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

101–110 of 300 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#101

Post by ickwabe »

bitsoda wrote: post #21

Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids sending each other love taps, scribbles, and heartbeats was poignant. While the Apple Watch isn't for me, I can't begrudge those who decide to buy one. I think back to the late 90s and how I wouldn't have met my wife if not for IMing a screenname a mutual friend of ours passed along to me. The internet, a crappy eMachines desktop, and AIM made this possible. Technically…

My concern on this (connected watches generally) is the upgrade treadmill this might create. So a person would buy a ~$600 iphone + a $400 watch. How often would they upgrade the watch? Lots of folks upgrade phones every year or every other year. Will they do this with a watch? Will they need to? I have a Casio watch that I still wear that's 15 years old. And an old wind up that's 30 years old. I can't imagine that being the case for a smart watch. Apple and android watch makers are gonna want folks to upgrade as frequently as possible. Just seems both wasteful and needlessly expensive at the $400 price point. Consumerism gone a muck as twer.

Re: The Apple Watch

#102

Post by b3b0p »

wmeredith wrote: post #45
bitsoda wrote: post #21

Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids sending each other love taps, scribbles, and heartbeats was poignant. While the Apple Watch isn't for me, I can't begrudge those who decide to buy one. I think back to the late 90s and how I wouldn't have met my wife if not for IMing a screenname a mutual friend of ours passed along to me. The internet, a crappy eMachines desktop, and AIM made this possible. Technically…

Two high school kids each with a $400 watch. It may be poignant[1], but it won't be common. [1]It could also be eye-roll-worthy bourgeois douchebaggery depending on your socio-economic perspective.

Since the iPhone and watch have a tight coupling I wouldn't be surprised to possibly see the iPhone and watch get bundled together in the current subsidized phone carrier services.

Re: The Apple Watch

#103

Post by ctdonath »

"Apple seemingly tries to enter markets at, or just after, that tipping point — when Moore’s Law and Apple’s ever-increasing engineering and manufacturing prowess allow them to produce a gadget-y computer that the computer-y gadgets from the established market leaders cannot compete with."

A recurring event in the advance of technology. I saw it hit hard when Smith Corona's computer-y typewriters couldn't keep up with gadget-y word processing software, and the typewriter died. Likewise when computer-y photography (lots of image processing introduced into developing photos) lost favor with consumers vs gadget-y digital cameras.

"the established market — watches — is not despised. They not only don’t suck, they are beloved. And the best and most-beloved watches aren’t even electronic. They’re purely mechanical — all gadget, no computer."

Yet...all they do is tell time. Elegantly, yes, or cheaply, if you like...but time and little else. Attempts to add computer-y function failed for a decade, succumbing to horrible interfaces and anemic UIs; the author completely overlooks the computer-y phases which watches have gone thru (and failed miserably). That a $5 POS watch tells time more accurately, and with less maintenance, than my elegant $500 Movado or the improbable $500,000 watches seen on http://uncrate.com et al, was setting off warnings that the market was ripe for...something.

Re: The Apple Watch

#104

Post by brandon272 »

freehunter wrote: post #71
brandon272 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thought that popped into my head too. The same kid at a job after college. He screws up so he sequesters himself in the bathroom and has to be coaxed out with the right combination of soothing texts and vibrations. On the other hand, there have always been non-verbal ways to communicate. Note-passing was common when I was in school. Presumably the boy with the crush on the girl who is sending the texts on…

The person in your first example likely has autism. Your average person, no matter how much of an introvert, would never need to be coaxed out of the bathroom with the right combination of texts and vibrations. Normal speech works just fine on even the most introverted people. Introverts of that nature aren't afraid of people talking to them nicely or trying to calm them down, they're afraid of interaction. Being tal…

I was joking about the bathroom example.

Re: The Apple Watch

#105

Post by chipotle_coyote »

bvlaar wrote: post #73
roc wrote: post #61

Designing a 2015 smartwatch to fit the expectations of dumb-watches feels more and more to me like designing a 2007 smartphone to fit the expectations of the blackberry crowd (physical keyboard, removable battery). The digital crown looks like one such mistake. Swipe-to-scroll is so natural, particularly at this point, that moving back to an indirect method of scrolling seems just wrong . And doing so on a device tha…

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of the display being wider. The traditional shape of a watch was that way because of the mechanism inside. Wearables, like the Apple Watch, should do away with the traditional watches form factor constraint. I would like to see these devices progress to more of a band form factor with a wider and curved display to fit the contour of our wrist.

