As long as Apple Watch doesn't bring added value to a iPhone, but just increased convenience, the sales of Apple Watch will be limited to die hard fans or to people who have burning cash in their hands.
One cannot convince the man in a street to pay $400 to see his notifications 3 tenths of second faster on the Watch than on his iPhone, especially if one has become of certain age so the tiny characters on a Watch are too difficult to read without his reading glasses
What's your time worth? At $nnn.nn per hour, what's it worth to you to decide not to pull out your iPhone, activate it and see a notification that you aren't interested in ... then reverse the process, back into the pocket!
I suspect, unless you're flipping burgers, you could pay for an Apple Watch in less than 10 months -- just on time savings!
Do I have proof that desires don't change the laws of physics? Are you serious?
At some point, you're just going to have to shrug and move on, I am guessing. Apple forums never cease to provide an endless supply of weirded-out types. Take one out and three seem to pop up to take their place.
I don't think so. Even though I disagree with him most of the time, I have to say that Gatorguy writes very well and cogently, and sticks to mostly pro-Google posts. He peppers his posts with links (often spurious, but occasionally good, ones).
Also I think he may be on sabbatical for health reasons currently.
This article or story is setting the stage for what appears to be an expected "slow start" for the AW.
I love, admire, applauded and am delighted with Apple products. I use and rely on them every day. I have at least one of every category of Apple's products. But I honestly cannot see need, at this early time (no watch pun intended) for the AW.
As its an extension of the iPhone, requires two hands to operate, presents a passel of phone/watch issues in crowded spaces, during flight travel, while driving, etc. has to be recharged, etc. I find it more gratuitous tech than anything. Think chocolate syrup over hot fudge.
This to say noting about cost, cost of Apple Care, add-on accessories and replacement cost if damaged or lost.
Think of it this way: any time you see any company spending millions on a product rollout ask yourself "why?" When something is hot we line up like crazy. If there are no formidable lines for the watch...it ain't hot.
After reading the "iPhone Killer" article, I believe it was on Fortune.com, I gave a much greater appreciation for what they are trying to do with the Apple Watch.
Here is what we Apple fan shoul do. Buy Apple stock call option. All preorder Apple Watch. Apple announce insanely great preorder number. Wall Street upgrade Apple stock. Apple stock jumps at least 20 percent. Close the option with enough gain to preorder a Apple Watch Edition. Stock then jump even more. Win, win, win.
No one is saying the Watch screen will always be under 2 inches.
You recently described a 1.5" diameter watch as "MONSTEROUSLY LARGE and CLOWNISH". The size values Apple uses for the watch are the heights of the watch faces too (38mm/1.5" and 42mm/1.65"). The display diagonals on each are roughly 1.36" and 1.56". The Galaxy Gear S is 2":
Even at that size, you saw in the video of it how small everything was on-screen. They've sold 1.2m units of the whole range so some people must be walking round with those. The earlier iPhones were only 3.5", this is what that looks like relative to the 2" watch above:
That could replace a smartphone if you can overcome the problem of holding your arm up for long periods of time. There are wrist holders for the iPhone that let you do this sort of thing and this is how they developed the Apple Watch:
If you cut off the bezels and wrap the display around and locate it on the underside of the arm, that could replace a phone for people. Science fiction has used this concept:
I think that's going to require holographic displays rather than physical. So you might have a small wristband that's used for accurate tracking and special glasses and when the glasses detect the band in view, it shows a large virtual display across your wrist. The wristband can be like LEAP Motion and detect your other hand in 3D and you'd just press on your wrist and this would give you multi-touch. It could be a solid-looking display too (projecting on both eyes) because it's not blocking your view given that it only appears when your wrist is in view. The band itself could then be made into any style they want like just the buckle and a battery to power the motion sensor:
The Moto360 is monsterously clownish in TODAY's culture. What do you think people would have said if the Samsung Note came out in 2007? People would have called it monsterously clownish. But things change. It will take several years but I would not be surprised if in 5 years wrist mounted devices will be much bigger than 2 inches.
It took 5 years for the general public to accept a 5+ inch phone. It may take just as long for a 'large' watch to be socially acceptable. Apple is doing it right by releasing a relatively small watch so it is socially acceptable. Once the market understands the value of such a device they will be more willing to wear larger versions.
Now you are going down the right path. Yes hologram is a possibility, along with paper thin screens that can fold. Display technology is constantly evolving. Who knows what we will see in 10 years. And that's my point about having vision. Its seems that you are focused on what the Watch will be in the next 3 years. I'm looking at what the Watch will be in 10 years.
