the smartphone world. And it has since become the essential mobile computer.
So far, the Apple Watch is not BOOM or anywhere like it. It hasn't set the world alight like the iPhone did, and appeals strictly to the tech geeks, bless them. Essentially, I think that Apple's chances of having a hit with a wearable were always extremely slim, not because it’s Apple, but because it’s a wearable. I don't think they'll gain any significant audience, partly due to the technical limitations, but mostly because it’s too much tech for most people.
Indeed, a whole slough of important, interesting and informative data can be collected during sleep and at waking, which is another reason having to charge the device every night is unacceptable for medical monitoring (IMO.)
One of my primary disappointments with ?Watch, as well as a primary reasons I'm leaning toward Fitbit Charge HR, is my desire to have something I can wear whilst sleeping to help track my health over the long term. I liked that charging my Fitbit Force during my daily shower was sufficient to keep it charged without having to worry about the battery dying on me.
Indeed, a whole slough of important, interesting and informative data can be collected during sleep and at waking, which is another reason having to charge the device every night is unacceptable for medical monitoring (IMO.)
One of my primary disappointments with ?Watch, as well as a primary reasons I'm leaning toward Fitbit Charge HR, is my desire to have something I can wear whilst sleeping to help track my health over the long term. I liked that charging my Fitbit Force during my daily shower was sufficient to keep it charged without having to worry about the battery dying on me.
Do these wearables really tell you much helpful about your sleep, though? I'm not convinced. I have an iPhone app for sleep, but I don't put much store by it, as it simply tracks movement, which is very simplistic.
Comments
They didn't implement the vignetting in the end, they realised that the sharp edges of the display didn't blend with the watch when the edge pixels are lit and tried to soften the edges in software because OLED allows you to turn pixels fully black. You can see the screens with full images showing don't look right:
They clearly weren't happy with it and tried to find a software fix and then just stopped trying to get it to blend.
If fitness is to be a selling point, they should use all the supporting technology available to compete with other fitness options:
http://sites.garmin.com/en-US/vivo/vivoactive/
The iPhone isn't a jack of all trades, it excels in every use case.
Besides ?Pay, what other features?
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/01/22/rumor-apple-shooting-for-19-hours-of-apple-watch-battery-life-under-normal-conditions-25-hours-heavy-use
"On Thursday, people familiar with Apple's plans shed light on the situation, saying that as of 2014 the company targeted battery life at 19 hours of mixed usage, reports 9to5Mac. More specifically, Apple was aiming to squeeze out 2.5 to 4 hours in "active" app use, 3 days in standby and 4 days in sleep mode.
However, sources warn that a first-generation version may not reach Apple's goals. The same people say current standard use estimates put Apple Watch battery life at around 3.5 hours, dropping to 2.5 hours under heavy load, while power-saving passive modes can milk 2 to 3 days."
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
"The Apple Watch is designed to remain dark until a wearer raises his or her arm. In the prototypes worn around the Cupertino campus at the end of last year, this feature was still glitchy. For Marc Newson, it took three attempts—an escalation of acting styles, from naturalism to melodrama—before his screen came to life."
The iPad wasn't decades after a competing solution, there were no tablets that behaved like it. Apple is always first to do things the best way and the way Apple Watch operates will be the same as products that currently exist, which is unlike previous successful products they've made. Even the iPod had a very unique selling point.
There's something odd about the way people are appearing at Apple. Jony Ive has done loads of very commercially successful products and his designs are well regarded by hundreds of millions of people. Marc Newson doesn't design this way, he's like the modern art kind of people who get praise from the art world but commercially the products don't sell. Look through the designs:
http://www.marc-newson.com
The vast majority of those designs are horrendous and the mass market would never buy those, hence why his watch company went bankrupt because it wasn't selling handfuls of pieces to art collectors. Why was Newson involved in the design at all when Apple has a design team? Why was Kevin Lynch hired so late in development? Jony and Newson are friends so I can understand them wanting to work on a project together but the people at Apple weren't on board with the idea.