My quasi-educated guess is that Apple figures they have the best shot at wide acceptance -- particularly with the first model -- if it doesn't feel "weird" compared to other watches, and that that's informed a lot of design decisions.

I think a curved display could be pretty challenging. You write "the contour of our wrist," but the contour of your wrist and of mine probably aren't the same, right? So is the display flexible? Is it the same size for everyone? Will someone with a smaller wrist find the display "wrapping around" more than someone with a larger wrist? What interactions will be made better by such a curved display, and what interactions will be made worse by one? And is the tradeoff appropriate?

Re: The Apple Watch

#106

Post by mahyarm »

brandon272 wrote: post #39
sebnukem2 wrote: post #16

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.

I have a Pebble, which I enjoy. The battery lasts for 4 or 5 days, which is great. However, I find the biggest thing that prevents me from using it is the charging. I'll take it off, attach it to the charger on my nightstand and in the morning I am usually in such a hurry that I can't be bothered to sit down and put it back on my wrist. Just my personal anecdote. Those who aren't rushed out the door in the morning wo…

I just charge my wrist devices at the office desk. It's usually fast enough for me and I'm not in a rush to leave anytime soon.

Re: The Apple Watch

#107

Post by jkestner »

ickwabe wrote: post #101
bitsoda wrote: post #21

Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids sending each other love taps, scribbles, and heartbeats was poignant. While the Apple Watch isn't for me, I can't begrudge those who decide to buy one. I think back to the late 90s and how I wouldn't have met my wife if not for IMing a screenname a mutual friend of ours passed along to me. The internet, a crappy eMachines desktop, and AIM made this possible. Technically…

My concern on this (connected watches generally) is the upgrade treadmill this might create. So a person would buy a ~$600 iphone + a $400 watch. How often would they upgrade the watch? Lots of folks upgrade phones every year or every other year. Will they do this with a watch? Will they need to? I have a Casio watch that I still wear that's 15 years old. And an old wind up that's 30 years old. I can't imagine that b…

  Lots of folks upgrade phones every year or every other year.
I question whether this is the bubble that geeks live in. Plenty of people don't know there are new phones to get until their old one breaks. In the case that someone's upgrading when their contract gives them a new phone, I can see more of a strain, but they rarely think of themselves paying $600 for a phone.

To an extent, Apple is producing the Watch to offset the slowing growth of smartphone sales, which tells me that people aren't buying them as often as you think.

Re: The Apple Watch

#108

Post by [deleted] »

Thiz wrote: post #7

> It truly is a good and clever idea, and, presuming it is patent-protected strongly enough, the lack of a digital crown is going to put competitors at a disadvantage. I rather scroll using the edge of the screen, I hate reading on my phone and interrupting with my finger to scroll, that's why I swipe at the very edge of the screen, almost scrolling with the metal. When watches get thinner, and they will, the crown w…

[deleted]

Re: The Apple Watch

#109

Post by TapamN »

Thiz wrote: post #7

> It truly is a good and clever idea, and, presuming it is patent-protected strongly enough, the lack of a digital crown is going to put competitors at a disadvantage. I rather scroll using the edge of the screen, I hate reading on my phone and interrupting with my finger to scroll, that's why I swipe at the very edge of the screen, almost scrolling with the metal. When watches get thinner, and they will, the crown w…

Apple can't patent digital crowns because they didn't invent them. They probably have patented their specific implementation. The Timex Data Link USB smartwatch was using a digital crown back in 2002. It was used to scroll through entries, with tactile and audio feedback. There was a exponential speed curve to the scrolling; you could scroll slowly, one item at a time, or use a quick spin to advance dozens of entries in a second. Pulling the crown into the "set" position would allow you to edit the current item, and returning the crown to the home position would save the changes. Pushing the crown in from the home position would activate the light.

It was a huge improvement over the older Data Link watches from the 90s, which only had a few buttons. Scrolling through items involved holding down a next/previous button, waiting for the auto repeat to kick in, and waiting until you got near what you wanted, then pressing the next/previous button a couple extra times to find what you wanted.

Re: The Apple Watch

#110

Post by agumonkey »

aleem wrote: post #64

I am quite excited about upgrading my watch experience and the next generation of connected devices, however, the biggest surprise for me is that Apple doesn't offer more gesture recognition. I always imagined the primary interface for shortcuts would be gestures such as waving away your arm to dismiss a message or flicking the wrist multiple times (if you try it right now, you can easily flick your wrist 3-4 times p…

I bet 5$ they tried it, but it gave too many false positives.
Post reply on HN