Really no such thing as a water proof watch. Watches in general are water resistant at a rated depth. Watches or devices rated at a minimum of say 30 meters are good for showering and maybe a quick dip in a pool. Watches that you can really take swimming or diving usually have a rated water resistance starting at about 150m >. It's good that they are at least providing basic water resistance in the AppleWatch, but I'm sure it won't be rated to the degree that you can operate the crown while wet or submerged. That would require better sealing.
Actually it seems like the crown may be one of the most water-proofable orifices on the watch. In the intro video it looks to be self contained within a substantially bostered internal compartment, while the mechanism (Tim mentioned in the keynote that it operates using optics) should be largely unaffected by water. It also seems like there might be a relatively easy way to swap them out, given that we see them in different colors depending on the band.
Actually it seems like the crown may be one of the most water-proofable orifices on the watch. In the intro video it looks to be self contained within a substantially bostered internal compartment, while the mechanism (Tim mentioned in the keynote that it operates using optics) should be largely unaffected by water. It also seems like there might be a relatively easy way to swap them out, given that we see them in different colors depending on the band.
They are optical mouse (if mouses turned that is ;-); real ones do ;-).
The power of the charger is key. I use the charger that came with my iPad Air to charge my phone because it's power makes the process MUCH faster. A beefy charger combined with that tiny battery could get the job done in minutes. Any battery experts out there that can discuss a diminishing returns curve on this phenomenon?
Heat and current density is a big battery killer; this limits how fast you can charge. That's why the battery is split up in many smaller cells usually. Though at that size obviously there are limits :-). So, it depends on how the battery is constructed, heat dissipated, etc.
We will see what Apple pulled out of their hat on the battery side.
So now trolls can't use the excuse that they can't swim with the Watch so its a failure. LOL.
From what Cook was supposedly overheard to say about wearing his watch in the shower, I would not conclude that one can swim with it. Splatters of water are not the same as complete immersion.
This is actually pretty important, I think. A spec that had a full charge from single digit percent remaining in 20m or so would be optimal; and I think very possible.
I don't get why someone would wear a watch in the shower.
Because they don't want to take it off and put it back on?
Really no such thing as a water proof watch. Watches in general are water resistant at a rated depth. Watches or devices rated at a minimum of say 30 meters are good for showering and maybe a quick dip in a pool. Watches that you can really take swimming or diving usually have a rated water resistance starting at about 150m >. It's good that they are at least providing basic water resistance in the AppleWatch, but I'm sure it won't be rated to the degree that you can operate the crown while wet or submerged. That would require better sealing.
For the purposes of most people, who aren't diving to depths, the word "waterproof" simply means it can be immersed at any depth they are likely to find themselves (or drop the object into) for as long as they are likely to be there (minutes to hours). To these same people, the words "water resistant" simply means it can be splashed on without worry, or perhaps briefly submerged (as in seconds... Like when you drop your iPhone in the sink or commode). I realize that these definitions don't fit the "established" language, but in order to escape these stupid (and far too frequent) arguments that are based strictly on terminology, I think it is useful to understand what most people mean and respond accordingly.
Sometimes it even happens that when a great enough percentage of people use words in a way that differs from their original definitions, a tipping point is reached and the definition naturally changes. Webster's and Wikipedia will soon accommodate. I think we are close to that situation here. Let's just roll with it.
It may be that the spec for the Watch hasn't changed, but that Apple hadn't yet put it through the battery of tests needed to certify it for the level of water resistance now implied by Cook's comment. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that Apple understood from the very beginning of its design the importance of a level of water resistance appropriate to the contexts within which the Watch will be worn by the vast majority of those who will buy it, and that Apple designed that level of water resistance into the Watch.
All this talk of the Apple Watch's water resistance. I always thought that was a given! As even a cheapo Casio is water resistant! About the nightly charging though, that could be a problem, unless it can charge really quickly, which seems a possibility as its such a small device with a small battery, as mentioned elsewhere here.
I'd like to try one out. To replace my current cheapo Casio! I like the Space-black stainless steel version with that chainmail like strap. But would probably have to go with a Space-grey aluminium Sport version due to budgetary constraints.
In thinking about charging I think if it uses a standard connector it could be recharged during the day from either another iDevice (iPhone/iPad/MacBook) or a small rechargeable battery (I have a battery case for my iPhone for example and I also carry a small pen sized flashlight 3000 ma battery in my bag for emergencies). So I don't see that as a big issue.
Doesn't inductive charging require AC power as oppose to DC? If so, then nothing you said above would work.
Maybe an hour. My Jawbone takes a little under an hour, but that's with a 500ma USB charger over a headphone jack connection. Apple can push more power to the Watch to compensate for power loss. My Palm Pre 2 didnt take all that long to charge up with the Touchstone charger.
Now the trolls can find something else to complain about though. They'll claim they want a 40mm size option because 38 and 42 are just unfair. :no:
I agree. I've never worn any of my dozen or so watches in the shower, ever.