I imagine the projects Apple has done in the past started the same way with Steve Jobs and the high level executives brainstorming about which products they wanted to work on. They always managed to get the audience demand right though. This time, it seemed more like Jony Ive and possibly more Newson just deciding to make a watch because they wanted to make one rather than thinking about how everyday people would benefit from it the way they do from the likes of the Mac, iPad and iPhone.
It was in the recent newyorker article linked above:
"Bob Mansfield, then closely involved in the watch project, said that Ive’s role was to be “himself and Steve” combined. Yet Ive still had to make a case to Apple, and Mansfield recalled “a lot of resistance.” It wasn’t clear how the company would display such things in stores; there were also concerns about creating a divide between wealthy and less wealthy customers. (As Mansfield said, “Apple wants to build products for everybody.”) But Ive won the argument, and in 2013 the company announced the high-level appointments of Angela Ahrendts, the former C.E.O. of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former C.E.O. of the Yves Saint Laurent Group. Patrick Pruniaux, from TAG Heuer, a part of the L.V.M.H. luxury conglomerate, was hired last year."
I don't understand why you think the hardware development has gone wrong?: There's nothing wrong with hiding the rectangular edges with vignetting?
They didn't implement the vignetting in the end, they realised that the sharp edges of the display didn't blend with the watch when the edge pixels are lit and tried to soften the edges in software because OLED allows you to turn pixels fully black. You can see the screens with full images showing don't look right:
They clearly weren't happy with it and tried to find a software fix and then just stopped trying to get it to blend.
Huh? Most fitness trackers don't have GPS.
If fitness is to be a selling point, they should use all the supporting technology available to compete with other fitness options:
http://sites.garmin.com/en-US/vivo/vivoactive/
The iPhone isn't a jack of all trades, it excels in every use case.
?Watch has a lot more advanced features than competing products.
Besides ?Pay, what other features?
The current talk is all day battery life. Where have you read it's only a few hours with heavy use?
http://appleinsider.com/articles/15/01/22/rumor-apple-shooting-for-19-hours-of-apple-watch-battery-life-under-normal-conditions-25-hours-heavy-use
"On Thursday, people familiar with Apple's plans shed light on the situation, saying that as of 2014 the company targeted battery life at 19 hours of mixed usage, reports 9to5Mac. More specifically, Apple was aiming to squeeze out 2.5 to 4 hours in "active" app use, 3 days in standby and 4 days in sleep mode.
However, sources warn that a first-generation version may not reach Apple's goals. The same people say current standard use estimates put Apple Watch battery life at around 3.5 hours, dropping to 2.5 hours under heavy load, while power-saving passive modes can milk 2 to 3 days."
How would you know wake from standby is glitchy?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
"The Apple Watch is designed to remain dark until a wearer raises his or her arm. In the prototypes worn around the Cupertino campus at the end of last year, this feature was still glitchy. For Marc Newson, it took three attempts—an escalation of acting styles, from naturalism to melodrama—before his screen came to life."
Apple almost always launches months, years and even decades (as in the case of the iPad), after other companies come to market.
The iPad wasn't decades after a competing solution, there were no tablets that behaved like it. Apple is always first to do things the best way and the way Apple Watch operates will be the same as products that currently exist, which is unlike previous successful products they've made. Even the iPod had a very unique selling point.
Why is Newson now a liability for ?Watch.
There's something odd about the way people are appearing at Apple. Jony Ive has done loads of very commercially successful products and his designs are well regarded by hundreds of millions of people. Marc Newson doesn't design this way, he's like the modern art kind of people who get praise from the art world but commercially the products don't sell. Look through the designs:
http://www.marc-newson.com
The vast majority of those designs are horrendous and the mass market would never buy those, hence why his watch company went bankrupt because it wasn't selling handfuls of pieces to art collectors. Why was Newson involved in the design at all when Apple has a design team? Why was Kevin Lynch hired so late in development? Jony and Newson are friends so I can understand them wanting to work on a project together but the people at Apple weren't on board with the idea.
