Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch • Hacker News Board

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#11

Post by dan1234 » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 3:42 PM UTC

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

Nearly 69,000 backed the Pebble[0] on Kickstarter so there definitely seems to be a market.

[0]http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/597507018/pebble-e-paper...

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#12

Post by rayiner » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 3:58 PM UTC

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

I wear a watch, but as a fashion accessory. Which is of course why Apple isn't going to make a watch.

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#13

Post by cydonian_monk » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 3:59 PM UTC

benesch wrote: post #5

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

I'd actually be quite interested in purchasing one of these. To address your points: > Who still wears a watch? I do. (I'm young, too.) It's nice to be able to tell time by glancing at your wrist rather than fishing through your pockets for your cell phone. Especially if you're at a meeting that's dragging on—you can surreptitiously glance at a watch without being rude; it's significantly more obvious when you pull o…

I wore a watch up until my last year of college (2002-2003). Don't remember why I stopped wearing it (didn't have a cellphone until 2 years later), just that I did. Never once did I have to change batteries "every few months." One of the more advanced watches/stop watches/gizmos I wore lasted six YEARS on one battery. Sure, I didn't sleep with my watch on (at least not intentionally), but the idea of needing to charge it every night? And probably replace it outright after two years because it's a sealed device and the battery can't be replaced? ? That seems wacko.

But I'll admit (slightly off from my first post) there's an obvious market, and that yes - plenty of folks do still wear watches. This whole thing just seems odd.

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#14

Post by bayerian » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 4:00 PM UTC

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

You're right, of course, it isn't a watch. It's a tiny computer strapped to your wrist. Unfortunately few people want to buy a device described as such so it makes more sense to market it as something people can vaguely remember using.

As for the power issue people used to wind their watch every day. Alternately, if they gave it a low enough power screen (like Pebble[1] or something) they might be able to charge it from the motion of the users wrist.

[1] Yes I know pebble uses an e-ink screen and Apple is unlikely to follow suit.

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#15

Post by mpgoetz » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 4:05 PM UTC

I also wear a watch in the form of the Nike Fuelband. It sleeps when I'm not actively looking at it, so the battery lasts several days. The clasp is also a USB connector, so it just plugs into my laptop when the battery gets low. 30 minutes later and im good for another few days.

I also frequently get complements on it because it looks like a sleek wristband until the LEDs light up.

I would love to see more wearable accessories go this route and conserve power until I actively look at or wake up the device.

If someone added streaming music or mp3 functionality that could pipe music to a Bluetooth headset, that would be something I would definitely pay money for.

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#16

Post by MattRogish » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 4:06 PM UTC

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

I stopped wearing a watch when cellphones were able to send/receive text messages. For me, a watch is too low-tech compared to all the things I surround myself with (iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, etc.). All it can do is tell time?

I've been longing for a bluetooth (or similar) watch that had deep iPhone integration, looked stylish, and wasn't too expensive. The ones I've been able to find can't match all three.

I'd love:

* tell me what song is playing, allow me to change tracks

* show me the text message I just received

* show me who is calling me, with a button to ignore / send canned response

That said, I always thought the watch market was pretty small. It seems an odd thing that Apple would even be considering it.

But, apparently it's a $46B global market: http://www.prweb.com/releases/watches/clocks/prweb8358884.ht...

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#17

Post by cydonian_monk » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 4:13 PM UTC

bayerian wrote: post #14

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

You're right, of course, it isn't a watch. It's a tiny computer strapped to your wrist. Unfortunately few people want to buy a device described as such so it makes more sense to market it as something people can vaguely remember using. As for the power issue people used to wind their watch every day. Alternately, if they gave it a low enough power screen (like Pebble[1] or something) they might be able to charge it f…

People /used to/ wind their watches every day. I remember having one for years as a kid. Then we invented the battery-powered watch because we realized winding a watch and setting the time every day was a royal pain.

I'd actually be thrilled if Apple started using eInk screens in things, especially something like the iPad Mini. I know they won't too, but if this device is anything like the latest iPod Nano, it /might/ get a few days on one battery charge. Assuming it's real to begin with.

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#18

Post by cydonian_monk » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 4:16 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #4

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

Seems like a semantic point more than anything. Would you really call the device I am transmitting this comment from a phone?

Well, no. And to be fully pedantic, a watch, even a mechanical one, is a miniature computer.

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#19

Post by benesch » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 4:21 PM UTC

cydonian_monk wrote: post #13

benesch wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually be quite interested in purchasing one of these. To address your points: > Who still wears a watch? I do. (I'm young, too.) It's nice to be able to tell time by glancing at your wrist rather than fishing through your pockets for your cell phone. Especially if you're at a meeting that's dragging on—you can surreptitiously glance at a watch without being rude; it's significantly more obvious when you pull o…

I wore a watch up until my last year of college (2002-2003). Don't remember why I stopped wearing it (didn't have a cellphone until 2 years later), just that I did. Never once did I have to change batteries "every few months." One of the more advanced watches/stop watches/gizmos I wore lasted six YEARS on one battery. Sure, I didn't sleep with my watch on (at least not intentionally), but the idea of needing to charg…

Now that I think about it you're right—it's been every year or two for me. (On a standard Timex Ironman.)

Re: Rumor: Apple Building Bluetooth Smart Watch

#20

Post by malandrew » Thu, Dec 27, 2012, 4:32 PM UTC

MattRogish wrote: post #16

cydonian_monk wrote: post #2

Really now. I understand there might be some small market for "smart watches," but who, honestly, still wears a watch? And who would want to wear a watch that you will (possibly) have to charge daily? This is a watch in name only. That aside, I can see benefits to connected devices such as this. I'm just not sure I'd call them watches.

I stopped wearing a watch when cellphones were able to send/receive text messages. For me, a watch is too low-tech compared to all the things I surround myself with (iPhone, iPad, MacBook Air, etc.). All it can do is tell time? I've been longing for a bluetooth (or similar) watch that had deep iPhone integration, looked stylish, and wasn't too expensive. The ones I've been able to find can't match all three. I'd love…

I'm curious how that $46B breaks down. It's not like the Apple watch will ever compete with a Rolex, Patek Phillipe, Parmigiani, Frank Muller or Cartier for example. People buy those watches for style and to show off.

Then again, I could totally see some of the high-end watch companies creating exceptionally nice bands for the Apple watch to meet the need for style and showing off.

Whatever they make though, it better be waterproof. A watch that isn't waterproof simply isn't that practical for most people. No one wants to have to fiddle with taking it off their wrist and stuffing it in their pocket at the first sign of rain.