So just because the technology didn't exist to do it any other way 14 years ago, it's OK to create a device dependent device now?
A person can walk out of a store with an iPod Touch today and start using it without the need for any other device. Same with the iPad, and iPhone.
I don't believe we know whether the ?Watch can do anything without first being paired with an iPhone. While capable of some things independently of the iPhone, it may not even tell time unless first paired with an iPhone, much less track fitness progress, or play mp3s.
According to your thinking, the watch software is set in stone and will never change.
All you do here is calling out on everybody. Be honest with yourself It's not a great gadget. It's good enough gadget.
what i do here is respond to some (sadly, not all) of the poor arguments presented by others, such as yourself.
i cant say whether its not a great gadget or a good-enough gadget for the exact same reason you cant -- because ive never used one. you cant talk or emoticon your way around this simple fact. to do anything otherwise is to simply troll.
once it's released i plan to run it thru several use cases that we have in mind for it as a device. at that point in time ill be in a position to weigh in on its usefulness as a device.
You have missed the point. People will demand more from what today is referred to as a watch, whether purchasing at the low end or the luxury end of the spectrum. Go back and read my message (#94 in this thread). Here's the relevant conclusion...
"Much has been written about Apple Watch as a challenger to luxury watches, many of which are merely a statement of wealth and fashion. It's not that the Apple Watch will change the way people perceive fashion. No, it's that the Apple Watch, and to a lesser extent, all smart watches, will change the perception of what a watch should do. And once that perception has changed, people will demand budget editions and luxury editions of that new paradigm. It's then [soon] that all traditional watchmakers must shift, partner, or find a new way to make a living."
Says who? Watches have been doing things other than tell time for decades, and there hasn't been a outcry for timepieces to do more. People are not going to buy a Apple Watch, and then forever not buy another high end timepiece.
While you are seeking self-affirmation by using sarcasm to portrait me as a dummy and yet making no point of your own, it is worth to mention that you are indeed correct. I am merely assuming from my experience and knowledge that calling, texting and (for heaven's sake) viewing photos is much more pleasant on a bigger screen. I have no merit to argue if you do not understand how this is entirely true. UX wise the Watch seems bearly plausible.
Go read message #94 (yes, folks, I'm really pushing that one, ha ha) to review the lightweight communications that are better suited to a wearable. Too many people map what they do on a smartphone directly to how they perceive those interactions would unfold on a watch. It's not the same and you need to have a more nuanced view if you truly wish to understand where smart watches will come into their own.
That's what Apple obviously thought about the iPad, since the original didn't have one. Who needs a camera on an iPad -- makes absolutely no sense. /s
And of course there's NO need for a camera on a watch, now that the watch is positioned so you can leave your phone in your bag, pocket, or 50+ feet away. So now when that precious moment occurs with a pet, or newborn, or something interesting out in the world, people will just scramble to find their phones, and potentially miss the photo opportunity. Yup you nailed it. No need for a camera on a watch at all -- ever -- even for those future face time conversations a person might have when there phone is 50 feet away. Besides, it's much easier to hold up a phone at arms length than just say ... your arm. It doesn't make any sense that just because the watch allows one to take phone calls with their phone in their pocket, that anyone would also want to take a face time call. Good call. /s
the iPad and iPhone have room for a larger battery to be able to use a camera and still have a charge for a day.
Just because I do not plan on buying a watch right away, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the technology and design. I just haven't found the benefit for me yet. I said the same thing about the iPad. Now the iPad is my most-used device. At some point there will be an app and/or features that benefit me and I may then buy one. I will not begrudge anybody who buys - or doesn't buy - one right away.
I love my moto360, much better design than the apple watch, great battery life. I have my Starbucks card loaded on it so I can buy coffee with it, but after a few times I just pull my phone if I need to pay. Why? It just doesn't feel smarter or more convenient compared to using the phone at all. I can't even imagine talking to the watch in public... I mean, iPhone is very popular but how often do you see people talk to siri on a train? Never! Why? It doesn't feel right or smart.
Smartwatches will fail, all of them including the apple watch, because no one has come up with a truly smart device. I mean, lift up your left hand and scroll with your right finger or say hey siri to it? A big no for me, And the watch is practically useless if you're holding something.
Do you have any idea what you're saying? First, Apple and EVERY OTHER COMPANY on earth is in business to make a profit. It's Apple's outsize profits that allow them to make significant changes to the working conditions and pay scale in their supply chain, both of which have unseen but positive benefits to the health of millions. As this article points out, Google, whose Android is installed on 80% of the smartphones and tablets worldwide, is both silent about and doing NOTHING to affect change within the supply chains of the many manufacturers building and selling Android phones. So there's no positive benefits to the safety and living standards (both of which are health issues) of the millions working to build Android phones.