I imagine the projects Apple has done in the past started the same way with Steve Jobs and the high level executives brainstorming about which products they wanted to work on. They always managed to get the audience demand right though. This time, it seemed more like Jony Ive and possibly more Newson just deciding to make a watch because they wanted to make one rather than thinking about how everyday people would benefit from it the way they do from the likes of the Mac, iPad and iPhone.
Who was against the idea of the watch? Do you have a source/quote?
It was in the recent newyorker article linked above:
"Bob Mansfield, then closely involved in the watch project, said that Ive’s role was to be “himself and Steve” combined. Yet Ive still had to make a case to Apple, and Mansfield recalled “a lot of resistance.” It wasn’t clear how the company would display such things in stores; there were also concerns about creating a divide between wealthy and less wealthy customers. (As Mansfield said, “Apple wants to build products for everybody.”) But Ive won the argument, and in 2013 the company announced the high-level appointments of Angela Ahrendts, the former C.E.O. of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former C.E.O. of the Yves Saint Laurent Group. Patrick Pruniaux, from TAG Heuer, a part of the L.V.M.H. luxury conglomerate, was hired last year."
Excellent post, Marvin.
It’s telling that all of the Apple watch faces displayed in that photo that mimic an analogue equivalent are of round faces, not rectangular. That's because round is more aesthetically pleasing for the face. It makes the rectangular chassis all the more incongruous.
I really don't like the digital crown at all. I think it will be a pain in the ass to use, and is a compromise too far that reflects the flawed nature of the whole enterprise. I don't think the way of turning the screen on will be good to use - moving your arm. I don't see how it won't constantly come on when you don't want it. What if you stretch in a dark theatre? Your wrist lights up, spoiling the atmosphere for everyone around you.
It worries me the direction Apple are moving in with the ugly, too big too thin iPhone 6 and the Apple Watch. At least the latest iPad is still excellent, removal of mute switch notwithstanding. And iMac.
Ive may be the greatest tech designer in the world, but without Jobs to guide him and perhaps focus his talent, I fear that he will struggle to reach the glory of his design pre-Cook. I suspect that Cook is much more easy-going to work with, but doesn't criticise Ive or even get involved with the design or vision. I think the burden may be too much for Ive.
Yeah I read that but I took it as a reference to the gold version not the entire project. Are we really supposed to believe that Tim Cook is some puppet doing whatever Jony Ive says? And when he says he uses ?Watch every day and can't live without it its all a bunch of BS, all stuff he's forced to say even though deep down he doesn't believe it? Sorry not buying it.
Go back and watch the September keynote after Tim announced the Watch. He had a huge smile on his face and raised his arms with clenched fists as Apple employees in the crowd gave it a standing ovation.
And at the very end of the Watch announcement when Cook said they were so excited about this product he actually choked up a bit. Are we really supoosed to believe this is all for show?
No, no it doesn't.
Have a look for yourself…
1) Now you're quoting gossip and rumours as conclusive evidence? :no:
2) And what about the short coming of the original iPhone? Battery life, performance, large size, no physical keyboard, lack of '3G', lack of GPS, lack of video camera, poor carrier support, too expensive, no cut/copy/paste, no 3rd-party apps, no Adobe Flash, widely unsupported WebKit browser engine, unsupported HTML5 and H.264 video playback, and on-and-on. How about the rumours of no YouTube app until right before the release, or all the SW issues that plagued the first several builds of iOS 2.0 to about 2.2. Fuçk, if we go by all the gossip, rumours, and bellyaching we heard from 2007 to 2008 the iPhone should not exist at all today.
