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

161–170 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#161

Post by JonLim »

JonLim wrote: post #96
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.

Do they have watches, sub 250, that can be used for swimming OR running? Even just the swimming would be great, cause the price point and being forced to carry an iPhone around kind of defeated the purpose of buying the Apple Watch for me.

Nevermind, my own question got answered by looking up the Garmin Forerunner 910XT: http://sites.garmin.com/forerunner910xt/

Run, swim, AND bike. Excellent.

Re: The Apple Watch

#162

Post by masklinn »

stock_toaster wrote: post #116
masklinn wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bloodless glucometry via spectroscopy: http://www.groveinstruments.com/

Now that is seriously cool. I imagine patented heavily. Are they actually available, or still in the trial phase? (I couldn't tell from the site)

These ones are still on trial (according to their latest news they are currently on FDA testing and aim for commercialisation in 2015~2016) but others already have bloodless glucometers for sale (e.g. http://www.cnoga.com are available but not in the US because FDA testing ongoing). Those blokes were just the first ones I found.

Re: The Apple Watch

#163

Post by ryanmarsh »

scj wrote: post #110

I wear a watch, but I think about it as jewelry, and incidentally as a time piece. And until there is a killer app for a watch, I will continue to do so. Originally, I posed myself the question _if_ I would wear a smartwatch if there is no such thing as a killer app. The answer is yes, but _when_ is a better question. And the partial answer isn't about it being a smartwatch or dumbwatch, but about being an uglywatch…

This. It's a piece of jewelry first and a timepiece second. Until it appeals to the Breitling/Tag/Rolex crowd I'm not the target market.

Re: The Apple Watch

#164

Post by snowwrestler »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #149

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 adva…

I think the value proposition for the watch will build as the sum of many parts: style + health sensor + payment token + presence token + wrist comms + apps(?).

Think of it as sort of a persistent "me key" in a smart-connected world. But that world is still in its infancy, so the watch doesn't seem very valuable yet.

I think it's similar to the iPad in that there is not really a built-in value proposition. The iPad's value is 100% in its apps...but when it launched, there were not a ton of iPad apps.

In contrast, the iPhone was bringing a clear value prop from day one: phone calls, email, and iPod. But even then the real value prop took a long time to develop. Remember the keynote, when Jobs said "a phone... an iPod... an Internet communicator"? The first two got huge applause, the last one not so much. That term clearly confused a lot of people.

But if you look at how people use their smartphones now, it is by far the biggest portion of the value of an iPhone. Both phone and iPod functionality is being eaten by Internet services (VoIP and Spotify/Pandora).

Re: The Apple Watch

#165

Post by edpichler »

This is just the first release of another killer product from Apple. To compare, the first iPhone did not have some basic features found in many cell phones, including stereo Bluetooth support and 3G compatibility.

I really believe that Apple will earn a ton of money, like in the first years of iPod or iPhone era.

And the watches market size, bigger than cell phones, computers and portable music. It's a pity to do not have this company listed here, on stock market of Brazil.

Re: The Apple Watch

#166

Post by masklinn »

koyote wrote: post #128
thetrb wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but I doubt people buy a $500 watch just because it will still be nice in 100 years. That might be the case for $10000 watches.

A $500 watch will certainly still have much use 10+ years from purchase. It might have minor scratches but that's it. A smart watch will probably not even power on 5 years from purchase (due to bad battery); or be able to pair with your phone (new phone OS might not be backwards compatible).

> It might have minor scratches but that's it.

And chances are that's just the glass face, which takes minutes (and a few bucks) to replace.

Re: The Apple Watch

#167

Post by [deleted] »

k2enemy wrote: post #51
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.

Really? I thought that looked like one of the neatest things about it. I imagine that people will find all sorts of creative ways to use it for quick communication.

[deleted]

Re: The Apple Watch

#169

Post by eevilspock »

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.

This is Apple's way: Release a product at a high price initially to capture extra dollars from early adopters with the extra money while also buying time for Apple to work out kinks in there production chain and also reduce costs as efficiency increases. Six to twelve months later cheaper Apple Watches will come out.

Re: The Apple Watch

#170

Post by tolmasky »

lhnz wrote: post #136
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…

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 t…

The overriding feeling I had during this keynote is that every feature that I found cool in the watch I would much prefer on my phone.

Cool watch app? Wait, actually that would be cooler and more usable on a big screen...

Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist.

Post reply on HN