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

The Apple Watch

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#101

Post by Shivetya »

thomasahle wrote: post #20

The Apple fans [1] impress me with their non-fanaticism on this one. If this is a general trend across religions, I like where we are heading. Props! Apple watch certainly has qualities though. It's exciting to see how the market will develop now that all parties have opened their cards. [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/2fxe2t/its_hideous/?s...

it is just so, square.

I guess my problem is that they kept it like a watch instead of a new device and it likely constrained their innovation.

I had seen some band designs, even the MOTO 360 did "if it has to look like a watch" better. Don't get me started on Apple's bling look that started with that Gold iPhone. Its as bad as gold emblems on low end cars, all we need now is gothic/roman lettering

Re: The Apple Watch

#102

Post by grey-area »

rebel wrote: post #30

Am I the only one who thinks the available/previewed watch faces don't match the intended goal of the device? This event was all about fashion, inviting all of the fashion journalists and talking about personalization. Not a single one of those watch faces look appealing, and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I think the design has potential when it gets a little bit…

You're not the only one; they look terrible. If they wanted to eschew the traditional watch function and show other detail on there that would be understandable, but to have half-hearted attempts at clock design like this as a central feature is inexplicable in an expensive accessory branded as a watch. Worst of all are the faces with an image (presumably user supplied) with the time carelessly plonked over the top right.

What I find most telling of the abdication of design here though is that they offer so many options and seem to expect you to choose what goes on your home and mash up lots of different features in some sort of customised design - sounds great, but in practice you'll have just enough choice to do something mediocre, and not enough flexibility to do something you love, unless you're a developer and can make an app.

This sort of interface needs to be designed, and this is something Apple should have absolutely nailed on something they called the Apple Watch, not left as an afterthought.

Re: The Apple Watch

#103

Post by bryanlarsen »

kreutz wrote: post #46
Zikes wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top three right now are: * Samsung Gear - $199 [1] * LG G Watch - $179 [2] * Pebble Steel - $249 [3] [1] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=samsung_gea... [2] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=lg_g_watch_... [3] https://getpebble.com/steel

The Pebble is $250. Adding another $100 to the Apple Watch is not that big of a stretch.

The basic Pebble is $150. The premium Pebble Steel is $250. The Apple Watch starts at $350; you can bet that the premium models will be well north of that.

Re: The Apple Watch

#104

Post by dwild »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #67
georgemcbay wrote: post #29

Who would have thunk that of all the end-of-2014 smartwatches, the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola? Shame about the battery life, though. Please fix that Motorola, I want to give you my money so bad, but cannot do it until you fix the battery life.

I feel like the next gen Moto watch will have the better SoC, much better battery life (as many Android watches already have) and higher resolution. And maybe more sensors. And hopefully match some of Apple's innovations. I think I'm about a year from being able to join the bandwagon.

Which Apple's innovations?

Re: The Apple Watch

#105

Post by unclebunkers »

3pt14159 wrote: post #55

Super disappointed with this. I was hoping for a bunch of sensors that fed my iPhone. Not something to discretely take meetings during a meeting. Here is what is missing for me: 1. Sweat sensor. 2. Insulin sensor. 3. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently automatically detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! My iPhone should auto update a fitne…

>> For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that!

Exactly how do you propose this would work?

You are disappointed by diabetic specific monitors, the lack of an app that I'm sure someone will create someday, and something that physics will likely never be able to solve. I think it's safe to say that your expectations started in the realm of fantasy. Innovation can't ignore reality.

Re: The Apple Watch

#106

Post by stock_toaster »

huuu wrote: post #84
stock_toaster wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. Insulin sensor. How would it detect/monitor insulin levels? Have a needle on the back?

http://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-... Does Google put a needle in there contact lens? Don't think so... ;)

1. That appears to still be at the prototype stage (as of that post in Jan?).

2. It goes right on your freakin' eye, and apparently measures your tears.

So.. I guess if you strapped a watch to your eye it might work?

Re: The Apple Watch

#107

Post by bobochan »

antr wrote: post #68

My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS. A sports watch without GPS, IMHO is a no go at $350. For (I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance). *Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.

Exactly. I put off buying a GPS watch because I wanted to see what Apple was going to offer. Answer: Nothing.

I really cannot imagine a more useless product than this watch. It requires an iPhone and seems to essentially serve as a small, remote interface for your phone. And how do I navigate that small interface? With an even smaller "digital crown." I hate trying to set the time on my watch, and now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?

Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that.

The only argument for this watch is that it might be helpful for those times when pulling out your phone is just too onerous. I regret that I do not have the type of lifestyle where that is a serious limitation.

Re: The Apple Watch

#108

Post by silentscope »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #57
rebel wrote: post #30

Am I the only one who thinks the available/previewed watch faces don't match the intended goal of the device? This event was all about fashion, inviting all of the fashion journalists and talking about personalization. Not a single one of those watch faces look appealing, and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I think the design has potential when it gets a little bit…

> and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I disagree with you on this. For me, this smartwatch, like all the other recent ones, is everything but geeky . They look like they're designed for everyone except the techies (they probably are). I for one would love a smartwatch that gives the vibe of advanced, "hackery" technology.

> is everything but geeky

I'm a nerd, and I'm sorry to be crude but NERD ALERT. A smart watch today starts at Geeky and works, laboring and awkwardly, towards generally acceptable.

If you think a smart watch by any manufacturer, at this early point, is everything but geeky you gotta get out of the office.

Re: The Apple Watch

#109

Post by pingec »

ebbv wrote: post #40

The fact that this requires me to bring my iPhone on a run kills it as a sport watch. I can get a high quality GPS watch for $150 that doesn't require me to bring my iPhone. Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it. Dumb, dumb move on Apple's part.

Perhaps the sport version will be iphone-independent at least that's what I'd assume...

Re: The Apple Watch

#110

Post by scj »

I wear a watch, but I think about it as jewelry, and incidentally as a time piece. And until there is a killer app for a watch, I will continue to do so.

Originally, I posed myself the question _if_ I would wear a smartwatch if there is no such thing as a killer app. The answer is yes, but _when_ is a better question. And the partial answer isn't about it being a smartwatch or dumbwatch, but about being an uglywatch or not.

I think this watch fails the uglywatch criteria. Which is an odd thought to combine with Apple.

Post reply on HN