If the watch does eventually get big enough to take over from the smartphone, the precursor would be the iPhone. It wouldn't be running the Watch OS in which case the current watch being developed would have been an irrelevant intermediate step because it's going to eventually run iOS.
A holographic display would run the full iOS, watch OS would be discontinued and this setup would replace iPhones, iPads and maybe even TVs and computer monitors. I don't think people are prepared to deal with eyewear just for computing at the moment but maybe with the right form factor. There's some technology here that uses projectors and not displays:
The accompanying wristband would have biometric sensors, maybe an IR pattern for display tracking, haptics, a 3D sensor and wireless connection to the glasses. The glasses would have the CPU, memory, storage, RAM, projector for each eye and wireless connection to the band. Normally the glasses projector would be off but it would see IR patterns on monitors and bands and the projector in the glasses would activate and track those locators and overlay a virtual display. When you look down at your wrist, it would turn on, look away and it would turn off. The display can be as big as a 40" TV while sitting in an plane seat or it can be iPhone sized walking down the road, tablet sized while reading on the sofa and all the software would be contextual, there would be no frame around it so there would be no issue over what shape software conforms to, the software would define the display shape.
The watch currently being developed doesn't look like it's being developed with a roadmap for a larger display. The digital crown wouldn't be needed.
Barring some massive battery technology revolution the Watch will not have dedicated GPS any time soon.
Here's a current example of how GPS would be an important factor to the ?Watch -- the Riptide Search GPS surf watch -- Active GPS surfing provides up to 10 continuous hours. That's waaaay better than the 3 hours of talk time, and the 6 hours of music playback the ?Watch currently offers. The Search also offers up to 6 months operation on a single charge without using GPS, compared to the ?Watches 72 hours? Now that's not an entirely fair comparison since the Search display is B&W LCD, and I don't even think it has a backlight. But the point is, if Apple is selling a device with features capable of draining the battery within 3-6 hours, then GPS, in a real world application that is much less of a drain on battery life, is not a huge leap, nor does it require "massive battery technology revolution, to implement it in the same user optional manner as the other potential power drains. Oh, forgot to add: the price of the Search is $400, which is considerably higher than the ?Watch by feature comparison. And perhaps this is the real reason Apple left off GPS on the 1st gen watch.
Here's a current example of how GPS would be an important factor to the ?Watch -- the Riptide Search GPS surf watch -- Active GPS surfing provides up to 10 continuous hours. That's waaaay better than the 3 hours of talk time, and the 6 hours of music playback the ?Watch currently offers. The Search also offers up to 6 months operation on a single charge without using GPS, compared to the ?Watches 72 hours? Now that's not an entirely fair comparison since the Search display is B&W LCD, and I don't even think it has a backlight. But the point is, if Apple is selling a device with features capable of draining the battery within 3-6 hours, then GPS, in a real world application that is much less of a drain on battery life, is not a huge leap, nor does it require "massive battery technology revolution, to implement it in the same user optional manner as the other potential power drains.
GPS didn't make it into this iteration, and it may not make it into the next, but Apple will work it in at some point. In the meantime, clever accelerometers, algorithms, and training provide a typical user with pedometer functions detached from the iPhone; good enough. A compass would be more useful initially for runners that train on set courses, creating waypoints at sharp turns.
I use GAIA on my iPhone and it is very useful for off trail use, but I would't see much of its function transferred to the Apple Watch; some would be useful.
I'm in the same boat. I wear a Citizen daily. The refinement of the Apple Watch hardware and software (pending real reviews) seem very high, and it's drawing me in.
I see two types of buyers:
1) techies
2) those concerned with health
I think once the Apple Watch gets more advanced health-related hardware features (such as for diabetics), it will take off in the health sector. HealthKit seems to be flying under the radar, and I think it will be a huge advantage for those that need constant personal (but not intrusive) monitoring of some sort. Then you add the buy-in from the health providers, and it's icing on the cake.
Or one could stop eating a bunch of crap and not get diabetes in the first place. But given that HALF of Americans will be diabetic or pre-diabetic in the next few years, I'd say that willpower is not our strength. We'd rather wait for technology to "fix" the problem while stuffing our faces.
But I agree with your assessment. The more I see of the Watch, the more I like it. And I completely dismissed it at first. I still have no interest in one personally, but I think it will find a wider audience than I first thought.
you still dont get it. No one is saying the Watch screen will always be under 2 inches.
again you have no vision.
