The Apple Watch • Hacker News Board

Re: The Apple Watch

#191

Post by nilkn » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 11:53 PM UTC

seanflyon wrote: post #151

t0mbstone wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brilliant! With that said, though, I believe that the movement of the actual atoms making up the mechanical hands is still happening in an "infinitely smooth" sense, although the way we measure and observe that movement (via reflections of light or perhaps some other type of electromagnetic radiation) may be limited.

Assuming movement is continuous and not in discrete units. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length

You don't even need to appeal to Planck length here, because it's clear from more basic quantum mechanics that particles simply do not have classical paths.

Re: The Apple Watch

#192

Post by jkestner » Wed, Apr 08, 2015, 11:57 PM UTC

72deluxe wrote: post #179

shanselman wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That love taps scenario also required you to have your crush in your contacts. I think that part was kind of glossed over.

Yeah, and hopefully weren't using an Android device?

People are already literally using your smartphone platform as a dating filter: https://medium.com/message/its-kind-of-cheesy-being-green-2c...

I'm kinda harping on the difference between us and the general population in this whole thread, as some HNers don't get it, but I don't blame them - the behavior of other demographics constantly amazes me. We'd do well to observe more.

Re: The Apple Watch

#193

Post by kenrikm » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 12:03 AM UTC

bitsoda wrote: post #21

Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids sending each other love taps, scribbles, and heartbeats was poignant. While the Apple Watch isn't for me, I can't begrudge those who decide to buy one. I think back to the late 90s and how I wouldn't have met my wife if not for IMing a screenname a mutual friend of ours passed along to me. The internet, a crappy eMachines desktop, and AIM made this possible. Technically…

I see digital touch as "the killer app". The reason for this is communicating with my wife will be much easier. I think contextual based communication can be really powerful, for example coming home with a huge box of stuff from Costco it would be nice to be able to tap on the watch to get her attention to open the door for me as she does not always hear the knock and I'm there fumbling with my keys while trying not to drop the box. (or maybe get a smart door lock that is activated by the watch) This happens on a weekly basis and is just one example of the many ways that it'll make communication more seamless.

Re: The Apple Watch

#194

Post by idbehold » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 12:10 AM UTC

pcurve wrote: post #133

jonhester wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mechanical watches, think Rolexes, have smooth second hand movements but they are acutally still ticking, just about 6 times a second. The Apple Watch, on the other hand, has a second hand with 60 ticks per second so that the second hand is about 10 times smoother.

True as long as there are sufficient number of pixel density to movement of 60 ticks per seconds.

Antialiasing.

Re: The Apple Watch

#195

Post by jkestner » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 12:12 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #22

It actually kind of saddens me to read his summary of how touch will be "awesome". A teenager is afraid to talk to a girl he likes so he sends her what amounts to a text on his watch? It feels like humans keep building more and more barriers to ACTUAL communication. I can't help but think at some point it will have serious negative effects on the human race. Part of growing up and maturing is learning to deal with di…

  It feels like humans keep building more and more barriers to ACTUAL communication.

Yeah, yeah. It's not like shy kids back in the 1600s didn't write sonnets to express how they felt. Communication is a living language.

"Technology is anything that wasn’t around when you were born." - Alan Kay

Re: The Apple Watch

#196

Post by aetherson » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 12:32 AM UTC

kenrikm wrote: post #193

bitsoda wrote: post #21

Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids sending each other love taps, scribbles, and heartbeats was poignant. While the Apple Watch isn't for me, I can't begrudge those who decide to buy one. I think back to the late 90s and how I wouldn't have met my wife if not for IMing a screenname a mutual friend of ours passed along to me. The internet, a crappy eMachines desktop, and AIM made this possible. Technically…

I see digital touch as "the killer app". The reason for this is communicating with my wife will be much easier. I think contextual based communication can be really powerful, for example coming home with a huge box of stuff from Costco it would be nice to be able to tap on the watch to get her attention to open the door for me as she does not always hear the knock and I'm there fumbling with my keys while trying not…

Or maybe get a smart door lock that is activated by your phone, and save $400.

I mean, I kid. But I think that you're overestimating the amount of truly useful stuff that you can do where the only input is a tap or two and contextual environmental information, versus the truly useful stuff you can do with no taps and contextual environmental information.

Re: The Apple Watch

#197

Post by aetherson » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 12:47 AM UTC

oneeyedpigeon wrote: post #180

vacri wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The iPod didn't take off until 2004.

Interesting that it never gained wireless but was still a phenomenal success.

But the line of argument that says, "Some dude once dismissed an Apple product that turned out to be successful, thus all future dismissals of Apple products are invalid" is still silly, and people should not make posts that are nothing by that quote.

Honestly, here in Anno Domini 2015, I'm not sure that that quote is ever relevant to anything. But if you're going to make an argument that there's some parallel between Malda's sentiment and somebody else, at least, you know, argue it. We can all come up with snide quotes that sort of vaguely involve one of the principles under discussion.

Re: The Apple Watch

#198

Post by alextgordon » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 1:08 AM UTC

sylvinus wrote: post #165

> Imagine: You’re 16. You’re in school. You’re sitting in class. Honestly, I think it's impossible for anyone above ~25 to imagine what it's like to be 16 in school today. Context and social dynamics have changed too much for anyone that old (and probably anyone at all) to be insightful about the behaviour of groups of teenagers using a yet unreleased product.

I can imagine it but only if it's a private school.

Re: The Apple Watch

#199

Post by grkvlt » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 1:20 AM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #22

It actually kind of saddens me to read his summary of how touch will be "awesome". A teenager is afraid to talk to a girl he likes so he sends her what amounts to a text on his watch? It feels like humans keep building more and more barriers to ACTUAL communication. I can't help but think at some point it will have serious negative effects on the human race. Part of growing up and maturing is learning to deal with di…

> barriers to ACTUAL communication

I'm not sure what you mean here. Email, text messages, watch taps, Facebook likes, Twitter favourites, etc. are all forms of communication. Sure, they aren't face-to-face verbal communication. But that doesn't meant that when I'm having a Skype chat with my deaf grandfather in New Zealand 20 000 km away I'm not communicating. You seem to be making the mistake of privileging your preferred method of commuication over all others, and deciding that none of the other ways of iteracting are ACTUAL communication. This just isn't true.

However, I'm sure in the future we'll have people complaining that direct mind-communication via neural stimulation implant isn't ACTUAL communication, not like Apple Watch taps or instant messaging ;)

Re: The Apple Watch

#200

Post by user_0001 » Thu, Apr 09, 2015, 1:30 AM UTC

aetherson wrote: post #196

kenrikm wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see digital touch as "the killer app". The reason for this is communicating with my wife will be much easier. I think contextual based communication can be really powerful, for example coming home with a huge box of stuff from Costco it would be nice to be able to tap on the watch to get her attention to open the door for me as she does not always hear the knock and I'm there fumbling with my keys while trying not…

Or maybe get a smart door lock that is activated by your phone, and save $400. I mean, I kid. But I think that you're overestimating the amount of truly useful stuff that you can do where the only input is a tap or two and contextual environmental information, versus the truly useful stuff you can do with no taps and contextual environmental information.

Or just put the box down, open the door, pick up the box again

:-\