Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Watch 3

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 349 posts

Re: Apple Watch 3

#321

Post by overcast »

peterarmstrong wrote: post #149
overcast wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the Apple Watch is in an accurate heart rate monitor? Or is high precision not needed for testing for this abnormality? I want highly accurate rate monitoring throughout the day, especially on long hikes.

I've found mine is accurate as long as it is snug. But if it's not snug, it can be way off. Also, when I first tried it I had wrist pain, and learned that I actually was "wearing it wrong". Moving it further up my arm fixed it, and now it's literally my favourite device.

Hrmm. I'll await the in depth reviews. For now, my chest strap will keep monitoring for me.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#322

Post by H1Supreme »

When these are less hideous, and actually negate my need for a phone, I'll consider one. Or, when we get Star Wars holograms from them. Then too.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#323

Post by aetherson »

gehsty wrote: post #314
aetherson wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iPhone was and is more expensive than an iPod. That's not cannibalization, it's upselling. As to iPads, to the extent that buying a tablet instead of a computer was appealing, it was always going to overwhelmingly bring people from PCs to iPads more than from Macs to iPads. They did deal with a certain amount of cannibalization there, but their tolerance of that was far from a general comfort with any cannibalization…

I disagree that just because the phone is more expensive than the ipod it is not cannibalization. The phone literally destroyed the market for the standalone MP3 player, and the price point was doesn't change this. If you listen to the Jobs official autobiography the iPhone resulted from Jobs / Apples concerns that the phone would become good enough for most people as an MP3 player, and thus would 'cannibalize' the i…

Look, I've used the term "cannibalize" in deep in strategy sessions about how much marginal benefit we'll get from a higher-price sku given that a certain number of people will be getting it instead of our lower-priced sku. I'm not going to say it's completely ridiculous to describe that as cannibalization in the right context.

But from a high level, nobody in the entire world could be sad if their customers choose a higher-price, higher-margin product over a lower-price, lower-margin product. And suggesting that it's some kind of brave stance to say, "Yes, we'll introduce a higher-price, higher-margin product even though our customers may prefer it to our lower-price, lower-margin product" is absurd, and anyone who tries to sell that line with a straight face should be ashamed of themselves.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#324

Post by achompas »

charrondev wrote: post #36
sinatra wrote: post #3

I have thought about buying an Apple Watch multiple times. But, then, I see comments from a lot of Apple Watch users who say that they completely stop using it after few months. For many of them, the utility is not strong enough. Have things improved in that regard? What do you Apple Watch users think about it now?

I ended up getting an apple watch, then returning it for Gear S3. Major improvements with the gear: - Looks like a watch - Always tells the time - Works with my normal leather watch band - Has a spotify app I use mostly just as a watch that can do fitness tracking and recieve notifications from my phone.

> Looks like a watch

I hear this constantly and I don't get this. There's a very long tradition of non-circular watches in horology. See the Reverso, the Tank, and the Monaco.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#325

Post by ensignavenger »

S_A_P wrote: post #43
sinatra wrote: post #3

I have thought about buying an Apple Watch multiple times. But, then, I see comments from a lot of Apple Watch users who say that they completely stop using it after few months. For many of them, the utility is not strong enough. Have things improved in that regard? What do you Apple Watch users think about it now?

I always thought the apple watch was frivolous. Then I got one as a gift and cant imagine not having one. The ability to see whether or not a text/call is important without having to pull my phone out of my pocket is a killer feature for me. I always felt that it was rude to do that and this prevents me from having to. The fitness tracker is also really fun to use, and imo more accurate than the fit bit I had.

How do you know if it is important? I presume you are looking at the caller id? But can't you program your important contacts in your phone to use a different ringtone/vibration pattern?

Having the watch, if you don't mind wearing a watch, might be nice, but I can't justify the extra expense.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#326

Post by MR4D »

MrFoof wrote: post #277
malyk wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone is how you configure, update, etc. the watch. So I'm betting you need a phone for all the initial setup, and then you can leave your phone at home and go on a marathon run and take phone calls while you are out and about.

This seems similar to the iPhone prior to iOS 5. Prior to iOS 5 you needed a computer to activate the phone. Only with the introduction of iOS 5 could you activate an iPhone without a computer. My guess is the ability to have an Apple Watch as a standalone device is at least another year away, possible another 2 to 3.

I wonder if they would use FaceID and Siri to configure it, given the lack of a big screen.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#327

Post by JohnTHaller »

dpkonofa wrote: post #292
JohnTHaller wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 5 friends within a 1 mile radius of me that all have a fitbit and love it. Only one of them had one fail and have to be replaced (earlier model that had issues with heavy sweat and the waterproofing). Maybe you use the additional features, and that's great. None of us want to make or take calls on a watch (and not-so-secretly loath anyone who does so on the subway). I like the way I interact with the fitbit. O…

So... within a 1 mile radius, you have a 20% failure rate. Assume you're the average and that's still an incredible amount of failure. If you pair it with my statistic, that's an unbelievable failure rate. On the other hand, I have at least 10 friends, family, and/or coworkers that all have an Apple Watch and exactly 0 of them have had an issue where it completely failed and they had to have it replaced. That doesn't…

A failure with a version that had a known issue years ago that was replaced without issue by the company. None of them have any issues with the current model. Plus, if you're spending $400 to $10,000 on an iWatch, it better work without issue and be replaced immediately if it fails.

Anecdotally, I have lots of friends with failed iPhones and Macbooks. My girlfriend swore Macbooks off after owning the awful white Macbook that had constant motherboard and screen issues and that Apple end-of-lifed way too soon after release because they never were able to release 64-bit drivers for it (seriously... even though it's their own hardware with their own OS). Doesn't mean all Macbooks have that same failure rate or awful product support outside that model.

One thing I have noticed of my friends with fitbits vs smartwatches, they treat fitbits like beater Casio watches and they treat smartwatches like Rolexes. I'm not sure if it's perception of materials or the fact that smartwatches cost 3 to 10 times as much as fitbits. I know I don't worry too much about my Fitbit Surge 2 HR because it only cost me $75.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#328

Post by larkost »

8ytecoder wrote: post #94
Xixi wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might be a technological issue: standards (GSM, CDMA) and allowed frequencies vary a lot from country to country. The chip in this Apple Watch might be too specific? If it's a purely contractual issue, it should be gone soon (for a fee): too much money to be made from international roaming.

Unlikely, the chips in iPhones have been carrier neutral for at least a couple of generations now.

The chips maybe, but the antennas still need to provide the right bands:

https://www.apple.com/iphone/LTE/

There is some additionally complexity in that many of these can speak GSM, so have some ability to work in degraded modes. And then another round of complexity in that the CDMA versions usually can be unlocked into GSM mode, losing the CDMA functionality but allowing for more general use (but not generally 4G).

Re: Apple Watch 3

#329

Post by larkost »

edko wrote: post #95

Does anybody know if it is completely independent from a phone, as in: no need to even own one?

It needs to be setup using your phone, and also needs to be tied to the same telephone number. So you don't get a separate number (or bill), rather this is an add-on to your cell phone bill.

Re: Apple Watch 3

#330

Post by glhaynes »

anindha wrote: post #282
glhaynes wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

watchOS has “Scribble”: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT206907 Or Siri dictation.

You can also use the crown.

They could make it so that the crown is used for text entry, but I don't believe any version of watchOS ever has done so yet.
Post reply on HN