Second, you seem to believe that Apple, or any company, has large vaults full of cash in its headquarters where all that money is stashed, doing nothing for anyone. That's simply not true. Apple's cash is paid out in dividends to people like me, who spend it into the economy, it's used to buy back stock, the sellers of which spend that cash right back into the economy, and its used to purchase treasuries, for example, which are vital to the ongoing funding of our government. The cash is out there, maybe not precisely where you would have it go, but who are you to make this decision.
I could just as strongly make an argument that humans, just one of untold numbers of species on this earth, are a disease upon the earth, sucking up resources, polluting and imbalancing the environment. Apple should spend all it's excess dollars in an effort to reduce human populations and restore balance to the environment. Hmm, maybe Apple is doing just that. A more well paid and educated workforce, with more options in life than to simply have more babies in hopes their children will take care of them in their old age, have fewer children in aggregate. And a solar farm to power a data center has a lesser impact on the environment, in aggregate, than burning fossil fuels.
You need to re-examine your views.
Also, the "cash" Apple is "sitting on" is mostly in the form of securities, meaning that it's capital being lent to banks and other institutions, providing working capital for those enterprises. It's not in the form of currency notes under Cook's mattress.
I love my moto360, much better design than the apple watch, great battery life. I have my Starbucks card loaded on it so I can buy coffee with it, but after a few times I just pull my phone if I need to pay. Why? It just doesn't feel smarter or more convenient compared to using the phone at all. I can't even imagine talking to the watch in public... I mean, iPhone is very popular but how often do you see people talk to siri on a train? Never! Why? It doesn't feel right or smart.
Smartwatches will fail, all of them including the apple watch, because no one has come up with a truly smart device. I mean, lift up your left hand and scroll with your right finger or say hey siri to it? A big no for me, And the watch is practically useless if you're holding something.
Each to their own, but in my personal opinion, the moto360's design is flawed. Circular smartwatch screens are practically useless for displaying information correctly. Too much wasted space. Also it is a huge watch...very thick and chunky. And lets not talk about the chip out of the display at the bottom.
I agree, I don't expect people to use Siri on any device in a crowded train.
I don't agree that "Smartwatches will fail"....i think it will take time but they will become more mainstream over a longer period of time.
Also, isn't an iPhone useless if you are holding something?
What's the grab with this watch or any smart watch at this point. I am all android / chrome at this point in my tech life. I love tech and enjoy all new technology. Apple has always had a grab that I have appreciated. Elegant design and polish unmatched until arguably this year. The drag for me is limitations. I enjoy tinkering and making things mine so enjoy Android and Motorala has pushed this to devices removing the "square and rectangle" so implemented with not just apple but all mobile tech. Probably why I feel more attracted to iMac line it reminds me of the elegance and style Apple once had. Today's iPhone 6 is drab to me and feels old hat. The iPad whatever we are on is the groundhog day of announcements. Thinner, lighter, faster, better? Why? IPad mini feels perfect. IPhone 3gs amazing. IPad original never made sense to big for convenience of pocket mobile why not just take my capable pro or the air. What's the grab. Why I like moto x 2014 its the 3 I always wanted curved back with leather with less bezels. The watch why what's useful? It attractive to some with the new appeal. I does things that my phone does but on a limited tiny screen. We go big screen like we wanted to get tiny. Let's get real here. Beyond the new look what my toy does will we ever really use it beyond a watch. Its not what we really are hooked into. Social networks, games, maps, cameras. Yes it will sell like hotcakes and next year it will be thinner faster as these watches should be and what have 2 types the I watch round and I watch square. I think beyond the I want grab that will happen these will go the way of the iPad, TV, IPod. There is no real need other than its new and pop so I want it. I have two android watches I like them because I'm a nerd. Most everyone has a attraction to them initially but that's it. My 360 is stainless steel has multiple bands, customizable, attractive, hands free. Its convenient for me I like it but how long. Two years is the battery crap like every device on earth even my pro. Can someone replace the battery yes. Will I no the moto 360 3 or nexus watch is out and android wear 7 will never be available for the original. I watch same game battery will last a few years then what spend a lot to fix the be told watch os 3 is avalible but most features disabled for older model. The whole reason a watch has worked is its timeless 50 years from now it works with some care. I spent a lot for my Rolex and my daughters daughter will have it not my moto360 or I watch. Do I really want to spend 500 plus for a limited device to collect dust like my apple TV is. So tell me what is the grab? I feel the real feel of what apple was is lost they don't bring me into there store. They don't make me feel that special way when they would release a device that made real sense. Just adjusting to hold customers. Big screens, HDish, thinner, watches, multiple sizes, crowded wants, confusing releases, forced gimmicks. Where is the actuall use it once had. My pro replaced the PC because it worked and worked long. The new pro same price same feel but will it keep up with change and adding more heavy OS. How much is the heavy glued battery and can apple fix it 3 years from now or just sell me another.
