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

171–180 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#171

Post by zimpenfish »

antr wrote: post #120
zimpenfish wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt "people into serious running" run into the 10s of millions that Apple are aiming the watch at though. (I agree with your point though - I have a 910XT for the battery life - the Apple Watch would be useless as an activity tracker for me since the iPhone 5S doesn't really cope with 5h+ activities.)

I agree with you too. The Apple Watch is a mass market product, not for heavy users. However, I can imagine many people wearing this watch at gyms, where people tend to look after themselves (healthkit, etc)... but I don't see professionals using it (unless endorsed).

If the battery life doesn't suck (which I fear it does given the total lack of reference to it) and the "iPhone required" isn't as onerous as it seems, I might well wear one just for the easy 24/7* heart rate tracking. Granted the optical ones aren't as good as the HRM straps (as best I remember the dcrainmaker reviews) but they're less onerous for long periods.

Re: The Apple Watch

#172

Post by wlesieutre »

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.

Agreed, it just seems like something that Apple ought to mention. Can't find it anywhere on their website. And orientation changing makes sense for a phone feature because people switch between portrait and landscape, while this is a permanent setting that 90% of people would never touch.

It'd be a giant oversight for Apple though, and I'd be surprised if nobody on their design team is left handed.

Re: The Apple Watch

#173

Post by Shivetya »

My biggest disappointment, they announced a product they cannot ship. I remember the good old days, ITS AVAILABLE TODAY. Now Apple is nothing than just what they used to lampoon, a creator of announcements; not products.

Perhaps we can hope they use the time to take the obvious feedback flowing in and make it right by launch

Re: The Apple Watch

#174

Post by pan69 »

eevilspock wrote: post #169
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.

I don't think Apple needs that handful of extra dollars from early adaptors.

The reason the initial price is high is because its easier to decrease a retail price than it is to increase it.

Re: The Apple Watch

#175

Post by smileysteve »

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.

It seems like it's reasonable for it to switch orientation with the easily switchable bands. The 'crown' nub would then be on the bottom left of your right arm.

Re: The Apple Watch

#176

Post by zimpenfish »

JonLim wrote: post #161
JonLim wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The swim stroke tracker is hit-and-miss for me (sometimes guesses the wrong stroke and length points) but that probably says more about my swimming (which is awful) than the watch.

But I can definitely vouch for the excellent battery life, resilience to water, and usefulness on a bike laden with sensors.

The only gripe I have is that you can have multiple sets of bike sensors but not anything else. That and their approach to OS X software basically being "well, be grateful you're only 2 years behind the PC and that we acknowledge you at all."

Re: The Apple Watch

#177

Post by smileysteve »

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.

> I don't want to have to leave an expensive watch with my bag on the beach

While it's sapphire, I recommend that you keep your watch and phone as far away from salt water and sand as possible. One grain gets in the crown and you could be in trouble.

My sport watch is a Timex which is resistant to 100m, but the springs sometimes get sand stuck in them.

Re: The Apple Watch

#180

Post by XorNot »

huuu wrote: post #84
stock_toaster wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. Insulin sensor. How would it detect/monitor insulin levels? Have a needle on the back?

http://googleblog.blogspot.nl/2014/01/introducing-our-smart-... Does Google put a needle in there contact lens? Don't think so... ;)

No they stick a piece of glass in your eye.

Seriously: that is highly experimental technology, based on an experimental technique, in a very specific part of the body.

It is not remotely trivial to do that on regular skin. I know in particular because a friend just submitted his PhD on the use of microdermal patches for blood analysis: the short answer is, it might work, but no one actually has any idea how the levels of things they detect relate to what the normal blood levels are which our current health science is based on.

EDIT: Also no one has any idea of what the sensor longevity would be. For new stuff like this, the answer tends to be single-use.

Post reply on HN