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

361–370 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#361

Post by boyaka »

coldtea wrote: post #285
alttab wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, Google Glass turns you into a walking celebrity, and has been as far from "socially inappropriate" as it can get. I'm not in San Fran, which seems to be the only place that pours haterade.

Actually they have thrown out people even in Paris McDonalds for wearing a Google Glass. And just try wearing it in some sensitive areas (e.g night-clubs, expensive restaurants etc) around the world and see what happens...

So it's socially inappropriate because it's not allowed by a gigantic corporation (that films everything we do at their restaurants), as well as stuck up fancy institutions that will scoff at your shoes and not let you in for that?

Re: The Apple Watch

#362

Post by personZ »

chipotle_coyote wrote: post #356
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…

Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." Both of these are trivially demonstrated false. And I'm sure Google has put thought and effort into Android Wear, but what you dismiss as a "trite speech from Tim Cook" looks to me like a stake in the ground. Google says…

but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch."

You've soundly beaten down notions that I certainly didn't state. Nor have I seen everyone else. However the narrative among the Apple camp was that competitors were desperately rushing to deliver vapour, and that their stodgy square mega watches were non-starters.

Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone.

Again, you've firmly argued against something not being discussed. No one ever claimed that Android was first, however Android was quite specifically criticized by Apple (as were, tellingly, larger smartphones, and smaller tablets, and people eat it up). Because it turns out that Apple just says today whatever benefits their contemporary product line, much like just about every other company. And that's fine, but somehow it turns into higher meaning.

Re: The Apple Watch

#363

Post by tomelders »

bobochan wrote: post #232
smileysteve wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems like it's reasonable for it to switch orientation with the easily switchable bands. The 'crown' nub would then be on the bottom left of your right arm.

Doh! Of course you are probably right. Hopefully the display (like an iPhone) can determine its orientation and adjust.

I'm guessing it takes it's orientation from the strap.

Re: The Apple Watch

#364

Post by IkmoIkmo »

arrrg wrote: post #74
k2enemy wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Really? I thought that looked like one of the neatest things about it. I imagine that people will find all sorts of creative ways to use it for quick communication.

But nobody else will have it. Messaging that no one else has is dumb and useless.

That's probably my biggest gripe. If me and my gf both had one then sure, I'd send her a heart every now and then however cheesy it may be.

But the fact is, she has a Nexus 5, I have an iphone. Considering so many of the watch's features are dependent on the iphone, it makes a lot of sense to say that you're unlikely going to see anyone have an apple watch if they don't also have an apple phone. It's not a truly standalone product, it's very much an accessory working in sync with your phone. That means that the apple watch is a niche (smartwatches) within a niche (iphone owners, are relatively few) and so I doubt this will really take off. Like facetime. I've used it every now and then, but compared to skype, facebook calling, viber or indeed just text on whatsapp, it's a tiny tiny tiny part of my usage.

That's why I think this thing is gimmicky. Until every watch has it and it's just a third-party app that allows you to send messages between any platform, apple or android watches or anything else.

Re: The Apple Watch

#365

Post by MCRed »

morbius wrote: post #351
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…

I think that it's too premature to judge whether this effort is more justified technically and subjectively than Android Wear or any other competing efforts from independent vendors. Apple's device won't be shipping for another several months, and the demo given at the keynote today hardly scratches the surface of what the product could potentially do. There needs to be an identifiable niche that these smartwatches c…

The iPhone has been used less than %10 of its time as a phone by me. Same thing with the watch as a watch. The other applications-- each of which may by itself not justify the price of the device, in aggregate make smartphones a steal, and may well do the same for the Apple watch.

I don't wear a timepiece and haven't for many years, however, I was considering getting one of those health monitoring bands and then decided to wait because I bet the Apple watch would be a better product for that need.

So, while the iPhone has eliminated the need for a watch, the thing on the wrist isn't so much a watch as a notification system and monitoring system.

Apple positioned this as an accessory to the iPhone and that's how I would use it.

I'm not sure whether I would wear something on my wrist again or just stop after awhile, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy one of these when they come out.

For me, the $350-$450 it will cost is a little high but not something to worry about and I know they will get cheaper over time, as well as smaller etc.

But I'm not just out of college and worrying about money like that anymore.

I think there's a large market of people like me. I would be quite surprised if there wasn't enough value in the device to make me very happy with the purchase.

Re: The Apple Watch

#366

Post by megablast »

personZ wrote: post #281
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…

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…

> but you have to understand that a lot of people are derisive because we've been hearing the Apple faithful railing about these same attributes of competitor devices for months

I think this is unfair, it isn't Apple people railing against this, it is everybody. And they will be again, in a couple of days. A lot more was expected of Apple in this arena, and it looks like they have not delivered the watch everybody was after.

Re: The Apple Watch

#367

Post by kevincrane »

MCRed wrote: post #334
dkulchenko wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 homescr…

I am old enough to remember when the first Mac came out. There was a response to it very much like you see here (only it happened on BBSes because there wasn't much of an "internet") then. It's been the same way for every major product- iMac was chastised for lacking a floppy drive, the iPod, iPhone and iPad were all poo-poohed. In every case someone has said "X is better!" And in every case so far that X has turned…

> Android is still a terrible, clunky piece of junk, even with so many years to copy Apple.

Not in the last few years, not even close. Android is pretty amazing right now, I love it.

Re: The Apple Watch

#368

Post by jayvanguard »

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…

I disagree on the watches but agree on VR. A phone in your pocket is really absurd when you think about it. It would be far more useful on your wrist for 80% of what you'd use it for. For the remaining 20% (gaming, typing longer texts, etc.) you can still have a larger phone but it would mostly stay in your bag.

As for VR, there is a solid 30+ years of it being "the next" thing and then failing to be. I tried the Oculus recently and it didn't change my mind.

Re: The Apple Watch

#369

Post by leoc »

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.

Do you remember what a Creative Nomad Jukebox actually looked like around 2001? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQaplenaBl4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR5hPd_inno

Existing MP3 players offered a pretty rough user experience; the iPod was a pleasure to use in comparison. Largely the same was true of iPhone as compared to existing smartphones. The first generations of iPod and iPhone also had hardware that was strikingly attractive and even more important, ready for prime time: well able to meet the needs of their software and of the use cases they were designed for. The Apple Watch has lovely fit and finish but looks portly and awkward, and faces serious questions on the basic criterion of battery life. The UI looks promising, but from what there is to see so far it doesn't look as if it's going to blow Android Wear out of the water. (The "digital crown" looks promising, though!)

Moreover, even without a second 5GB of storage or wireless, the iPod had a compelling "value proposition" that was soon clear to everyone, even if it wasn't immediately clear to CmdrTaco: "portable MP3 player that doesn't suck". What's the comparable pitch for the first-gen Apple Watch; what does it offer that feels like a must-have, rather than a nice-to-have, and which you can't do fairly well using your smartphone?

None of this is to say that the Watch is terrible, or will fail, or will never amount to anything. But the CmdrTaco analogy seems clearly inaccurate to me at this stage.

Re: The Apple Watch

#370

Post by DannyBee »

coldtea wrote: post #350
DannyBee wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"If $300 sounds to much for a fashion item, it's probably not for you."

Fair enough, but i have to say, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here. So apple releases it and suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch. Just a few short months ago, i was reading nytimes articles about the current crop of smartwatches saying "'They’re just not that attractive,' said Mr. Dawson, 'they are all clunky and square'"

But now suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch?

(I understand fashion is fickle, but this is really really fickle :P)

Post reply on HN