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

221–230 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#221

Post by __david__ »

unclebunkers wrote: post #117
xgbi wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It will be the most used feature by _rich_ young lovers everywhere... FIFY. At $349 a pop, I doubt you want to cruise in college with this on the wrist.

A $350 watch is a too expensive, but $325 beats headphones are chill? When I walk through the seedier parts of town where most of the rent is paid in food stamps and wishes, I still see beats headphones.

Watches are a fashion accessory and have a very wide price range. I consider watches under $150 to be low end, under $400 to be middle end and above that to be high end.

Headphones are different because (until Beats) they were mostly about function and not form. You can get very good sounding headphones for under $100, which is why people whine about Beats being so expensive. Beats's innovation wasn't making good headphones, it was making headphones into a fashion (so they could charge a lot).

Re: The Apple Watch

#222

Post by AJ007 »

ajju wrote: post #193
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 comment reminded me of CmdrTaco's slashdot comment after the iPod launch: http://t.co/RPAX2r93kx I think Garmin forerunner will be to the future of wearables what Nomad was to the future of music in 2002.

Or consider the first iPhone which had no 3G. Building your first iteration specifically not to go up against a particular competitor can be intentional, in hardware and software. Two or three generations down the road this watch could prove interesting (or may be not, like the iPad.)

Re: The Apple Watch

#223

Post by eloisant »

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).

Actually any watch over a few hundred will have a sapphire glass, so even after 10 years it's unlikely it has scratches.

The body may have some minor scratches, but I think it only adds to the charm.

Re: The Apple Watch

#224

Post by __david__ »

Shivetya wrote: post #173

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

> I remember the good old days, ITS AVAILABLE TODAY.

You mean like the iPhone, which was announced at Macworld in January, 2007 and went on sale only 7 months later?

Re: The Apple Watch

#225

Post by AJ007 »

taude wrote: post #146
masklinn wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text messaging, and glancing at emails)... The problem's these require extensive radio interaction/SoC, without a phone support (which can stream the information via bluetooth LE) you have to carry that in the watch itself.

Yeup. So wake me when this becomes a reality: I'm sure somone's patenting building a cellular antenna into a watch band as I type this. Plus, I'm sure 6G networks will be faster and require even less power....

Those will be built in to the Apple Pants. You can leave your iPhone at home, you will just need to wear these special pants.

Re: The Apple Watch

#226

Post by [deleted] »

Zikes wrote: post #53
darkstar999 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those "dumb" watches will still work in 5 years. Hell, they will still be nice in 100 years. Smart watches won't hold up for 5 years.

Most "dumb" watches that cost over $350 will retain the majority of their value well past those 5 years, too. Apple's first generation watch will be ~$50 in 5 years.

[deleted]

Re: The Apple Watch

#227

Post by TillE »

fidotron wrote: post #207

This is an intriguing situation because while the "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." comment will always haunt those that criticise Apple product launches this is the first one in years where the product looks more like it's actually the Nomad being mentioned, and the iPod has yet to arrive. I'm going so far as to say that smartwatches and VR represent the desperate flailing of a tech industry that's run o…

It's amazing how similar it is to all the other clunky smartwatches. More polish, sure, but essentially the same thing. I think they really missed an opportunity here. Should have been two things only: sensors and notifications. Fitbit + Pebble in a slim, beautiful package.

It's already an iPhone accessory, not a standalone device. They could have gone all the way with that, but no, instead it's yet another touchscreen gadget to fiddle with.

Re: The Apple Watch

#229

Post by nchlswu »

fudged71 wrote: post #156
grumblestumble wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

NFC might also be tricky. It looked like you use the top/front of the watch to pay. I'm not sure if this would work in reverse.

don't most nfc implementations use a coil of wires that are some minimum physical size? I imagine the coil is the size of the watch (horizontally)

Re: The Apple Watch

#230

Post by AlwaysBCoding »

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.

That was one of my favorite features.

I've always wished there was some sort of one bit communication for "want to get a drink?" or "want to go for a bike ride?" or "want to watch the redskins game?"

How cool would it be to vibrate someone's wrist with a martini glass saying implying that I haven't seen you in a while and want to go get a drink. No need for email, calling, texting anything. Just so simple, ping someone and say that I want to see them.

I think it's a bigger deal than you realize.

Post reply on HN