So now it's released, can anyone explain me what the watch offers except being an extension/second screen for the iPhone?
I'm not that familiar with it's specific functions so I'm sure others can explain better and should feel free to add, but it strikes me that it's far more than a second screen or extension of the iPhone. It's really an extension of the whole Apple ecosystem much in the way the iPad is more than a second screen/ extension of the iPhone or Mac. The form factor pushes it to a different niche—it's always there and able to alert/inform you and very subtly, which is very new and different.
Consider it an additional node in the net with a closer connection to the user—like an iPad for the body. I honestly think it will become most importantly a body monitoring device that also happens to helps you with your other devices.
Others can better explain specifically how it works with the iPhone in general.
Nowhere. I was responding to the post which claimed that nobody else has done this before, which isn't true.
Did the watchmakers that you are referring to create DIGITAL crowns for use on an electronic device which can be coded to perform a variety of tasks by those that made it?
Did the watchmakers that you are referring to create DIGITAL crowns for use on an electronic device which can be coded to perform a variety of tasks by those that made it?
The watchmakers had their own digital crowns which controlled everything on the watch. Obviously, 15-20 years ago that meant adjusting things like alarms, stopwatch, countdown timer, date/time, world-clocks, etc. In a modern smart watch, the digital crown is able to control more things because the watch itself can do more things.
What I'm saying is that in terms of the idea of using a digital crown to control watch functions, there is no innovation here from Apple. It's simply an evolution of the digital crowns which existed years ago, applied to modern smart watch technology.
The watchmakers had their own digital crowns which controlled everything on the watch. Obviously, 15-20 years ago that meant adjusting things like alarms, stopwatch, countdown timer, date/time, world-clocks, etc. In a modern smart watch, the digital crown is able to control more things because the watch itself can do more things.
What I'm saying is that in terms of the idea of using a digital crown to control watch functions, there is no innovation here from Apple. It's simply an evolution of the digital crowns which existed years ago, applied to modern smart watch technology.
That's a pretty strong statement. I think you're massively oversimplifying what Apple has achieved.
Have you actually used the digital crown yourself?
That's a pretty strong statement. I think you're massively oversimplifying what Apple has achieved.
Have you actually used the digital crown yourself?
"That's a pretty strong statement."
Only if taken out of context, like you just did. But when taken in context, it's actually a fact. Digital crowns existed years ago and controlled all the watch functions which were available at that time (as previously mentioned). They could be pulled, pushed, rotated, double-clicked, long-held, etc. Even the speed of the rotation made a difference to the function. The point is this - the idea of a digital crown to control watch functions was successfully implemented years ago, therefore using the same idea in a modern smart watch isn't innovation - it's evolution.
"I think you're massively oversimplifying what Apple has achieved."
I could equally argue that you are massively over-exaggerating what Apple has achieved.
"Have you actually used the digital crown yourself?"
I have used a variety of digital crowns. Have you used any other digital crowns other than Apple's?
I have used a variety of digital crowns. Have you used any other digital crowns other than Apple's?
It's a fact that it's your opinion.
However, I have used a few digital crowns from the time that you're referring to. I have also used the version that Apple has on the Apple Watch. I believe what Apple has achieved, with the use of modern technology, is considerably more impressive than what I remember on the older watches.
To compare the two of them, especially if you haven't actually used one of them, is like comparing old MP3 players with iPods, dumb phones with the iPhone, old tablets with iPads, and the laptops of old with the new MacBook. It may look the same to an unperceptive eye but it is not. And to say there is no innovation is just plain wrong.
However, I have used a few digital crowns from the time that you're referring to. I have also used the version that Apple has on the Apple Watch. I believe what Apple has achieved, with the use of modern technology, is considerably more impressive than what I remember on the older watches.
To compare the two of them, especially if you haven't actually used one of them, is like comparing old MP3 players with iPods, dumb phones with the iPhone, old tablets with iPads, and the laptops of old with the new MacBook. It may look the same to an unperceptive eye but it is not. And to say there is no innovation is just plain wrong.
Go try it out for yourself.
You are basing your argument around the capabilities of the watch itself. Sure, the modern technology is impressive, but it's the capabilities of modern smart watch technology itself which allows a digital crown to be more impressive than on previous generations of non-smart-watches.
There is no innovation in the idea itself. It's an old concept successfully implemented years ago, which has been applied to a modern smart watch, and therefore benefits from being able to do more advanced things.
The watchmakers had their own digital crowns which controlled everything on the watch. Obviously, 15-20 years ago that meant adjusting things like alarms, stopwatch, countdown timer, date/time, world-clocks, etc. In a modern smart watch, the digital crown is able to control more things because the watch itself can do more things.
What I'm saying is that in terms of the idea of using a digital crown to control watch functions, there is no innovation here from Apple. It's simply an evolution of the digital crowns which existed years ago, applied to modern smart watch technology.
But as far as I understand to innovate is to make better not to invent. And Apple is really good at taking old inventions and making them usefull.