2) And what about the short coming of the original iPhone? Battery life, performance, large size, no physical keyboard, lack of '3G', lack of GPS, lack of video camera, poor carrier support, too expensive, no cut/copy/paste, no 3rd-party apps, no Adobe Flash, widely unsupported WebKit browser engine, unsupported HTML5 and H.264 video playback, and on-and-on. How about the rumours of no YouTube app until right before the release, or all the SW issues that plagued the first several builds of iOS 2.0 to about 2.2. Fuçk, if we go by all the gossip, rumours, and bellyaching we heard from 2007 to 2008 the iPhone should not exist at all today.
That's quite a list...and it's true, the naysayers were really brutal when it came to finding fault with the first iPhone. I think the competition, while publicly talking the iPhone down, had a sinking suspicion it was a game changer. Whether the ?Watch may not be quite as strong a disruptor, as the iPhone, it likely will do well in the market from the first day onward.
Just as the iPhone of today can do so much more then what any user of 2007 expected, Apple has always had a secret timeline of enhancements in the works. I expect no less in the case of the ?Watch. It's amusing to speculate on what the ?Watch of seven years hence may be capable of doing...
I can see that. I certainly saw the raw potential of the original iPhone as it was there in the original 2007 demo — my favourite keynote up until WWDC 2014 — and knew I was going to buy one that day, even without first testing it. I certainly don't feel that way about ?Watch even though I'm holding off on buying my Fitbit Force HR until I at least get to see the next special event, which I assume will happen and will offer more details and features.
At this point I'll want to wait for different look before jumping on board.
Not only a new product category, but one with a very unique focus since it steps firmly into jewelry side of things. It's also Cook's first product category as CEO. It's hard to imagine Apple and Cook not really thinking this through or jumping the gun, even though I personally feel this first ?Watch design isn't very attractive or very useful for my specific needs at this point.
All we can do is wait and see… and speculate.
Here's the thing: Apple never publicly said, or even hinted that there would be all these advanced sensors in this Watch. All we have are a few rumors that Apple was working on stuff. Last year on Charlie Rose's show Tim Cook said the Watch would start with the heart. He was very explicit as far as what it woud START with. And if you look on the back of the Watch, that's a pretty elaborate set of sensors compared to the competition. That, along with all the hires we know about from the medical field makes me belive Apple has ambitious plans and future generations of ?Watch will have more of this advanced tracking once Apple is able to ensure accuracy. Other devices might have more sensors but how accurate are they? From what I've read the accuracy isn't that great. I'd rather have one thing nailed than a bunch of things that don't work well but were thrown in just to litter up a spec sheet.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidshaywitz/2015/02/18/apples-restraint-a-welcome-response-to-digital-health-hype/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix
[QUOTE]You need to give a lot of credit to Apple for taking the long view of digital health. It must have been tempting to include some sexy health technology into the watch — and you know they could have sold it.
Yet, by holding the line on quality, and rigorously evaluating – and appropriately rejecting – candidate features, the company is demonstrating a respect for the customer that’s lacking in the many businesses — not all startups — rushing into this space with specious claims of efficacy and impact.[/QUOTE]
So Ive was the idea-man behind the watch?
Tim has since said that he can't live without one.
The Watch is going to extend what is desirable about the iPhone and the iOS ecosystem to your wrist. Two things alone will drive sales beyond your modest expectations: Apple Pay, and silent but feelable and visible notifications.
When you see people using these things and THEY say they couldn't live without one, you will see the $359.00 light.
No iPhone user will feel fully wired without one.
Tim Cook is an operations guy, that doesn't make him a puppet, his job is to make sure the artists ship. Tim's excitement over the watch seems to me to come more from the idea that they can still pull off the same operation of delivering a new worldwide product, which is worth being happy about. I think he does like his watch because he's a fitness guy and has worn sports watches:
(unlike the slacker next to him) but I don't think his excitement is primarily about the watch (which he calls the iwatch), it's that he's managing to hold together the company and continue the operation successfully.