No vision? He's absolutely right. If they wanted to make a "watch" with a big screen that covers your forearm, they could have (easily) done that already. They clearly went out of their way to make it watch size.
The Apple Watch isn't going to evolve into some big screen weird watch-bracelet-phone that replaces everything. You don't need "vision" to realize that.
This article overlooks an important question: which weekend should legitimately be called the "first" for Apple Watch? Will it be April 10, when customers can first see the product and preorder, or April 24, when they can actually buy or take delivery on one? The interest in Apple Watch might be fairly gaged on the weekend of April 10, based on in-store activity, but we won't have any good reason to guess at how many were preordered until two weeks later. Apple is also discouraging walk-in buyers on April 24, which should mitigate the "camp out" affect.
Releasing a 4 inch screen watch would be pure stupidity right now. It would end up just like the Google Glass. It is not socially accepted to have such a massive screen on your forearm. But in 10 years? When the tech is avaliable for bendable screens or projected images?
Again your lack of long-term vision is lacking. Wearables are the future. Only someone with blinders can't see this.
No. I just have good taste. And no one with good taste is going to be wearing some weird armband watch. Wearables are not the future. They are a blip on our way to implants and embedded technology. Cyborg future awaits. Singularity is near.
So the 20 people you work with dont want the Watch (for now) and you conclude the Watch wont be a hit. That's some impressive statistically sampling there son.
Comments
What's your time worth? At $nnn.nn per hour, what's it worth to you to decide not to pull out your iPhone, activate it and see a notification that you aren't interested in ... then reverse the process, back into the pocket!
I suspect, unless you're flipping burgers, you could pay for an Apple Watch in less than 10 months -- just on time savings!
Edit: Gave him a raise!
Why? -,A Comment like this is simply an opinion without something to back it up
I suspect that @knowitall is @gatorGuy's new forum name ...
BS Post, change the subject ... move on!
I don't think so. Even though I disagree with him most of the time, I have to say that Gatorguy writes very well and cogently, and sticks to mostly pro-Google posts. He peppers his posts with links (often spurious, but occasionally good, ones).
Also I think he may be on sabbatical for health reasons currently.
I love, admire, applauded and am delighted with Apple products. I use and rely on them every day. I have at least one of every category of Apple's products. But I honestly cannot see need, at this early time (no watch pun intended) for the AW.
As its an extension of the iPhone, requires two hands to operate, presents a passel of phone/watch issues in crowded spaces, during flight travel, while driving, etc. has to be recharged, etc. I find it more gratuitous tech than anything. Think chocolate syrup over hot fudge.
This to say noting about cost, cost of Apple Care, add-on accessories and replacement cost if damaged or lost.
Think of it this way: any time you see any company spending millions on a product rollout ask yourself "why?" When something is hot we line up like crazy. If there are no formidable lines for the watch...it ain't hot.
Why would it ever be bigger? Are people's wrists going to grow suddenly?
.
Vision? Making batshit crazy stuff up is "vision"?!? As the kids say, you'r doing it wrong...
You recently described a 1.5" diameter watch as "MONSTEROUSLY LARGE and CLOWNISH". The size values Apple uses for the watch are the heights of the watch faces too (38mm/1.5" and 42mm/1.65"). The display diagonals on each are roughly 1.36" and 1.56". The Galaxy Gear S is 2":
Even at that size, you saw in the video of it how small everything was on-screen. They've sold 1.2m units of the whole range so some people must be walking round with those. The earlier iPhones were only 3.5", this is what that looks like relative to the 2" watch above:
That could replace a smartphone if you can overcome the problem of holding your arm up for long periods of time. There are wrist holders for the iPhone that let you do this sort of thing and this is how they developed the Apple Watch:
If you cut off the bezels and wrap the display around and locate it on the underside of the arm, that could replace a phone for people. Science fiction has used this concept:
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/Science-Fiction-News.asp?NewsNum=3052
I think that's going to require holographic displays rather than physical. So you might have a small wristband that's used for accurate tracking and special glasses and when the glasses detect the band in view, it shows a large virtual display across your wrist. The wristband can be like LEAP Motion and detect your other hand in 3D and you'd just press on your wrist and this would give you multi-touch. It could be a solid-looking display too (projecting on both eyes) because it's not blocking your view given that it only appears when your wrist is in view. The band itself could then be made into any style they want like just the buckle and a battery to power the motion sensor:
Wha?? At 1.56 inches across it's only slightly wider than the smallest Apple Watch and narrower than the larger one.