When are you not within several meters of your smartphone? ... the first set of use cases that, yes, require it to be wirelessly tethered to an iPhone.
With respect to the ?Watch, when you your smartphone is not an iPhone ...
The first iPhones and iPads could only be used with iTunes, and thus only purchased by existing Mac/PC customers. Now people who don't own a computer at all can buy an iPad or iPhone and never need to connect to a computer to use them, including many people who don't own any other Apple device. So why isn't the ?Watch set up to function as a stand-alone device, thus opening it up to a much wider audience? I've already speculated that it's possibly a limiting tactic to help Apple cope with rolling out the first generation of a new product where there will surely be issues and problems which arise from prototypes in the lab to production models in the wild. This may or may not be the case, but why otherwise intentionally limit your potential customer base right out of the gate when there's no need to? Why does the ?Watch require an iPhone only? Why not an iPad, or a computer to download your watch apps from iTunes. I'm sure one limitation is the radio in the watch, but that's easily circumvented with a USB dongle.
But none of this really was my point. Whether you choose to infer this positively or negatively, the FACT remains that the ?Watch REQUIRES the iPhone to do the majority of what it's designed to do. And if you're targeting this watch as a fitness tool, then you'd better be concerned about what the fitness enthusiasts need it to do, of which runners make up a lions share. But like I said, I don't think we know whether the iPhone is required to activate the watch so you can simply do the basics, such as tell time, and track fitness. But if it does, then that's at least one step toward an autonomy that opens up a watch purchase for someone who doesn't own an iPhone. I would think any shareholder would be concerned about that.
According to your thinking, the watch software is set in stone and will never change.
Right, because I've explicitly stated that. /s
Whatever the ?Watch can do the day a customer takes it out of the store is all they can ever expect it to do. Apple NEVER comments on future plans, and it would be disingenuous to sell a customer an Apple product that they think has the capability to be upgraded to do things they assume it's possible for it to do.
Apple has a history of leaving hardware behind that has been shown can otherwise handle software updates with which Apple skipped over it. Just because a thing is possible, doesn't mean that Apple will do it, much less when.
the iPad and iPhone have room for a larger battery to be able to use a camera and still have a charge for a day.
So you're a hardware engineer now?
Do give me the exact equation that tells us exactly how much power a camera consumes so as to make it impractical for the battery life of an ?Watch.
First, my comment was in reference to future technology. But, as it stands, the ?Watch can make a maximum of 3 hours of phone calls before it has to be recharged. Only 6 hours with continuous music playback. You think the camera is going to cause a power drain like that? Whether it does or doesn't, if making a phone call on a watch (the thing Tim Cook as been waiting to do since he was a little boy in Alabama), is a power drain such that customers much use it judiciously (despite the hype), then why include it on the watch at all considering how much power it takes? Unless of course the camera can only support 2 hours of operation (and their limit is 3), in which case they'd better not include it because the customer can't be trusted to restrain themselves and will blame Apple. /s
I'm down with having silent personal notifications for a long time. Even worked on a prototype that does just that. Other notifications I can't see how any of the things you described are so much better on a watch to make the additional purchase viable. As cool fashion gadget - yes. But can most of the smartphone users live without it? Absolutely. Instagram on a watch? Talking to your wrist. I don't know. I'm seeing the Watch really leaning towards fashion for it's value.
Interesting that I made zero mention of Instagram. And I specifically called out SHORT voice interactions and text dictation as the contexts where you might be speaking into the watch. Way to distort my words.
Nor did I suggest that the use cases I outlined could not be done on a smartphone, or on a laptop, or hey, even in person. All technology is a matter of reducing work and adding convenience to our lives. Where along the line of your thinking did you forget that?
Comments
According to your thinking, the watch software is set in stone and will never change.
