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

131–140 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#131

Post by makomk »

unclebunkers wrote: post #117
xgbi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will be the most used feature by _rich_ young lovers everywhere... FIFY. At $349 a pop, I doubt you want to cruise in college with this on the wrist.

A $350 watch is a too expensive, but $325 beats headphones are chill? When I walk through the seedier parts of town where most of the rent is paid in food stamps and wishes, I still see beats headphones.

Beats headphones are really heavily counterfeited at a tenth the price or less. I expect a lot of the ones you saw were fake.

Re: The Apple Watch

#132

Post by personZ »

unclebunkers wrote: post #47
personZ wrote: post #31

As much ink was spilled about competitors' failures, it's interesting that this won't be available some until vague window next year, and needs to be tethered to an iPhone. The interface looks interesting. The ridiculous draw pictures to each other bit, though -- what a gimmick.

It will be the most used feature by young lovers everywhere...

Perhaps, but it is a five minute app. For Apple to spend minutes on the concept of communicating via finger drawings on a tiny screen borders on bizarre. I will say that if Samsung or LG demoed something like this, they would be widely and rightfully mocked. I'm not saying that in a polarizing "camps" perspective, but that people are often surprisingly uncritical of Apple.

Re: The Apple Watch

#133

Post by bobochan »

pilsetnieks wrote: post #123
bobochan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'd wait and see how it actually works - for example, with the navigation scenario, it's far more likely that you'd choose your destination on your phone which will then handoff the navigation to the watch. Thus, no need to constantly look at the phone while you're walking + haptic feedback to guide you along the path.

Siri could be the big savior here. I'm actually very happy with my iPhone's voice recognition and Siri's performance.

Another gripe, the "digital crown" is on the opposite side of the watch for me. It could be an impediment of being left handed, but having it on the right hand side of the watch increments the awkward factor for me.

Re: The Apple Watch

#134

Post by thomasahle »

mg74 wrote: post #50
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...

"all parties" Cue poor Microsoft sobbing in a corner

I don't think there are any rumors of Microsoft going into this market, is there? I don't know if they have anything to bring to the table.

Re: The Apple Watch

#135

Post by masklinn »

taude wrote: post #113
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.

You know, I was thinking the same thing. I think I prefer the roundness of the 360, than the rectangular Apple design. However, you won't catch me wearing either of them until you don't have to have a phone with you. I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text messaging, and glancing at emails)...

> I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text messaging, and glancing at emails)...

The problem's these require extensive radio interaction/SoC, without a phone support (which can stream the information via bluetooth LE) you have to carry that in the watch itself.

Re: The Apple Watch

#136

Post by lhnz »

bobochan wrote: post #107
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…

Whether this will be useful all rests on the quality and differentiation of the haptic feedback.

For example, imagine walking down the street towards your destination and feeling the right side of the watch vibrate to signal that you should turn right.

If your watch can communicate contextual information related to your intention and local then it will be superior to (1) wearing a socially inappropriate device like the Google Glass, (2) being called out to by a device, (3) fumbling in your phone in order to then open the correct app.

Apps that correctly use haptic feedback should be able to silently and subtly give users superpowers without forcing them to clumsily interact with a product.

I actually wrote about the benefits of this back in 2012 [0], though I was talking about phones and notification fatigue back then (and not leveraging Future Interface style stuff.)

[0] http://sebinsua.com/your-thigh-as-an-interface-from-your-pho...

Re: The Apple Watch

#137

Post by antr »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #118
antr wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between submerging and just a sprinkle of water. I don't think the Apple Watch is submergible/usable for swimming.

Yes, waterproof is submersible and water resistant is rain/shower etc. Your comment referred to water resistance which that displays. I would hope they make it waterproof as I don't want to have to leave an expensive watch with my bag on the beach unattended. But then I already have to do that with my phone I guess.

Ah yes! Waterproof vs water resistant. Yes, that was what I meant (changed). The AW appears to be water resistant, while many, if not most, sports watches are waterproof. Waterproof is a feature that I'm sure Cook would of mentioned if it were the case.

Re: The Apple Watch

#138

Post by aikah »

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.

> I don't know any person who is into serious running ... who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch

People will spend that much money on the Apple Watch. Because it's Apple.It might seem like a ripoff to you but the price was calculated to maximise Apple profit.

Re: The Apple Watch

#140

Post by taude »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #28

Miniaturization has come a long way, but there's no way this costs just $350 to make. Has Apple's strategy changed? They've always sold hardware at a healthy margin and made trivial amounts off software and music. There are some really nice features here, I would probably buy one if I didn't prefer android so much. But is it so nice that it will drive iPhone sales?

There's gotta be some expensive parts in there, like that sapphire screen.
Post reply on HN