In that case, everyone innovates. Microsoft, Google, Apple - they all innovate. Some smart watches are more innovative than Apple's because they have better features and better looks. Although looks are clearly a matter of taste, I personally think that Apple's watch is ugly in comparison to LG's. I personally wouldn't buy any current smart-watch, at least not until the battery can last at least a month without charging, because short battery life is clearly not innovative when compared with classic watches.
But as far as I understand to innovate is to make better not to invent. And Apple is really good at taking old inventions and making them usefull.
Innovation is a new idea, or method of which the digital crown on the Watch is neither. The touchscreen on the iPhone wasn't innovative, but what was innovative was making it a capacitive multi-touch screen which introduced a new method to interact with the screen.
In that case, everyone innovates. Microsoft, Google, Apple - they all innovate. Some smart watches are more innovative than Apple's because they have better features and better looks. Although looks are clearly a matter of taste, I personally think that Apple's watch is ugly in comparison to LG's. I personally wouldn't buy any current smart-watch, at least not until the battery can last at least a month without charging, because short battery life is clearly not innovative when compared with classic watches.
Nice find BTW!
So personal tastes define innovation? What's innovative about a smart watch that desperately tries to immitate a traditional watch in the looks department? If I want something that looks just like a traditional watch, I'll buy a traditional watch. And obviously a device that has way mote capabilities and functionality than a device that just tells time isn't going to have the same kind of battery life. People that want this kind of functionality on their wrist will make this trade off. Others who prioritize battery life over all else, won't.
So now it's released, can anyone explain me what the watch offers except being an extension/second screen for the iPhone?
Does your car have steering wheel-mounted controls for the audio system, A/C, or bluetooth call answering? Do you own any headphones with in-line controls for music playback? If so, do you consider these useless given that the same controls are available just inches away on your dashboard and in your pocket?
The watchmakers had their own digital crowns which controlled everything on the watch. Obviously, 15-20 years ago that meant adjusting things like alarms, stopwatch, countdown timer, date/time, world-clocks, etc. In a modern smart watch, the digital crown is able to control more things because the watch itself can do more things.
What I'm saying is that in terms of the idea of using a digital crown to control watch functions, there is no innovation here from Apple. It's simply an evolution of the digital crowns which existed years ago, applied to modern smart watch technology.
Can you cite any such commercially available watches that featured a digital crown? Link perhaps?
You are basing your argument around the capabilities of the watch itself. Sure, the modern technology is impressive, but it's the capabilities of modern smart watch technology itself which allows a digital crown to be more impressive than on previous generations of non-smart-watches.
There is no innovation in the idea itself. It's an old concept successfully implemented years ago, which has been applied to a modern smart watch, and therefore benefits from being able to do more advanced things.
By your reasoning there hasn't been any innovation in centuries.
Can you cite any such watches that featured a digital crown? Link perhaps?
This is the lamest series of exchanges [Gtr take note :-) ] There is no doubt he's correct about the use of very similar digital crowns more than 15 years ago. The idea is an old one. I remember it on an $18k all digital high end watch one of my deign profs had. The apple watch hardware is 15 years better, but essentially the same. What it controls is far different and very much improved (the older watch just told the time etc.)
Comments
how long until samsung copies it?
I'm not that familiar with it's specific functions so I'm sure others can explain better and should feel free to add, but it strikes me that it's far more than a second screen or extension of the iPhone. It's really an extension of the whole Apple ecosystem much in the way the iPad is more than a second screen/ extension of the iPhone or Mac. The form factor pushes it to a different niche—it's always there and able to alert/inform you and very subtly, which is very new and different.
Consider it an additional node in the net with a closer connection to the user—like an iPad for the body. I honestly think it will become most importantly a body monitoring device that also happens to helps you with your other devices.
Others can better explain specifically how it works with the iPhone in general.
Nowhere. I was responding to the post which claimed that nobody else has done this before, which isn't true.
Nowhere. I was responding to the post which claimed that nobody else has done this before, which isn't true.
Did the watchmakers that you are referring to create DIGITAL crowns for use on an electronic device which can be coded to perform a variety of tasks by those that made it?
Did the watchmakers that you are referring to create DIGITAL crowns for use on an electronic device which can be coded to perform a variety of tasks by those that made it?
The watchmakers had their own digital crowns which controlled everything on the watch. Obviously, 15-20 years ago that meant adjusting things like alarms, stopwatch, countdown timer, date/time, world-clocks, etc. In a modern smart watch, the digital crown is able to control more things because the watch itself can do more things.
What I'm saying is that in terms of the idea of using a digital crown to control watch functions, there is no innovation here from Apple. It's simply an evolution of the digital crowns which existed years ago, applied to modern smart watch technology.
That's a pretty strong statement. I think you're massively oversimplifying what Apple has achieved.
Have you actually used the digital crown yourself?
That's a pretty strong statement. I think you're massively oversimplifying what Apple has achieved.
Have you actually used the digital crown yourself?
"That's a pretty strong statement."
