Live data from Hacker News

The Apple Watch

daringfireball.net

211–220 of 300 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What new ideas and improvements would those be? Honest and non-argumentative question. I mean of course besides the beautiful engineering (I like the appearance of the Apple Watch) and digital crown.

Moving the space app centric is a pretty big deal for me at least. Even if it requires teathering to a phone, and with the performance issues, it's a big step above the notification centric nature of Android Wear. Plus the ability to run on wifi and stay connected with the phone. Not saying the device isn't worthy of most of its criticisms, but let's not pretend this is and iOS-ified version of Android Wear.

What do you mean by app centric being a new feature?

The pebble watch had a whole store that would work either with android or iOS (some limitations here).

Re: The Apple Watch

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ridiculous to say that Apple hasn't introduced any new ideas or improvements to the smartwatch space.

What new ideas and improvements would those be? Honest and non-argumentative question. I mean of course besides the beautiful engineering (I like the appearance of the Apple Watch) and digital crown.

Taptic feedback. Diversity in product design. Digital touch. Architecture of Apps.

Those are all unique to Apple's Watch as is pretty much every aspect of the look & feel. You can argue different watches having the same features but Apple's implementation will always be quite unique.

Re: The Apple Watch

#213
For people who want to skip all the non-critical Apple praise and marketing regurgitation and don't want to spend their time filtering out the endless variety of framing devices Gruber uses to try to turn Apple's lemons into lemonaid here's a summary review:

- Using the watch as a watch is broken. He spends almost 1,000 words across 8 paragraphs talking about how broken it is. It may be accurate, but it's overly complex, fussy and unreliable to get it to show you the time.

- The water resistance is unacceptable for a device intended as a fitness companion, some of this is due to compromises to the overly complex design.

- As a watch targeting people who wear watches, it's probably a failure. He repeats some variation of this a number of times.

- the build quality feels high, not as high as the early press hands-on

- the rubber watch band is easy to size and the material feels good, but swapping out bands is "fiddly"

- the watch is designed to hide the bezel, but in good lighting you can see it, again reminding that it isn't a great watch

- the shape (square) is not a good watch shape

- the gender-neutral design comes off as modern

- battery life will get you through a day of moderate usage

- the induction charger is easy to use and works as advertised

- one of the main marketing points, that it's a health and fitness device, is not useful to him in any way and he has no interest in it

- some of the fitness features intrude into non-fitness uses in a bad way

- other fitness features seem pretty accurate and potentially useful

- the digital crown works basically like a mouse scroll-wheel

- touch, the crown and haptic feedback work as well as you'd expect and they work together well

- haptic feedback works so well that you can turn off sound for notifications

- he had a 50% failure rate on the haptic feedback on his test watches requiring him to get a replacement watch during his week-long review

- the digital touch features were untested, though he provides a cute story of two rich teenagers flirting in class he provides no actual coverage of the feature

tl;dr none of the smart watch features were particularly interesting and it's not a great watch to use for time keeping

It's not really surprising, it's the same problem all the smart watches have, it's not really clear that the extra expense and fuss of a smartwatch, on a severely compromised display and interaction platform is worth it. The target audience he holds out hope for, non-watch wearers who wouldn't know any better, are probably not going to start wearing an expensive fussy fiddly device that provides no unqualified benefit that they have to charge every day. I'm not a watch wearer and the only smartwatch I'd even consider is something like the Pebble and that's only because it's focused on

a) being a watch

b) notifications

c) not making me charge it all the time

Except that I'm literally surrounded by clocks nearly all the time, so I don't need to tell time. My phone already vibrates and makes sound, and it's usually letting me know something that I'm already being notified about on my monitor. The one use-case I can really see for a smartwatch is to help with navigation, especially while walking since walking around with your phone out getting turn-by-turn isn't all that great. But it's something I need literally once or twice per year.

Re: The Apple Watch

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is ridiculous to say that Apple hasn't introduced any new ideas or improvements to the smartwatch space.

What new ideas and improvements would those be? Honest and non-argumentative question. I mean of course besides the beautiful engineering (I like the appearance of the Apple Watch) and digital crown.

Taptic feedback and force touch come to mind, but let's get our hands on it before drawing any conclusions.