All you do here is calling out on everybody. Be honest with yourself
It's not a great gadget. It's good enough gadget.
what i do here is respond to some (sadly, not all) of the poor arguments presented by others, such as yourself.
i cant say whether its not a great gadget or a good-enough gadget for the exact same reason you cant -- because ive never used one. you cant talk or emoticon your way around this simple fact. to do anything otherwise is to simply troll.
once it's released i plan to run it thru several use cases that we have in mind for it as a device. at that point in time ill be in a position to weigh in on its usefulness as a device.
Says who? Watches have been doing things other than tell time for decades, and there hasn't been a outcry for timepieces to do more. People are not going to buy a Apple Watch, and then forever not buy another high end timepiece.
While you are seeking self-affirmation by using sarcasm to portrait me as a dummy and yet making no point of your own, it is worth to mention that you are indeed correct. I am merely assuming from my experience and knowledge that calling, texting and (for heaven's sake) viewing photos is much more pleasant on a bigger screen. I have no merit to argue if you do not understand how this is entirely true. UX wise the Watch seems bearly plausible.
Go read message #94 (yes, folks, I'm really pushing that one, ha ha) to review the lightweight communications that are better suited to a wearable. Too many people map what they do on a smartphone directly to how they perceive those interactions would unfold on a watch. It's not the same and you need to have a more nuanced view if you truly wish to understand where smart watches will come into their own.
I received the original iPad the day before it was released in the shops.????
For the record, I was skeptical about the iPhone and thought the iPad would be huge.
So 50%.
Anybody that was skeptical about the iPhone has no vision whatsoever. It was an obvious hit to anybody with some forward-thinking and imagination.
Thompson
Whoever is wearing an Inspector Gadgets watch while muttering "DNA and liberal arts" risks being laughed of the planet.
the iPad and iPhone have room for a larger battery to be able to use a camera and still have a charge for a day.
Just because I do not plan on buying a watch right away, doesn't mean I don't appreciate the technology and design. I just haven't found the benefit for me yet. I said the same thing about the iPad. Now the iPad is my most-used device. At some point there will be an app and/or features that benefit me and I may then buy one. I will not begrudge anybody who buys - or doesn't buy - one right away.
Smartwatches will fail, all of them including the apple watch, because no one has come up with a truly smart device. I mean, lift up your left hand and scroll with your right finger or say hey siri to it? A big no for me, And the watch is practically useless if you're holding something.
Do you have any idea what you're saying? First, Apple and EVERY OTHER COMPANY on earth is in business to make a profit. It's Apple's outsize profits that allow them to make significant changes to the working conditions and pay scale in their supply chain, both of which have unseen but positive benefits to the health of millions. As this article points out, Google, whose Android is installed on 80% of the smartphones and tablets worldwide, is both silent about and doing NOTHING to affect change within the supply chains of the many manufacturers building and selling Android phones. So there's no positive benefits to the safety and living standards (both of which are health issues) of the millions working to build Android phones.
Second, you seem to believe that Apple, or any company, has large vaults full of cash in its headquarters where all that money is stashed, doing nothing for anyone. That's simply not true. Apple's cash is paid out in dividends to people like me, who spend it into the economy, it's used to buy back stock, the sellers of which spend that cash right back into the economy, and its used to purchase treasuries, for example, which are vital to the ongoing funding of our government. The cash is out there, maybe not precisely where you would have it go, but who are you to make this decision.
I could just as strongly make an argument that humans, just one of untold numbers of species on this earth, are a disease upon the earth, sucking up resources, polluting and imbalancing the environment. Apple should spend all it's excess dollars in an effort to reduce human populations and restore balance to the environment. Hmm, maybe Apple is doing just that. A more well paid and educated workforce, with more options in life than to simply have more babies in hopes their children will take care of them in their old age, have fewer children in aggregate. And a solar farm to power a data center has a lesser impact on the environment, in aggregate, than burning fossil fuels.
You need to re-examine your views.
Also, the "cash" Apple is "sitting on" is mostly in the form of securities, meaning that it's capital being lent to banks and other institutions, providing working capital for those enterprises. It's not in the form of currency notes under Cook's mattress.
I love my moto360, much better design than the apple watch, great battery life. I have my Starbucks card loaded on it so I can buy coffee with it, but after a few times I just pull my phone if I need to pay. Why? It just doesn't feel smarter or more convenient compared to using the phone at all. I can't even imagine talking to the watch in public... I mean, iPhone is very popular but how often do you see people talk to siri on a train? Never! Why? It doesn't feel right or smart.
