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

The Apple Watch

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 300 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#11

Post by jonhester »

reubenmorais wrote: post #8

This is a very interesting article, and I like how it's written in the perspective of a functional watch user instead of being about fashion or watch collecting. I couldn't help but laugh at this part: > Also, though it sounds trivial, I enjoy the perfect 60 FPS smoothness of Apple Watch’s second hand — a smoothness no mechanical watch could ever match. Isn't a mechanical watch hand ∞ FPS by definition? Real life has…

Mechanical watches, think Rolexes, have smooth second hand movements but they are acutally still ticking, just about 6 times a second. The Apple Watch, on the other hand, has a second hand with 60 ticks per second so that the second hand is about 10 times smoother.

Re: The Apple Watch

#12

Post by 13 »

reubenmorais wrote: post #8

This is a very interesting article, and I like how it's written in the perspective of a functional watch user instead of being about fashion or watch collecting. I couldn't help but laugh at this part: > Also, though it sounds trivial, I enjoy the perfect 60 FPS smoothness of Apple Watch’s second hand — a smoothness no mechanical watch could ever match. Isn't a mechanical watch hand ∞ FPS by definition? Real life has…

I'm not so sure about that, 60fps means that every single rotation of a second hand has 3600 individual steps; does a mechanical watch with a sweep second hand have that much precision? I'm inclined to think not, even from the perspective of backlash the digital version is going to appear significantly smoother to the eye.

Re: The Apple Watch

#13

Post by EA »

“You’ll still be able to do with Apple Watch what you do with your current watch: tell the time (and if you want, the date) at a glance and trust that it’s accurate.”

...if you return your watch to a charging station daily.

He goes on:

That said, compared to a traditional watch, daily charging is terrible.

Before entering into the smartphone market, I charged my cellphone less than 100 times per year. Now, I have to charge my smartphone at least once a day. It's a tax on my lifestyle that I don't mind paying.

I hated the daily charging of my smartphone at first. Now, I plan my day and commutes with respect to a battery to ensure I have enough charge for me to interweave the technology in my pocket with my experiencing of the analog world.

I suspect I and others will make the same allowance for a smart watch and the Apple Watch will be a very profitable device for Apple.

Re: The Apple Watch

#14

Post by tjl »

wglb wrote: post #4
EGreg wrote: post #2

How does this guy always nail his articles? I think he's the only one I've ever heard of who gets paid so much to write blog articles.

From what I can tell, his income is from advertising on his blog site.

As far as I can tell, he makes money from three sources. First, is the single ad on the from The Deck on his site. Second, he sells sponsorships for his RSS feed. Lastly, he makes money from ads on his podcast. So, it's not just his site. I think he makes more money from the RSS feed sponsorships than he does for the Deck ad, though.

Re: The Apple Watch

#15

Post by [deleted] »

reubenmorais wrote: post #8

This is a very interesting article, and I like how it's written in the perspective of a functional watch user instead of being about fashion or watch collecting. I couldn't help but laugh at this part: > Also, though it sounds trivial, I enjoy the perfect 60 FPS smoothness of Apple Watch’s second hand — a smoothness no mechanical watch could ever match. Isn't a mechanical watch hand ∞ FPS by definition? Real life has…

[deleted]

Re: The Apple Watch

#16

Post by sebnukem2 »

If I had to choose between a dumb watch that never needs recharging (like my Citizen Eco-Drive) and a "smart" watch that doesn't even last a full day, I'd choose the dumb watch.

Who the hell think that a watch that can't even function a day is an acceptable product? This just blows my mind. And yet, I'm pretty sure they are going to sell millions of them. I wouldn't want one if it was free.

Re: The Apple Watch

#17

Post by mikeash »

EA wrote: post #13

“You’ll still be able to do with Apple Watch what you do with your current watch: tell the time (and if you want, the date) at a glance and trust that it’s accurate.” ...if you return your watch to a charging station daily. He goes on: That said, compared to a traditional watch, daily charging is terrible. Before entering into the smartphone market, I charged my cellphone less than 100 times per year. Now, I have to…

I never quite understood the complaints about smartphones not having a multi-day battery life. As long as it makes it from morning to bedtime and charges to 100% overnight, what's the problem? Obviously if it can't make it to bedtime on one charge, that's a problem, but nightly charging makes no real difference. I imagine the watch will be similar. A one-day battery life for a watch is kind of absurd, but it doesn't seem like it'll matter.

One exception to this is people who just never take their watch off. I did this for a couple of years. Having to charge it every night would have been a problem then. I don't know that people do this in large enough numbers to be significant though.

Re: The Apple Watch

#18

Post by ryandvm »

EGreg wrote: post #2

How does this guy always nail his articles? I think he's the only one I've ever heard of who gets paid so much to write blog articles.

Gruber has perfected the art of knowing your audience - and his audience is people who are neck deep in the Apple ecosystem. His writing is practically a prescription for managing post-purchase cognitive dissonance for Apple consumers.

I think he's an excellent writer but let's be honest, he doesn't really "review" Apple products any more than their marketing department. Apple could re-introduce the Newton and Gruber would be writing about it's "elegant simplicity" and "thoughtful processing".

I'm sure the Apple Watch is neat tech, but from what I've gathered, it's suffering from "version one syndrome" a little more than most of their product launches. That said, it will probably be a wild success anyway if only because it's an even more conspicuous consumption signal than the iPhone...

Re: The Apple Watch

#19

Post by sz4kerto »

reubenmorais wrote: post #8

This is a very interesting article, and I like how it's written in the perspective of a functional watch user instead of being about fashion or watch collecting. I couldn't help but laugh at this part: > Also, though it sounds trivial, I enjoy the perfect 60 FPS smoothness of Apple Watch’s second hand — a smoothness no mechanical watch could ever match. Isn't a mechanical watch hand ∞ FPS by definition? Real life has…

The guy has probably never heard of the Seiko Spring Drive, where the hands are moved by a spring and regulated by a brake. Therefore they're completely smooth.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsBTXgksr4s

Re: The Apple Watch

#20

Post by Touche »

EA wrote: post #13

“You’ll still be able to do with Apple Watch what you do with your current watch: tell the time (and if you want, the date) at a glance and trust that it’s accurate.” ...if you return your watch to a charging station daily. He goes on: That said, compared to a traditional watch, daily charging is terrible. Before entering into the smartphone market, I charged my cellphone less than 100 times per year. Now, I have to…

> I suspect I and others will make the same allowance for a smart watch and the Apple Watch will be a very profitable device for Apple.

I'm still skeptical, the smartphone provided a tremendous advantage, namely that you had the internet with you, always. That made it easy to get over the tradeoffs. I'm still unconvinced that the tradeoffs a smart watch has will be compensated.

Post reply on HN