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

311–320 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#311

Post by MCRed »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #249

While someone else already made the reference to this quote, it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments. Personally I don't know that there's any watch that would really get me to start wearing watches at all again -- I never liked them that much to begin with. But this knocks down an awful lot of the criticisms I've had of existing smartwatc…

I believe the iPod HiFi was a success. The purpose of that product was to create a market for iPod docks. At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them. I bet Apple has made more money from "Made for iPod" licensing as a result of the iPod HiFi (which kickstarted that industry) than their gross revenues from the iPod HiFi.

So, maybe a failure as a product, because it stimulated competition that, if it hadn't come about would have left Apple with a %100 share of iPod docks.

But given how many iPod docks have sold, I'm sure that market would have been viable, even if only Apple were making them.

Re: The Apple Watch

#312

Post by MatthiasP »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #99
ebbv wrote: post #40

The fact that this requires me to bring my iPhone on a run kills it as a sport watch. I can get a high quality GPS watch for $150 that doesn't require me to bring my iPhone. Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it. Dumb, dumb move on Apple's part.

Sure it might not be for serious runners but about half the people I see running have a phone strapped to their arm. If they also have the watch it means they can see the display while running and get more accurate data. For those people it's not a big deal. If you're the sort of person who buys a GPS watch of course it won't be for you. When has Apple ever catered to niche markets?

"When has Apple ever catered to niche markets?"

-Today, with the presentation of the Apple Watch.

Re: The Apple Watch

#313

Post by dkulchenko »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #249

While someone else already made the reference to this quote, it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments. Personally I don't know that there's any watch that would really get me to start wearing watches at all again -- I never liked them that much to begin with. But this knocks down an awful lot of the criticisms I've had of existing smartwatc…

But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else.

I strongly disagree.

I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here - they seemed to have approached the problem as "how can we make iOS usable on a smaller screen" and came up with interfaces like the crown and the (albeit pretty) circle-based homescreen UI to access apps to tackle those issues. Which is interesting, because they started off their presentation explicitly saying they didn't want to just scale down iOS.

Google, on the other hand, approached the problem of "how can we make wearables useful as a platform" rather than "how can we scale down Android" and created the intuitive cards interface (which, as a Moto 360 user, is remarkably convenient) and Google Now-based contextual awareness of info you need when you need it. Android Wear doesn't even have an app selector easily accessible, because they don't want you to use the watch that way - it's hard to hunt for apps on a tiny screen, so instead they push contextual information at you as you need it in an easy-to-use way.

I have high hopes for both platforms in the years to come, but I don't find Apple's watch design to be smarter or better thought-out as it is right now (and I'm typing this on a Macbook Air, so I have an appreciation for Apple).

Re: The Apple Watch

#314

Post by DannyBee »

DAddYE wrote: post #306
personZ wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments You should also remember that he was hardly in the majority with those comments. Further he was technically correct, and the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire (notably iTunes). But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought in…

> How so? Google put, it seems, enormous thought and effort into Android Wear. It is a whole interaction and ecosystem built specifically for smart watches. Because Tim Cook gives some trite speech about not using a smartphone OS on a watch (this was, it is worth noting, not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridde…

"Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing."

Yes, quite a lot. Have you?

Additionally, apple's device won't even be out for a minimum of 3 months (assuming it came out in january).

Which is the not completed thing again?

Truthfully, seeing what I saw, Apple's watch is just not a leap forward in any interesting way i can think of over android wear.

Maybe it'll win because of better marketing or whatever. But it's interface did not look appreciably better to me, nor did it have anything that i would consider "a killer app" that android wear does not.

(I mainly use my wear device to track my running and biking paces, display notes like shopping lists, and display texts so that i know whether i should pull out my phone to respond to the person)

They could have chosen some axis to improve upon - waterproofness (i can scuba dive with my pebble but not my wear device), battery life, screen[1], whatever.

They are trying "software". Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's not (again though, I also don't find the ipad interface so much better than the android one. For the things i do on these devices, the ipad is a slim win, but has a shittier software keyboard by far).

[1] Sapphire is not interesting to me. My watch does not sit in my pocket with things likely to scratch it. I woodwork, and have worn wear devices for 6+ months now, and while i've scratched phones from chisels, saw blades, etc, i've never scratched my watch.

A higher res display or something would have been cooler.

Re: The Apple Watch

#315

Post by joesmo »

It seems that the Apple Watch needs an iPhone nearby to do anything useful. This is extremely disappointing and a complete failure from the get-go. Essentially, Apple Watch just becomes a tool for those too lazy to take their iPhone out of their pocket. It's absolutely useless for exercising or other activities where one wouldn't typically carry a phone. That was supposed to be one of the main selling points and one of the main target audiences. As a runner myself, I can't see wasting any money on this unless it gets its own Wifi/LTE/Bluetooth/Storage capabilities and I can leave my phone behind. It seems Apple missed this quintessential requirement.

Re: The Apple Watch

#316

Post by DannyBee »

coldtea wrote: post #282
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.

> 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. Yeah, it's for the sligltly LESS serious runners, of which there are millions...

I was happy to use my Pebble and now, my android wear devices to track my running pace. I run about 4 miles a day. Honestly, the iWatch is just too pricey for what I would use it for.

Re: The Apple Watch

#317

Post by malka »

coldtea wrote: post #282
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.

> 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. Yeah, it's for the sligltly LESS serious runners, of which there are millions...

usually, the more into the hobby, the more you spend into it. Not the opposite.

Re: The Apple Watch

#318

Post by zimpenfish »

bane wrote: post #262
zimpenfish wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://im…

I bet your iphone is trying to use cell tower locations or wifi hotspots it's picking up around there and borking up the location. The area around there is kind of open and flat so I wouldn't be surprised if it's picking up location information from across the river.

It does seem to be WiFi related. But if I have to remember to disable the WiFi whenever I want to do some GPS tracking - and if I forget, I basically get random garbage - that pushes it well into "no bloody use" for me.

Re: The Apple Watch

#319

Post by Kayou »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #67
georgemcbay wrote: post #29

Who would have thunk that of all the end-of-2014 smartwatches, the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola? Shame about the battery life, though. Please fix that Motorola, I want to give you my money so bad, but cannot do it until you fix the battery life.

I feel like the next gen Moto watch will have the better SoC, much better battery life (as many Android watches already have) and higher resolution. And maybe more sensors. And hopefully match some of Apple's innovations. I think I'm about a year from being able to join the bandwagon.

I hope so. Just by switching to a Cortex A7 or A53 @ 22nm instead of Cortex A8 @ 45nm, this should add 78% more battery life (according to the benchmark of Ars Technica). And by having a round battery instead of a square one, 57% more capacity. So if this 360 lasts 12h, we're looking at more than 33 hours of battery life. But the 78% improvement with a Cortex A7 would be under heavy load, probably not the same story for IDLE usage.

Re: The Apple Watch

#320

Post by zimpenfish »

eli wrote: post #305
zimpenfish wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://im…

How long does the Garmin take to find you at the start of a run? I admittedly had an old model, but it was basically a dealbreaker with the forerunner. I was wandering around for 5-10 mins with my wrist in the air waiting to start.

It's a lot better than the 310XT. I don't think it's taken more than a minute of standing still in the last few months. I do tend to start in pretty open sky'd places though.
Post reply on HN