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

341–350 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#341

Post by DAddYE »

DannyBee wrote: post #314
DAddYE wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Which is the not completed thing again?

Apple Watch is not available yet, so I don't see the point. I rather prefer to buy something within few months than a "prototype" at retail price.

Can I ask you what is the android "wear", the only one I read some good things is the 360 (also announced 3/4 months before selling it) but it's not 6 months old.

Re: The Apple Watch

#342

Post by a_c_s »

bobochan wrote: post #107
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.

Exactly. I put off buying a GPS watch because I wanted to see what Apple was going to offer. Answer: Nothing. I really cannot imagine a more useless product than this watch. It requires an iPhone and seems to essentially serve as a small, remote interface for your phone. And how do I navigate that small interface? With an even smaller "digital crown." I hate trying to set the time on my watch, and now they expect me…

Zero minutes.

Once start walking your route, feedback will be given via haptic feedback to let you know which way to turn so you won't have to look at it again.

(Source: the keynote)

Re: The Apple Watch

#343

Post by megablast »

zimpenfish wrote: post #214
eli wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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://im…

I have found this with the phone, if I do a cold start. When I ride somewhere, start the tracking, the stop the tracking when I get to the run track, the iPhone is so much better at tracking me.

Re: The Apple Watch

#344

Post by DominikR »

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.

Well, that's just marketing. Of course it isn't the ultimate device for serious athletes, but it has useful health related features for the broad audience.

No matter how Apple markets its products, it's always intended for a broad spectrum of users, which almost excludes the possibility that you'll ever see a Apple product that is specialized for some kind of niche

Re: The Apple Watch

#345

Post by danabramov »

deong wrote: post #268
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someo…

> 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. At best , "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. If you haven't seen me in a while and I get a poorly drawn martini glass picture, I'm not going to think, "Cool. Drinks with AlwaysBeCoding." I'm going to think, "wha…

>At best, "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. [...] Pictures might be acceptable to your significant other.

Isn't useful to you? Personally, I find this immensely useful. I don't know of any other device to communicate with the significant other in such an intimate way. This is precisely what I wanted. You might understand it better when you're in a relationship but spend a lot of time away from each other. Of course pictures and taps mean much more than texting. Of course it's fun to invent your own sign language. If you don't have a use case for this watch, it doesn't mean it's not “useful”.

Re: The Apple Watch

#346

Post by nilkn »

deong wrote: post #268
AlwaysBCoding wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 someo…

> 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. At best , "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. If you haven't seen me in a while and I get a poorly drawn martini glass picture, I'm not going to think, "Cool. Drinks with AlwaysBeCoding." I'm going to think, "wha…

> I'm going to think, "what the hell is this picture of an ice cream cone with a marble in it?"

Only because this isn't currently a common type of communication. You'd instantly understand it if it were more standard.

> If one of my friends sent me one, I and the rest of the group would spend the next 10 minutes brainstorming unflattering nicknames to forever annoint him with.

Whether you're into smartwatches or not, this doesn't seem like a very friendly personality. You're really going to get this up in arms because a friend sent you a picture-based message?

Re: The Apple Watch

#347

Post by DannyBee »

DAddYE wrote: post #341
DannyBee wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

> Which is the not completed thing again? Apple Watch is not available yet, so I don't see the point. I rather prefer to buy something within few months than a "prototype" at retail price. Can I ask you what is the android "wear", the only one I read some good things is the 360 (also announced 3/4 months before selling it) but it's not 6 months old.

"Apple Watch is not available yet, so I don't see the point. I rather prefer to buy something within few months than a "prototype" at retail price."

Uh, what makes you think it also won't be essentially a prototype, like the iphone's first software basically was (web apps only), etc?

"Can I ask you what is the android "wear", the only one I read some good things is the 360 (also announced 3/4 months before selling it) but it's not 6 months old. " Android wear is the name of the device operating system for the android watches.

As for hardware, I've actually tried literally all of them. Right now, a samsung gear live happens to sit on my wrist most of the time. The retail 360 is not 6 months old, that is certainly correct. I can assure you i have worn wear devices for > 6 months :)

As for "what you read good things about", i don't know what to tell you. I actually tend to try things out more than just believing whatever the internet happens to think on a given day, which is heavily influenced (in all directions).

Re: The Apple Watch

#349

Post by enord »

gnarbarian wrote: post #327
_red wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that. Reminds me of a joke I heard: A local school board was trying to find ways to increase the efficiency of their schools. A local computer programmer had come…

I like the watch idea personally. Say you're riding your bike and you receive a text message. in order to see what's going on you will probably have to stop and take the phone out of your pocket. with a watch you can simply look at your wrist quickly.

Apparently you can record video with your iPhone 6 while on a bike so Apple clearly have different use-cases in mind.

Re: The Apple Watch

#350

Post by coldtea »

DannyBee wrote: post #316
coldtea wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

If $300 sounds to much for a fashion item, it's probably not for you. Heck, I don't think I'll buy one either.

But then again, consider that people buy $300+ headphones (Dre's) because of how they look, fashion etc. And they are not even the best headphones out there, whereas this is probably the best smartwatch.

Or that people bought iPods for $300 or more just 6 years ago. Without video or phone or camera. Heck, I bought my first iPod for ~$800 10 years ago (complete with a black and white LCD display).

And that's the 1st gen. In a year, it will be like $200 or $100 for the same thing or the new model.

So, yeah, it might flop or it might sell, but it won't be due to its price.

Post reply on HN