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

151–160 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#151

Post by georgemcbay »

amitdeshwar wrote: post #75
skc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I haven't seen anything on battery life actually. You have some estimates?

The Ars review talks about the poor battery life: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beaut...

Verge too:

http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/5/6108947/moto-360-review

OTOH, gizmodo says the battery life isn't quite that bad:

http://gizmodo.com/moto-360-battery-life-test-so-far-not-as-...

... but every other review I've read (about 6 including these) has really hammered it on the battery being dead well before the day is over.

I'm sure there is some YMMV depending upon usage and a moto 360 might last me a full day personally (since I'm not a reviewer and wouldn't be doing... reviewer things with it all day), but I'm not willing to slap down $250 to find out when even the positive reviews say it has the weakest battery life of all the current crop of watches. I can wait until revision 2 hits to be sure that I only have to take the thing off once per day.

Re: The Apple Watch

#152

Post by niels_olson »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #61
3pt14159 wrote: post #55

Super disappointed with this. I was hoping for a bunch of sensors that fed my iPhone. Not something to discretely take meetings during a meeting. Here is what is missing for me: 1. Sweat sensor. 2. Insulin sensor. 3. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently automatically detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! My iPhone should auto update a fitne…

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?

Heart rate is a better indicator of metabolic effort than anything to do with accelerometers.

Re: The Apple Watch

#153

Post by masklinn »

wikyd wrote: post #126
masklinn wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola? The band connection to the very bottom is really too bad, it makes the watch look extremely thick.

Thanks! I was trying to figure out why the Watch looks thick from the side, but seemed not too thick in photos on peoples' wrists. That explains it.

Yes, bracelet attachment really makes a world of difference, I was shocked to learn that the 360 is "only" 11.5mm thick but looks much thicker than mechanical chronographs (routinely 15mm thick), and I've had multiple friends comment the 360 was a no-go due to thickness

Re: The Apple Watch

#154

Post by bshimmin »

masklinn wrote: post #72
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.

The complete and utter lack of battery life mention was odd when inductive charging (still missing from the iphone) was mentioned multiple times.

I think that's what they're going to be working on for the next three-to-six months. Probably it's not great at the moment and they're desperately trying to get it up to something respectable like a day, but don't want to announce anything in case it proves impossible.

Re: The Apple Watch

#155

Post by masklinn »

taude wrote: post #146
masklinn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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....

The antenna is not the problem, the radio chips (and power) are.

Re: The Apple Watch

#156

Post by fudged71 »

grumblestumble wrote: post #127
wlesieutre wrote: post #92

"Maybe if we don't mention lefties, everyone will forget they exist" Righty watches aren't a big deal for us to use because you only use the crown to set them, and you only set them twice a year. On the Apple Watch, you're going to use it all the time. It's not even that I couldn't use my right hand, it's that I don't want a bulky $350 gadget permanently strapped to my left hand, which I frequently use for doing thin…

I don't see why the face wouldn't be reversible - it detaches completely from the strap, and it's not like the software UI is going to be upside down - your phone can already handle that. The only difference will be that the crown is below the button.

NFC might also be tricky. It looked like you use the top/front of the watch to pay. I'm not sure if this would work in reverse.

Re: The Apple Watch

#157

Post by k-mcgrady »

antr wrote: post #137
k-mcgrady wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He probably would have, you're right. Maybe it will be exclusive to the sports edition. Seems like a good way to differentiate.

Re: The Apple Watch

#158

Post by MatthiasP »

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...

In the first two weeks of their relation.

Re: The Apple Watch

#159

Post by lagnarok »

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.

My primary gripe with the Moto 360 is that it's huge. My wrists just aren't big enough to sport a watch that size and not look or feel silly.

Re: The Apple Watch

#160

Post by craigching »

digikata wrote: post #76
craigching wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple Watch works with 5, 5c, and 5s. And of course 6 and 6+

And if you notice, NFC of course isn't in the 5, 5c, 5s. So it makes me wonder if Apply Pay will work with a watch paired to an iPhone 5 series device. That might be a little nudge to get the Apple watch.

Oh, that's a good point. You're probably right, can't use Apple Pay with a watch paired with 5/5c/5s. I noted that the credit card information is available via passbook, but the 5's don't have the related hardware to support Pay, right? I mean the watch has the NFC, but the ability to generate the one-time numbers probably has to come from the phone?
Post reply on HN