Only if taken out of context, like you just did. But when taken in context, it's actually a fact. Digital crowns existed years ago and controlled all the watch functions which were available at that time (as previously mentioned). They could be pulled, pushed, rotated, double-clicked, long-held, etc. Even the speed of the rotation made a difference to the function. The point is this - the idea of a digital crown to control watch functions was successfully implemented years ago, therefore using the same idea in a modern smart watch isn't innovation - it's evolution.
"I think you're massively oversimplifying what Apple has achieved."
I could equally argue that you are massively over-exaggerating what Apple has achieved.
"Have you actually used the digital crown yourself?"
I have used a variety of digital crowns. Have you used any other digital crowns other than Apple's?
"...it's actually a fact."
I have used a variety of digital crowns. Have you used any other digital crowns other than Apple's?
It's a fact that it's your opinion.
However, I have used a few digital crowns from the time that you're referring to. I have also used the version that Apple has on the Apple Watch. I believe what Apple has achieved, with the use of modern technology, is considerably more impressive than what I remember on the older watches.
To compare the two of them, especially if you haven't actually used one of them, is like comparing old MP3 players with iPods, dumb phones with the iPhone, old tablets with iPads, and the laptops of old with the new MacBook. It may look the same to an unperceptive eye but it is not. And to say there is no innovation is just plain wrong.
Go try it out for yourself.
It's a fact that it's your opinion.
However, I have used a few digital crowns from the time that you're referring to. I have also used the version that Apple has on the Apple Watch. I believe what Apple has achieved, with the use of modern technology, is considerably more impressive than what I remember on the older watches.
To compare the two of them, especially if you haven't actually used one of them, is like comparing old MP3 players with iPods, dumb phones with the iPhone, old tablets with iPads, and the laptops of old with the new MacBook. It may look the same to an unperceptive eye but it is not. And to say there is no innovation is just plain wrong.
Go try it out for yourself.
You are basing your argument around the capabilities of the watch itself. Sure, the modern technology is impressive, but it's the capabilities of modern smart watch technology itself which allows a digital crown to be more impressive than on previous generations of non-smart-watches.
There is no innovation in the idea itself. It's an old concept successfully implemented years ago, which has been applied to a modern smart watch, and therefore benefits from being able to do more advanced things.
You are basing your argument around the capabilities of the watch itself.
You're basing your argument ON A DEVICE YOU HAVEN'T EVEN USED.
Get back to us when you're ready to stop talking theoretically.
Your correct Apple is not the first to use a digital crown
http://iphoneroot.com/ibm-created-smartwatch-with-digital-crown-long-before-apple/
But as far as I understand to innovate is to make better not to invent. And Apple is really good at taking old inventions and making them usefull.
Your correct Apple is not the first to use a digital crown
http://iphoneroot.com/ibm-created-smartwatch-with-digital-crown-long-before-apple/
But as far as I understand to innovate is to make better not to invent. And Apple is really good at taking old inventions and making them usefull.
In that case, everyone innovates. Microsoft, Google, Apple - they all innovate. Some smart watches are more innovative than Apple's because they have better features and better looks. Although looks are clearly a matter of taste, I personally think that Apple's watch is ugly in comparison to LG's. I personally wouldn't buy any current smart-watch, at least not until the battery can last at least a month without charging, because short battery life is clearly not innovative when compared with classic watches.
Nice find BTW!
Innovation is a new idea, or method of which the digital crown on the Watch is neither. The touchscreen on the iPhone wasn't innovative, but what was innovative was making it a capacitive multi-touch screen which introduced a new method to interact with the screen.
So personal tastes define innovation? What's innovative about a smart watch that desperately tries to immitate a traditional watch in the looks department? If I want something that looks just like a traditional watch, I'll buy a traditional watch. And obviously a device that has way mote capabilities and functionality than a device that just tells time isn't going to have the same kind of battery life. People that want this kind of functionality on their wrist will make this trade off. Others who prioritize battery life over all else, won't.
So now it's released, can anyone explain me what the watch offers except being an extension/second screen for the iPhone?
Does your car have steering wheel-mounted controls for the audio system, A/C, or bluetooth call answering? Do you own any headphones with in-line controls for music playback? If so, do you consider these useless given that the same controls are available just inches away on your dashboard and in your pocket?
The watchmakers had their own digital crowns which controlled everything on the watch. Obviously, 15-20 years ago that meant adjusting things like alarms, stopwatch, countdown timer, date/time, world-clocks, etc. In a modern smart watch, the digital crown is able to control more things because the watch itself can do more things.
What I'm saying is that in terms of the idea of using a digital crown to control watch functions, there is no innovation here from Apple. It's simply an evolution of the digital crowns which existed years ago, applied to modern smart watch technology.
Can you cite any such commercially available watches that featured a digital crown? Link perhaps?
You are basing your argument around the capabilities of the watch itself. Sure, the modern technology is impressive, but it's the capabilities of modern smart watch technology itself which allows a digital crown to be more impressive than on previous generations of non-smart-watches.
There is no innovation in the idea itself. It's an old concept successfully implemented years ago, which has been applied to a modern smart watch, and therefore benefits from being able to do more advanced things.
By your reasoning there hasn't been any innovation in centuries.