Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Watch 3

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 349 posts

Re: Apple Watch 3

#231

Post by FussyZeus »

make3 wrote: post #225
malyk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone is how you configure, update, etc. the watch. So I'm betting you need a phone for all the initial setup, and then you can leave your phone at home and go on a marathon run and take phone calls while you are out and about.

why couldn't you do that with a computer or an ipad, or an older iphone? ofc you could. Just Apple being really greedy, as we are getting used to

Based on how Apple tells us to develop the apps, you have to do anything bigger than a bread box on the phone. The obvious reason is battery life; every CPU cycle spent doing something in the watch that could be done in the phone is waste. Less waste = better battery life.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#232

Post by FussyZeus »

kitotik wrote: post #193
protomyth wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think some folks were hoping they could use the Watch without owning an iPhone. In other words, as a cell phone replacement. This line dashes those hopes.

My hopes are definitely dashed! I had visions of never buying another iPhone again and just using a watch, iPad, and laptop. Much like the iPod and iPhone were tethered to iTunes and then later gained autonomy, I’m hoping they’ll get there with the watch in just a couple iterations.

The thing is, that would be an investment that would ultimately cost Apple business (or at least has the potential to) so I don't see it happening.

They'd effectively be expending resources to make it possible for people who want a Watch to not use an iPhone. Doesn't add up in my head why they'd do that (though I'm with you, I'd much rather just have my iPad).

Re: Apple Watch 3

#233

Post by URSpider94 »

christinamltn wrote: post #131
URSpider94 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't tell 100%, but it looks as if you will still need a companion iPhone as the "master" device. So, you won't be able to use the watch as a stand-alone phone.

They explicitly said you could leave your phone at home while running errands and not worry about being out of reach. You need a phone for the cellular plan but not to use the watch as a phone.

What I mean is, you won't be able to buy an Apple Watch as your one and only mobile device. You will need to own an IPhone with an active line of service, at least to provision the Apple Watch - after that, you might be able to stuff it into a drawer and only use the watch ...

Re: Apple Watch 3

#234

Post by [deleted] »

valuearb wrote: post #224
Alex3917 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're trying to do UT1 (70%-80% of max HR) training and instead you're doing UT2 (55%-70%) or AT (80%-85%), then you're not going to get the benefits you were going for. Further, the only way you can accurately measure your rate of improvement is by comparing average watts across time at a fixed HR. So if your HR isn't at your target level then not only are you not going to be making progress at an acceptable rat…

Your assuming that your other measurement devices don't have any significant error rates. And that the gobblygook of UT1, UT2, etc, is actually meaningful.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Watch 3

#235

Post by Alex3917 »

zaroth wrote: post #214
Alex3917 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're trying to do UT1 (70%-80% of max HR) training and instead you're doing UT2 (55%-70%) or AT (80%-85%), then you're not going to get the benefits you were going for. Further, the only way you can accurately measure your rate of improvement is by comparing average watts across time at a fixed HR. So if your HR isn't at your target level then not only are you not going to be making progress at an acceptable rat…

Agree with everything you said. But if you're running for 90 minutes let's say, checking in on the last 1 minute average heart rate should be quite sufficient to set your pace. And I certainly expect the app would easily be able to show you average watts vs heart rate over time. Given weight, height, pace via GPS, and heart rate for every run you could definitely do the necessary analytics.

The watch isn't showing you the one-minute average though, it's showing the instantaneous value but the researchers averaged it for the purpose of the study.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#236

Post by URSpider94 »

BoorishBears wrote: post #212
christinamltn wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They explicitly said you could leave your phone at home while running errands and not worry about being out of reach. You need a phone for the cellular plan but not to use the watch as a phone.

You can already do that to a degree for the record. I left my phone at home accidentally the other day, it wasn't until the work day was over and I tried to remote start my car that I realized, since almost every feature I use worked over WiFi (the remote start checks for the phone's presence)

Yup, the watch piggybacks on WiFi authentication from the phone. Once you store the SSID and PSK for a network on your phone, the watch can log in independently, and you can take/make phone calls and SMS. I've done this when I left the phone at home by accident.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#237

Post by zaroth »

Alex3917 wrote: post #235
zaroth wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree with everything you said. But if you're running for 90 minutes let's say, checking in on the last 1 minute average heart rate should be quite sufficient to set your pace. And I certainly expect the app would easily be able to show you average watts vs heart rate over time. Given weight, height, pace via GPS, and heart rate for every run you could definitely do the necessary analytics.

The watch isn't showing you the one-minute average though, it's showing the instantaneous value but the researchers averaged it for the purpose of the study.

Sounds like a pretty easy software fix for a running app. Which means it must already exist, right?

Re: Apple Watch 3

#238

Post by jmull »

mikestew wrote: post #192
bpicolo wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but I think it a safe assumption that it would be what a single mobile phone line would cost Tmobile charged me $10 for an iPad sim with it's own phone number. I can't imagine it'll be a huge new cost. It seems pretty much exactly like an iPad, except they don't even need an extra number

Yeah, but an iPad is just data. Now, arguably voice is just data these days, too. But somehow I just don’t see making calls on an Apple Watch for $10/month. Because if I can, I’m ditching the iPhone and the Garmin Felix and buying an Apple Watch.

The LTE Apple Watch still has to be linked to an iPhone. You could leave it at home, but you still need one. I assume that means you need an active service plan for it too. So that $10/mo would be in addition to your iPhone service. Kinda steep, I think.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#239

Post by knodi »

bobsil1 wrote: post #230
make3 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why couldn't you do that with a computer or an ipad, or an older iphone? ofc you could. Just Apple being really greedy, as we are getting used to

Mobile is the new PC. Config on the dominant platform is simplest.

Only what will android people do for their bad choices in life.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#240

Post by cschep »

valuearb wrote: post #223
malyk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone is how you configure, update, etc. the watch. So I'm betting you need a phone for all the initial setup, and then you can leave your phone at home and go on a marathon run and take phone calls while you are out and about.

I have an iPad. If I get this watch why do I need an iPhone too?

your ipad doesn't have a phone number :)
Post reply on HN