Re: The Apple Watch

#215

Is John Gruber ever non-biased in his pieces about Apple? Given his history with the company, I feel like with Gruber we never ever get the real deal. Every article on every Apple product announcement starts out feeling well-intentioned and non-objective, but then always seems to segue into a subtle praise piece. I am not hating on him, he still makes some great points and he puts considerable amounts of effort into…

He's definitely a shill. Imagine a couple years ago, when Gruber couldn't even bring himself to pretend to provide critical analysis of Apple products. I used to just flag daringfireball posts as soon as I saw them. These days there's at least information content in his posts so I usually leave them alone.

But Gruber also spends an extraordinary amount of time these days using framing devices to either draw false comparisons that put Apple on top, or minimize the cases where Apple clearly screwed up. You could easily cut this review down by 2/3rds just by getting rid of the superfluous framing he uses throughout and not lose any information at all. The amount of hemming and hawing in this makes me think that he's not really buying it this time. It's not a crap device, but it's not clear what it's good for and it's not strictly better than just a normal watch. He didn't really effuse about Apple's stated use-cases for the device. His hope throughout is that maybe it'll appeal to non-watch wearers?

You'll also notice that he carefully doesn't compare it to all the other smart watches in the growing segment. He pretends like it only is comparable to regular watches, like the Apple watch was introduced into a market vacuum, cut from whole cloth (Apple's magical genius cloth), and completely uninformed by the three decades of smartwatch development.

Re: The Apple Watch

#216
post #24

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.

Correction: Rolexes tick 8 times a second (or 28.800 beats per hour, as is used by watch people). 6 are the vintage ones.

You are wrong. The movement moves at 8 Hz per second, but it actually takes two cycles to actually tick once, so it's actually 4 ticks per second.

The old watches tick at 3 times per second on 6 Hz movements.

Re: The Apple Watch

#217
post #171

"Without the Taptic Engine, Apple Watch is not a compelling device." This is why I value Gruber's reviews. He's unabashedly pro-Apple, but he's also critical and observant.

Is he really being that critical if he observes their product would fail without something it already has? I know it's not a direct comparison, but you wouldn't call me insightfully critical if I noted that a car was not a compelling device without wheels.

Yes but this analogy only holds true if every other car has hexagonal wheels, and the apple watch "car" has circular ones.

Re: The Apple Watch

#218
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The guy has probably never heard of the Seiko Spring Drive, where the hands are moved by a spring and regulated by a brake. Therefore they're completely smooth. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsBTXgksr4s

Spring Drives are pretty rare outside of Japan. Most mechanical watches today tick 8 times a second. On a small watch it's pretty smooth to me.

The balance wheel oscillates at 8 beats per second, but it requires 2 beats to complete a full second "tick", so most modern mechanical watches actually tick at 4 times per second.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_wheel#Period_of_oscilla...

Re: The Apple Watch

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What new ideas and improvements would those be? Honest and non-argumentative question. I mean of course besides the beautiful engineering (I like the appearance of the Apple Watch) and digital crown.

Taptic feedback. Diversity in product design. Digital touch. Architecture of Apps. Those are all unique to Apple's Watch as is pretty much every aspect of the look & feel. You can argue different watches having the same features but Apple's implementation will always be quite unique.

I don't know if diversity in product design is valid for the watch. There was a UI side-by-side with Android Watch UI products at the reveal of the Apple Watch, and they're pretty much identical (save for the top-level app view)

Re: The Apple Watch

#220

This is a very interesting article, and I like how it's written in the perspective of a functional watch user instead of being about fashion or watch collecting. I couldn't help but laugh at this part: > Also, though it sounds trivial, I enjoy the perfect 60 FPS smoothness of Apple Watch’s second hand — a smoothness no mechanical watch could ever match. Isn't a mechanical watch hand ∞ FPS by definition? Real life has…

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.

I don't know many mechanical watches (especially Rolex) that ticks at 6 times per second. That requires the balance wheel to be beating at 12Hz.

Old Rolex tick 3 times per second on 6 beats/second balance wheel movements, and modern Rolex do 4 ticks per second on 8 beats per second movement.

Post reply on HN