There is even an 18 karat gold edition. Sapphire crystal, waterproof, imported leather from the Netherlands. It goes behind the technology, to also embrace some of the finer things that make a quality watch... Quality.
The Apple Watch
211–220 of 863 posts
Re: The Apple Watch
#212[deleted]
Re: The Apple Watch
#213As 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 definition of gimmick is the customizing of a the emojicon.
Re: The Apple Watch
#214My 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.
My wife runs long distances with an iPhone AND a watch. My impression is that Forerunners have fallen out of favor. The GPS doesn't work all that well compared to a phone (I'm guessing because it lacks the AGPS data a phone has access to). Plus if you're running a marathon you probably want some music to listen to, and it sure is nice to have a phone with you even though it's perhaps a bit heavy.
I've got 18 months of Moves data logged against corresponding tracks from my 910XT and the difference in consistency, accuracy, etc., is telling - the iPhone is frequently off by 10s (if not 100s) of metres and especially coming round the Millennium Dome is a joke - it has me jumping from the south to the north of the Thames every few hundred metres.
Moves iPhone 5S - http://imgur.com/kjYf8Tj Garmin 910XT - http://imgur.com/jnXuaQC
Re: The Apple Watch
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
A number of ways. First, it isn't just F = MA, the different joints and ligaments apply a different ratio of force depending on how strong you are. For example, biceps and hamstrings can get a lot stronger as a ratio of their typical strength than tendons in the wrist. By analysing known biometric data of the athlete (their weight, resting heart rate (athletes have a much lower rate), how fast they can cycle, perspiration patterns) and combining it with the gyros and accelerometers in both the phone and watch you should be able to accurately reverse calculate the weight and the exercise.
Re: The Apple Watch
#216I don't want my heart rate and other health data getting uploaded to Apple and anyone else. Big blocker for me.
Re: The Apple Watch
#217Also: why the hell do I need to see what the moon's gonna look like 6 days from now?
Re: The Apple Watch
#218The 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...
Why the down voting? For praising non-religiousness? Or for being excited about a faster developing market?
Re: The Apple Watch
#219I just wanted to swim with it... :(
Re: The Apple Watch
#220My 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.
That doesn't seem to match my offhand recollections. Apple tends to keep price points the same and just update specs occasionally. The first iPhone famously had a price drop quite soon, but has that been true for their other product lines?