If (And I personally think when) Apple releases a round smartwatch version in the next gen I'll be looking forward to your comments.
If the watch does eventually get big enough to take over from the smartphone, the precursor would be the iPhone. It wouldn't be running the Watch OS in which case the current watch being developed would have been an irrelevant intermediate step because it's going to eventually run iOS.
A holographic display would run the full iOS, watch OS would be discontinued and this setup would replace iPhones, iPads and maybe even TVs and computer monitors. I don't think people are prepared to deal with eyewear just for computing at the moment but maybe with the right form factor. There's some technology here that uses projectors and not displays:
http://www.tested.com/tech/459020-hands-avegants-virtual-retinal-display-prototype/
The accompanying wristband would have biometric sensors, maybe an IR pattern for display tracking, haptics, a 3D sensor and wireless connection to the glasses. The glasses would have the CPU, memory, storage, RAM, projector for each eye and wireless connection to the band. Normally the glasses projector would be off but it would see IR patterns on monitors and bands and the projector in the glasses would activate and track those locators and overlay a virtual display. When you look down at your wrist, it would turn on, look away and it would turn off. The display can be as big as a 40" TV while sitting in an plane seat or it can be iPhone sized walking down the road, tablet sized while reading on the sofa and all the software would be contextual, there would be no frame around it so there would be no issue over what shape software conforms to, the software would define the display shape.
The watch currently being developed doesn't look like it's being developed with a roadmap for a larger display. The digital crown wouldn't be needed.
http://searchgps.ripcurl.com/welcome/the-watch.php
Here's a current example of how GPS would be an important factor to the ?Watch -- the Riptide Search GPS surf watch -- Active GPS surfing provides up to 10 continuous hours. That's waaaay better than the 3 hours of talk time, and the 6 hours of music playback the ?Watch currently offers. The Search also offers up to 6 months operation on a single charge without using GPS, compared to the ?Watches 72 hours? Now that's not an entirely fair comparison since the Search display is B&W LCD, and I don't even think it has a backlight. But the point is, if Apple is selling a device with features capable of draining the battery within 3-6 hours, then GPS, in a real world application that is much less of a drain on battery life, is not a huge leap, nor does it require "massive battery technology revolution, to implement it in the same user optional manner as the other potential power drains.
http://searchgps.ripcurl.com/welcome/the-watch.php
GPS didn't make it into this iteration, and it may not make it into the next, but Apple will work it in at some point. In the meantime, clever accelerometers, algorithms, and training provide a typical user with pedometer functions detached from the iPhone; good enough. A compass would be more useful initially for runners that train on set courses, creating waypoints at sharp turns.
I use GAIA on my iPhone and it is very useful for off trail use, but I would't see much of its function transferred to the Apple Watch; some would be useful.
Or one could stop eating a bunch of crap and not get diabetes in the first place. But given that HALF of Americans will be diabetic or pre-diabetic in the next few years, I'd say that willpower is not our strength. We'd rather wait for technology to "fix" the problem while stuffing our faces.
But I agree with your assessment. The more I see of the Watch, the more I like it. And I completely dismissed it at first. I still have no interest in one personally, but I think it will find a wider audience than I first thought.
No vision? He's absolutely right. If they wanted to make a "watch" with a big screen that covers your forearm, they could have (easily) done that already. They clearly went out of their way to make it watch size.
The Apple Watch isn't going to evolve into some big screen weird watch-bracelet-phone that replaces everything. You don't need "vision" to realize that.
This article overlooks an important question: which weekend should legitimately be called the "first" for Apple Watch? Will it be April 10, when customers can first see the product and preorder, or April 24, when they can actually buy or take delivery on one? The interest in Apple Watch might be fairly gaged on the weekend of April 10, based on in-store activity, but we won't have any good reason to guess at how many were preordered until two weeks later. Apple is also discouraging walk-in buyers on April 24, which should mitigate the "camp out" affect.
No. I just have good taste. And no one with good taste is going to be wearing some weird armband watch. Wearables are not the future. They are a blip on our way to implants and embedded technology. Cyborg future awaits. Singularity is near.
So the 20 people you work with dont want the Watch (for now) and you conclude the Watch wont be a hit. That's some impressive statistically sampling there son.
That isn't what I said at all, "son".A number of reviewers -- e.g., Farhad Manjoo in the NYT -- have said the same thing.
So, what is the 'killer app' that made the iPhone take off? The iPad?
I think Steve Job said this in one of his keynotes, the killer app was the ability to make phone calls