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

141–150 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#141

Post by snowwrestler »

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…

I think the idea is that you would raise the watch to your face and say "Siri, directions to closest Starbucks". The little dial is not the only way to interact with the thing.

Re: The Apple Watch

#142

Post by thomasahle »

Shivetya wrote: post #101
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...

it is just so, square. I guess my problem is that they kept it like a watch instead of a new device and it likely constrained their innovation. I had seen some band designs, even the MOTO 360 did "if it has to look like a watch" better. Don't get me started on Apple's bling look that started with that Gold iPhone. Its as bad as gold emblems on low end cars, all we need now is gothic/roman lettering

Yes, I bet they wanted to announce it this early (half a year in advance?), because they felt they were missing the train.

You can only wonder if Steve Jobs would have allowed this to be released as well.

Re: The Apple Watch

#143

Post by pilsetnieks »

bobochan wrote: post #133
pilsetnieks wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, I agree on the leftie thing. They most likely won't make a leftie variant but I do think that they could make it rotatable.

Re: The Apple Watch

#144

Post by aikah »

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.

I love what moto did with their watch, the shape is great and the design is elegant. I personally dont like the shape of the Apple watch,but I'm waiting for more infos about battery life.

Re: The Apple Watch

#145

Post by kayone »

psbp wrote: post #17

It may be that Google did a pretty good job of preemptively responding to the Apple Watch, but I don't find this that much more interesting than the already not very interesting Android Wear devices.

> preemptively responding to the Apple Watch

That's really interesting way to phrase it. if tables were turned would you say the same thing or would it be Google responding to apple or worst, Google copying apple?

Re: The Apple Watch

#146

Post by taude »

masklinn wrote: post #135
taude wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeup. So wake me when this becomes a reality: I'm sure somone's patenting building a cellular antenna into a watch band as I type this. Plus, I'm sure 6G networks will be faster and require even less power....

Re: The Apple Watch

#147

Post by drh »

3pt14159 wrote: post #79
acjohnson55 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that any real fitness tracking solution should be able to capture a gym workout accurately, but how would you propose the dumbell thing would work? With NFC or something?

With the right accelerometers and gyros you can actually do this very easily. I've actually done something similar during a basic engineering course (we were detecting earthquakes, but the math is the same). Edit: Downvote me all you want, but this is not that complicated to calculate.

How would this work for a 2x as strong person lifting twice as much mass as a normal person? Wouldn't that data look essentially the same?

Re: The Apple Watch

#148

Post by buro9 »

I haven't bought into Apple stuff too much, just an iPad and an Air. No iPhone, I have Android instead and my desktop is Linux.

Question: Is the phone a mere accessory to the iPhone, or can it stand alone or with any phone (inc' Android and Windows Phone)?

Re: The Apple Watch

#149

Post by mladenkovacevic »

It's a little thick isn't it? But it's got a design that I can see evolving over time. Not bad for a square-ish watch.

Except I don't see any features that I need to plop over $350 for. In terms of health-related metrics the Basis watch is more feature-complete, and over half the price http://www.mybasis.com/

In terms of personal assistant features, Google Now takes the lead along with any smart-watch that takes advantage of it and Android-wear.

When the iPhone released, I believe the market was primed for a next-generation smartphone. I don't think this is true for wearables now. The Apple Watch will have a much touger climb than the iPhone ever did.

Re: The Apple Watch

#150

Post by wvenable »

anmonteiro90 wrote: post #9

Main drawback is you need an iPhone in order to have one. Couldn't there be a version that didn't?

Given the level of interaction between the phone and watch you really need a deep integration with the phone OS. The Pebble is phone agnostic but the interaction is comparatively limited.
Post reply on HN