Smartwatches will fail, all of them including the apple watch, because no one has come up with a truly smart device. I mean, lift up your left hand and scroll with your right finger or say hey siri to it? A big no for me, And the watch is practically useless if you're holding something.
Each to their own, but in my personal opinion, the moto360's design is flawed. Circular smartwatch screens are practically useless for displaying information correctly. Too much wasted space. Also it is a huge watch...very thick and chunky. And lets not talk about the chip out of the display at the bottom.
I agree, I don't expect people to use Siri on any device in a crowded train.
I don't agree that "Smartwatches will fail"....i think it will take time but they will become more mainstream over a longer period of time.
Also, isn't an iPhone useless if you are holding something?
Actually, it is marked as an editorial.
Who's in charge of editing the editor?
When are you not within several meters of your smartphone? ... the first set of use cases that, yes, require it to be wirelessly tethered to an iPhone.
With respect to the ?Watch, when you your smartphone is not an iPhone ...
The first iPhones and iPads could only be used with iTunes, and thus only purchased by existing Mac/PC customers. Now people who don't own a computer at all can buy an iPad or iPhone and never need to connect to a computer to use them, including many people who don't own any other Apple device. So why isn't the ?Watch set up to function as a stand-alone device, thus opening it up to a much wider audience? I've already speculated that it's possibly a limiting tactic to help Apple cope with rolling out the first generation of a new product where there will surely be issues and problems which arise from prototypes in the lab to production models in the wild. This may or may not be the case, but why otherwise intentionally limit your potential customer base right out of the gate when there's no need to? Why does the ?Watch require an iPhone only? Why not an iPad, or a computer to download your watch apps from iTunes. I'm sure one limitation is the radio in the watch, but that's easily circumvented with a USB dongle.
But none of this really was my point. Whether you choose to infer this positively or negatively, the FACT remains that the ?Watch REQUIRES the iPhone to do the majority of what it's designed to do. And if you're targeting this watch as a fitness tool, then you'd better be concerned about what the fitness enthusiasts need it to do, of which runners make up a lions share. But like I said, I don't think we know whether the iPhone is required to activate the watch so you can simply do the basics, such as tell time, and track fitness. But if it does, then that's at least one step toward an autonomy that opens up a watch purchase for someone who doesn't own an iPhone. I would think any shareholder would be concerned about that.
According to your thinking, the watch software is set in stone and will never change.
Right, because I've explicitly stated that. /s
Whatever the ?Watch can do the day a customer takes it out of the store is all they can ever expect it to do. Apple NEVER comments on future plans, and it would be disingenuous to sell a customer an Apple product that they think has the capability to be upgraded to do things they assume it's possible for it to do.
Apple has a history of leaving hardware behind that has been shown can otherwise handle software updates with which Apple skipped over it. Just because a thing is possible, doesn't mean that Apple will do it, much less when.
the iPad and iPhone have room for a larger battery to be able to use a camera and still have a charge for a day.
So you're a hardware engineer now?
Do give me the exact equation that tells us exactly how much power a camera consumes so as to make it impractical for the battery life of an ?Watch.
First, my comment was in reference to future technology. But, as it stands, the ?Watch can make a maximum of 3 hours of phone calls before it has to be recharged. Only 6 hours with continuous music playback. You think the camera is going to cause a power drain like that? Whether it does or doesn't, if making a phone call on a watch (the thing Tim Cook as been waiting to do since he was a little boy in Alabama), is a power drain such that customers much use it judiciously (despite the hype), then why include it on the watch at all considering how much power it takes? Unless of course the camera can only support 2 hours of operation (and their limit is 3), in which case they'd better not include it because the customer can't be trusted to restrain themselves and will blame Apple. /s
I'm down with having silent personal notifications for a long time. Even worked on a prototype that does just that. Other notifications I can't see how any of the things you described are so much better on a watch to make the additional purchase viable. As cool fashion gadget - yes. But can most of the smartphone users live without it? Absolutely. Instagram on a watch? Talking to your wrist. I don't know. I'm seeing the Watch really leaning towards fashion for it's value.
Interesting that I made zero mention of Instagram. And I specifically called out SHORT voice interactions and text dictation as the contexts where you might be speaking into the watch. Way to distort my words.
Nor did I suggest that the use cases I outlined could not be done on a smartphone, or on a laptop, or hey, even in person. All technology is a matter of reducing work and adding convenience to our lives. Where along the line of your thinking did you forget that?
I'm seeing the Watch really leaning towards fashion for it's value.
Let's assume that turns out to be true.
So what?