51–60 of 125 posts
Apple's rollout strategy makes sense here. Restrict the number of ways developers can kill the battery, because it's the Watch people will blame, not the poorly engineered apps.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're tattooing it wrong. But seriously, how could Apple not test this?
I have a feeling that the Apple of old would have caught this instantly, when it was largely the boutique brand for creatives. Today's Apple? Not surprising at all.
They've literally always been form-over-function. They may have caught this issue and said "those people can disable this completely optional feature".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're tattooing it wrong. But seriously, how could Apple not test this?
I have a feeling that the Apple of old would have caught this instantly, when it was largely the boutique brand for creatives. Today's Apple? Not surprising at all.
Apparently you can't do a lot of things with it if you have tattoos on your wrist: http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/344b3o/anyone_with_ta...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like standards can be a bit relaxed when you are submitting an app that aligns with Apple's strategy.
I don't think it's that. Perhaps they put the Apple watch release date as the app's release date and they rushed it through at the last minute. Though I really don't see how the first one, with an iPhone app that is just a blank screen, got through.
Apparently you can't do a lot of things with it if you have tattoos on your wrist: http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/344b3o/anyone_with_ta...
You're tattooing it wrong. But seriously, how could Apple not test this?
One thing that I've always imagined but haven't heard much in these discussions is the real potential behind the Apple Watch being the near-magical NFC interactions that could be achieved with its position on the body. For example, paying for groceries, opening locked doors, starting cars, etc. I feel that someone would only need to see a Watch user wave their hand and magically do something once before wanting that…
Every restriction that Apple made makes total sense for the short/medium term. Watch faces need to be impeccably programmed or are likely to dramatically reduce battery life (some of the existing ones use OpenGL). Developers shouldn't be redefining the behaviour of force touch or digital crown before users have had a chance to properly learn them and access to heart rate surely had FDA implications. Tim Cook has stat…
Once we had a watch we discovered tons of bugs that didn't show up before.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Battery life, legal reasons. In time, Apple may change this and allow them. But with exposed functionality, start with a minimum viable product. What you add you can't easily remove.
My Moto 360 lasts all day and has all this functionality and neither Google or Motorola has been sued by anyone. Its weird how people will excuse Apple with made-up assumptions instead of the time-tested "rushed product" conclusion that is more often true than not in the tech industry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like standards can be a bit relaxed when you are submitting an app that aligns with Apple's strategy.
I don't think it's that. Perhaps they put the Apple watch release date as the app's release date and they rushed it through at the last minute. Though I really don't see how the first one, with an iPhone app that is just a blank screen, got through.