What does the iPhone not excel at doing?
Which if those features (besides ?Pay) are unique to Apple's watch or more advanced than elsewhere?
This isn't the original iPhone. The iPad didn't launch with the limitations of the original iPhone. It does help to leave some features out though to encourage future upgrades so missing features can fall under that. It's a difficult balance to hit - being better than the competition while not being so good in the first revision that people don't want to upgrade.
What would it have needed to make you feel that way about the Watch?
"I asked Jeff Williams, the senior vice-president, if the Apple Watch seemed more purely Ive’s than previous company products. After a silence of twenty-five seconds, during which Apple made fifty thousand dollars in profit, he said, “Yes.”"
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/02/23/shape-things-come
This shouldn't be surprising though, he's their head of design.
Tim Cook is the CEO of the biggest company in the world, he probably gets dozens of emails every second and needs to manage a dozen different problems. He's also not going to say anything negative.
I think there will be some demand for it, I don't think anywhere near every iPhone user will feel compelled to own one. My criticism of it isn't mainly about sales volume potential. They sell those colored polka-dot cases too. I think their focus with health is misguided among other things.
Calling Cook an operations guy seems very limiting to his set of skills. I can't imagine a better CEO at Apple's helm.
How can I check my pulse rate on my iPhone? I have to download any number of clever yet simple apps that will have me place a finger over the camera and LED flash for a duration. ?Watch does this without the user doing anything but placing it on my wrist in the morning.
1) Why exclude ?Pay?
2) Off the top of my head the Digital Crown, the capacitance+pressure sensitive display, the changing solution that requires virtual no precision (compare with FItBit), the SIP, and the mapping directions that will tap your wrist in a particular way when you're to either turn left or right thereby allowing you to get to a new location efficiency while both enjoying the scenery and paying attention to potential hazards by not having your face buried in a smartphone's map display.
Your first sentence is a non-starter. No one said it was the iPhone, but the iPhone is an excellent example of a new product category from Apple that was missing a lot of features compared to the status quo for that product category. I don't see how you can have a realistic view of ?Watch or any other new product if you're willing to ignore the well known shortcomings that had plenty neither wanting nor accepting it as a solid foundation moving forward.
For me, a declaration that the S-series chip and other components would be upgradable by Authorized Apple Jewelers with a certain commitment for time (like a decade), that it has at least an IP67 rating*, that it will allow a Mac, iPhone and iPad (and potentially Windows with the iCloud syncing app installed) to auto-lock when the user gets outside of a certain BT range**, and giving me the option to have certain devices unlock when within a particular range within a trusted area (e.g.: Mac auto-unlocks when I'm at home and ?Watch is within approximate 2 meter radius while on my wrist, since that means I've authenticated***).
* IP 6_ = Dust tight - No ingress of dust; complete protection against contact (dust tight); IP _7 = Immersion up to 1 meter - Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 meter of submersion). Test duration: 30 minutes: The lowest point of enclosures with a height less than 850 mm is located 1000 mm below the surface of the water, the highest point of enclosures with a height equal to or greater than 850 mm is located 150 mm below the surface of the water :: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code).
** iPhone stolen from hand on Czech subway while in use :: (
*** If Touch ID finally comes to the Mac then this will likely no longer be a desire, for me, but I would still like the auto-locking when I move a certain distance away from my devices.
That reply was about the decision behind making a watch, I was just contrasting his main skills with the design team, engineering team etc.
Why would you check your pulse in the morning? It's not something where the iPhone lags behind other phones. The iPhone excelled beyond other phones at the time and it took over 2 years for them to catch up. Other tablets still haven't really caught up to the iPad because of a lack of optimized apps. The ?Watch doesn't seem like it will be 2 or more years ahead of what is in the market just now.
I wasn't excluding it, I already know about that one.