Depends on the person, I suppose. I wear an Ironman digital watch that is waterproof (note to onlookers: spare me the strict definition, please. You know what I mean) almost 24/7 and don't take it off in the shower. I am fine with the Apple Watch being only "splash proof" and not capable of swimming in, and I will dutifully take it of before swimming. But yes, I would like to not think about it before every shower.
Comments
I don't get why someone would wear a watch in the shower.
I agree. I've never worn any of my dozen or so watches in the shower, ever.
I agree. I've never worn any of my dozen or so watches in the shower, ever.
What about washing your hands in the restroom? It'd be dangerous to take off your watch and wash your hands in a public restroom.
Yeah, but I think that headline would be a dud!
Really no such thing as a water proof watch. Watches in general are water resistant at a rated depth. Watches or devices rated at a minimum of say 30 meters are good for showering and maybe a quick dip in a pool. Watches that you can really take swimming or diving usually have a rated water resistance starting at about 150m >. It's good that they are at least providing basic water resistance in the AppleWatch, but I'm sure it won't be rated to the degree that you can operate the crown while wet or submerged. That would require better sealing.
Actually it seems like the crown may be one of the most water-proofable orifices on the watch. In the intro video it looks to be self contained within a substantially bostered internal compartment, while the mechanism (Tim mentioned in the keynote that it operates using optics) should be largely unaffected by water. It also seems like there might be a relatively easy way to swap them out, given that we see them in different colors depending on the band.
Actually it seems like the crown may be one of the most water-proofable orifices on the watch. In the intro video it looks to be self contained within a substantially bostered internal compartment, while the mechanism (Tim mentioned in the keynote that it operates using optics) should be largely unaffected by water. It also seems like there might be a relatively easy way to swap them out, given that we see them in different colors depending on the band.
They are optical mouse (if mouses turned that is ;-); real ones do ;-).
What about washing your hands in the restroom? It'd be dangerous to take off your watch and wash your hands in a public restroom.
That's a different level of water protection. They call this splash proof (the initial watch I believe already was splash proof).
The power of the charger is key. I use the charger that came with my iPad Air to charge my phone because it's power makes the process MUCH faster. A beefy charger combined with that tiny battery could get the job done in minutes. Any battery experts out there that can discuss a diminishing returns curve on this phenomenon?
Heat and current density is a big battery killer; this limits how fast you can charge. That's why the battery is split up in many smaller cells usually. Though at that size obviously there are limits :-). So, it depends on how the battery is constructed, heat dissipated, etc.
We will see what Apple pulled out of their hat on the battery side.
From what Cook was supposedly overheard to say about wearing his watch in the shower, I would not conclude that one can swim with it. Splatters of water are not the same as complete immersion.
Perhaps the previous poster wants heart rate info while (s)he sleeps.
Not necessarily. They use different charging mechanisms. The watch mechanism may be much less efficient.
That is far from certain. How efficient is The watch' inductive charging mechanism?
Because they don't want to take it off and put it back on?
Because they don't want to take it off and put it back on?
For health reasons, it's better to clean the skin under the watch, and also to let it breathe occasionally.
For the purposes of most people, who aren't diving to depths, the word "waterproof" simply means it can be immersed at any depth they are likely to find themselves (or drop the object into) for as long as they are likely to be there (minutes to hours). To these same people, the words "water resistant" simply means it can be splashed on without worry, or perhaps briefly submerged (as in seconds... Like when you drop your iPhone in the sink or commode). I realize that these definitions don't fit the "established" language, but in order to escape these stupid (and far too frequent) arguments that are based strictly on terminology, I think it is useful to understand what most people mean and respond accordingly.
Sometimes it even happens that when a great enough percentage of people use words in a way that differs from their original definitions, a tipping point is reached and the definition naturally changes. Webster's and Wikipedia will soon accommodate. I think we are close to that situation here. Let's just roll with it.
Perhaps users can charge the watch before they go to bed? Hence my questions around how long it takes to charge.
It may be that the spec for the Watch hasn't changed, but that Apple hadn't yet put it through the battery of tests needed to certify it for the level of water resistance now implied by Cook's comment. It wouldn't be a stretch to imagine that Apple understood from the very beginning of its design the importance of a level of water resistance appropriate to the contexts within which the Watch will be worn by the vast majority of those who will buy it, and that Apple designed that level of water resistance into the Watch.
All this talk of the Apple Watch's water resistance. I always thought that was a given! As even a cheapo Casio is water resistant! About the nightly charging though, that could be a problem, unless it can charge really quickly, which seems a possibility as its such a small device with a small battery, as mentioned elsewhere here.
I'd like to try one out. To replace my current cheapo Casio! I like the Space-black stainless steel version with that chainmail like strap. But would probably have to go with a Space-grey aluminium Sport version due to budgetary constraints.
Doesn't inductive charging require AC power as oppose to DC? If so, then nothing you said above would work.
Inductive charging != USB direct charging.
Depends on the person, I suppose. I wear an Ironman digital watch that is waterproof (note to onlookers: spare me the strict definition, please. You know what I mean) almost 24/7 and don't take it off in the shower. I am fine with the Apple Watch being only "splash proof" and not capable of swimming in, and I will dutifully take it of before swimming. But yes, I would like to not think about it before every shower.