I wouldn't agree that the crown is a feature worth having - it's supposed to be a minimally interactive device so you'd hardly ever use the crown. Pressure sensitivity is a useful feature. What's the 'changing solution'? All the watches will have some SoC. The tapping engine with directions will be useful for some users like cyclists/motorcyclists but other watches have directions too with variable vibration motors for left/right.
The route I could see them going would be to offer upgrades of the whole unit. They must be planning to shrink the watch down over time. Offering internal upgrades would be very limiting because they'll want people to buy the newer design. The gold one can be melted down so they can offer trade-in value for it.
They don't offer internal upgrades for their $2k MBPs and I don't think the watches will cost that much.
I'd like my pulse and numerous other health-related aspects measured either constantly or periodically so I, as well as my doctor(s), can see change over time, as well the potential for immediate information to potentially help save my life. There are service dogs specifically trained for people with diabetes. If this could be moved to a wrist-worn device that would be a huge savings to a great number of people since not everyone can either care for or be around a dog, not to mention the cost of training and keeping a service dog.
But the iPhone did lag behind other smartphones, as I previously noted in my list of common complaints about the tech. That isn't those people didn't agree the iPhone was very advanced in many ways, but that it also was lacking in many features many came to associate and want with a smartphone. Some reasonable, like cut/copy/paste, and others unreasonable, like a physical keyboard.
They didn't build well. Apple built off the iPhone but optimizing for the HW interface. This is not how either Android nor their OEMs tried to come at the problem after the iPad was announced, nor was it how anyone else tried to do it the decades before the iPad was announced.
Looking only the features, I would agree, but I would say the same about the iPhone. Now if we look at the technology foundation each are built upon I see many years of development that others won't be able to easily copy. Sure, Samsung can copy the Digital Crown and LG can use both a capacitance and pressure sensitive display, but can they really take all that Mac engineering, NeXT engineering, iPod engineering, iPhone engineering, iPad engineering, and all the step-by-step learning that has gone into making ?Watch use what is likely a very power yet small, and relatively power efficient SIP that runs a more efficient OS using Swift (speculation) that will do everything ?Watch can, with at least the same level of accuracy, and a similar user experience (e.g.: look and feel of HW, speed of operation, etc.), while being firmly in the realm of being deemed jewelry?
They had years to do it and so far I've seen nothing that comes close.
At this point I have no personal experience in which to pull an example as to why I think that's incorrect, but from watching the demo I can see why the Digital Crown is a must have. I think it's akin to the inertial scrolling successfully brought to the iPhone. I can't imagine using that tiny display for all your scrolling needs. In fact, years ago when talking about a wearable I stated that I think something is missing from the equation if a wrist-worn device was to ever be successful. You can say it's not as an important feat to the UX as Apple's inertial scrolling in iOS — and I would agree — but the Digital Crown is definitely not something I would scoff at.
I wonder how they do this? If the sapphire is thin enough I guess it could actually use pressure, but I also wonder if it may instead use an algorithm to interpret the pressure by reading the way your finger is pressing on the display.
Sorry, charing solution. The magnetic plug on the back, which is probably how you access the internals. Perhaps even those sensors can get smaller and then have more included while the charging ring still has plenty of room to do its thing.
I'm not sure why you'd make such an obvious statement. How does that take away from ?Watch? Is ?Watch suppose to not have an SoC or SiP in order to be successful? :???:
No one else has that as far as I know. I like the subtle things. I look for the subtle features that make the UX just a little bit better. These add up. These aren't easily counted but they mean a lot. I think that and other features are why it's always been difficult to explain to people why you prefer your Mac over WinPC (think pre-2004) when all the overwhelming evidence said that Macs were a niche with very few apps in comparison.
I can see that. The gold will certainly be valuable. That said, I also see how being able to keep a design (read: jewelry) for many, many years while it's still highly useful (read: consumer electronic) could allow more people to buy this year's styling, especially those that collect watches, knowing that it won't be obsolesced immediately. I'm expecting a new style each year.
A MacBook Pro isn't jewelry.
This is where the wearable market was always going to be difficult for CE companies. We can look at certain sic-fi films to see a wide range of fanciful designs, but the true intersection of CE and jewelry is difficult. I speculated well before ?Watch was announced that for a company to make this market work they would have to start with a large number of SKUs whose only difference is how they look. This is highly atypical for Apple , and it hasn't been done by any of the other "smartwatch" makers that came before. For tthat reason alone I believe Apple is on the right track, even if the current look and functionality for this initial release is not compelling me to want to hand over my money just year.
Originally Posted by SolipsismY
Quote:
Why would you check your pulse in the morning?
I'd like my pulse and numerous other health-related aspects measured either constantly or periodically so I, as well as my doctor(s), can see change over time, as well the potential for immediate information to potentially help save my life. There are service dogs specifically trained for people with diabetes. If this could be moved to a wrist-worn device that would be a huge savings to a great number of people since not everyone can either care for or be around a dog, not to mention the cost of training and keeping a service dog.
Why would you check your pulse in the morning?
I'd like my pulse and numerous other health-related aspects measured either constantly or periodically so I, as well as my doctor(s), can see change over time, as well the potential for immediate information to potentially help save my life. There are service dogs specifically trained for people with diabetes. If this could be moved to a wrist-worn device that would be a huge savings to a great number of people since not everyone can either care for or be around a dog, not to mention the cost of training and keeping a service dog.
But the iPhone did lag behind other smartphones, as I previously noted in my list of common complaints about the tech. That isn't those people didn't agree the iPhone was very advanced in many ways, but that it also was lacking in many features many came to associate and want with a smartphone. Some reasonable, like cut/copy/paste, and others unreasonable, like a physical keyboard.
They didn't build well. Apple built off the iPhone but optimizing for the HW interface. This is not how either Android nor their OEMs tried to come at the problem after the iPad was announced, nor was it how anyone else tried to do it the decades before the iPad was announced.
Looking only the features, I would agree, but I would say the same about the iPhone.
The Apple Watch hasn't officially launched, so I won't come down too hard on you, but your comment about the iPhone is nuts.
The iPhone wasn't 2 years ahead of the competition? It was light years ahead! It was BOOM. You have a short memory. To say that it lagged other smartphones is preposterous. Yes, it lacked some basic features like copy/paste, but it blew away all others in usability and therefore functionality. It was a nuclear blast into the mobile phone world, let alone the smartphone world. And it has since become the essential mobile computer.
So far, the Apple Watch is not BOOM or anywhere like it. It hasn't set the world alight like the iPhone did, and appeals strictly to the tech geeks, bless them. Essentially, I think that Apple's chances of having a hit with a wearable were always extremely slim, not because it’s Apple, but because it’s a wearable. I don't think they'll gain any significant audience, partly due to the technical limitations, but mostly because it’s too much tech for most people.
One of my primary disappointments with ?Watch, as well as a primary reasons I'm leaning toward Fitbit Charge HR, is my desire to have something I can wear whilst sleeping to help track my health over the long term. I liked that charging my Fitbit Force during my daily shower was sufficient to keep it charged without having to worry about the battery dying on me.
Indeed, a whole slough of important, interesting and informative data can be collected during sleep and at waking, which is another reason having to charge the device every night is unacceptable for medical monitoring (IMO.)
One of my primary disappointments with ?Watch, as well as a primary reasons I'm leaning toward Fitbit Charge HR, is my desire to have something I can wear whilst sleeping to help track my health over the long term. I liked that charging my Fitbit Force during my daily shower was sufficient to keep it charged without having to worry about the battery dying on me.
Do these wearables really tell you much helpful about your sleep, though? I'm not convinced. I have an iPhone app for sleep, but I don't put much store by it, as it simply tracks movement, which is very simplistic.