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

371–380 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#371

Post by adamjs »

Two words: Universal Identity. That's the killer use-case that everyone is missing. The Apple Watch has an NFC-chip, internet connection, and an API-- this is going to happen. (They've already announced a partnership with W Hotels for the Watch to replace keycards in rooms.)

I think this would be super-convenient in the short-term but seems very worrisome in the long-term. My watch/phone/drivers-license is NOT me, and the more we rely on a single-point for authentication, the greater the potential for abuse and theft. More solutions need to be created.

Re: The Apple Watch

#372

Post by count »

3pt14159 wrote: post #55

Super disappointed with this. I was hoping for a bunch of sensors that fed my iPhone. Not something to discretely take meetings during a meeting. Here is what is missing for me: 1. Sweat sensor. 2. Insulin sensor. 3. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently automatically detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! My iPhone should auto update a fitne…

Now that Apple has gone public with it, they may be able to start submitting paperwork to FDA, partnering with other companies in a more open way, etc.

It's hard to build a huge ecosystem/etc. for something that was just a rumor, without that competitive cover being blown.

Re: The Apple Watch

#373

Post by vacri »

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…

In every case someone has said "X is better!" And in every case so far that X has turned out to maybe have some particular features, or better stats for some particular stat, but not to be engineered to the level of the Apple product.

Apple has turned out some turkeys in its time, but people only seem to remember the highlights.

I haven't seen anything innovative from Google since 2001

That's some powerfully strong blinders you've willingly put on there. And calling maps part of Gmail? Seriously?

Re: The Apple Watch

#374

Post by anmonteiro90 »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #279
anmonteiro90 wrote: post #9

Main drawback is you need an iPhone in order to have one. Couldn't there be a version that didn't?

I was hoping for an iPod Nano evolution myself, i.e. a standalone device that gets extras like GPS and connectivity when near your iphone, but alas. Actually, was there anything on the ipod product line?

Nope, no announcements at least

Re: The Apple Watch

#375

Post by wildfire »

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…

I'm old enough to remember to spell, and remember when the first Mac came out.

The response has always been the same; one segment pointing out problems, another pointing out how "visionary" the new thing is.

If you are as old as you claim to be, and still fall foul of corporate machinations - then "sucks to be you". Next you'll tell us what your current corporate master told you to say.

There a many things wrong with what you wrote; the most glaring is: "haven't seen anything innovative from Google since 2001".

Later you go on to say, "unless you count gmail".

1. gmail wasn't released until 2004

2. the whole thing called "ads" wasn't available until 2001.

3. Android copied iOS. Which copied Windows. Which copied MacOS. Which copied GEM. Which copied x/PARC. Someone once said "good artists copy, great artists steal".

4. I guess you keep missing the news about Google's moonshot project (loom, wing, self-driving cars).

If you feel condemmed to define yourself by the applications and services that a particular company makes available (be it Google or Microsoft, or Apple), please understand that you are a shill.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2013/08/on-geek-culture/

Neither Superman, nor Google, nor Apple will save you.

Save your energy.

Re: The Apple Watch

#376

Post by DCKing »

dkulchenko wrote: post #313
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 homescr…

These were my thoughts too when watching the presentation.

The ironic thing here is that Android Wear seems to be the simpler solution. Android Wear is an extension of your phone - a way to process information on your wrist.

Apple Watch seems to be another way to interact. They mentioned glanceable information as somewhat of a footnone during the presentation (although their implementation seems pretty good). They mostly seemed to focus on additional communication tools, an image viewer, setting up navigation on your watch, having "apps" on your watch. With Apple Watch there is a lot more going on than just contextual information.

Because of that Apple Watch seems to have more features. Those features may make it more useful, but they also might not. Those features do seem to make Apple Watch a more complicated solution. It's hard to see which of these properties make one better over the other, but it's interesting to see the approaches are really quite different.

Re: The Apple Watch

#377

Post by jlangenauer »

computerjunkie wrote: post #308

My Two Cents : I love watches, but a smart watch is just not for me. I prefer the craftsmanship it takes to create a watch that is delicately engineered to give you the exact time and makes sure the timekeeping is always accurate. This is what a watch is supposed to do, keep time. I feel smart watches are somewhat a novelty at the moment . There is simply too much functionality involved in smart watches, although the…

I'm with you. I love my iPhone, but it will be a cold day in hell before my wrist sports one of these.

That said, I'm certainly interested to see where it will go - especially, as someone else said - once watchmakers start dealing in tech rather than tech-makers dealing in watches.

Re: The Apple Watch

#378

Post by tomelders »

julianpye wrote: post #8

The main innovation I like is NFC in the Watch. This makes so much sense. What is the big advantage of pulling a phone from your bag instead of a wallet? Paying with a wrist, opening doors with your wrist, entering the metro with your wrist. Can't wait for the next Wear releases from Samsung to have it integrated :)

No touch ID though, that's still on the phone so.... I'm guessing payments won't be as useful on the watch, if present at all.

Re: The Apple Watch

#379

Post by personZ »

girvo wrote: post #359
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…

> but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach. Its... it's a consumer electronics brand. I'll truly never understand how this stuff gets people so riled up. I mean, I used to get all hot and bothered when I followed smartphones (2006 represent!), but nowadays we're at a point where every gadget is just a riff on another gadget, and that's fine . Now no matter wh…

Its... it's a consumer electronics brand

Of extraordinary social and technological importance. I work in technology, and shifts in mobile technology have significant impacts on my life.

I can understand if this were a knitting board and someone made a comment like yours. In technology, however, it is extremely pertinent to what we do.

Re: The Apple Watch

#380

Post by Shivetya »

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.

Maybe during the event but every other day while your out working out and such? I don't know about you, but I don't know any cyclist that leaves home without his phone. Heck it comes down to what not to take beyond a few certain requirements. // 2 tubes, pump, money, id, phone, water, energy gels (yuck), rain cover //

If I am short riding, as in I could walk home, the phone still goes with me. However I see no use for the watch. I have a simple comp on the handlebars, maybe I could stick the watch there?

While I disagree with your premise as the phone is there anyway, I see the watch more as Starbucks wear than anything else.

Post reply on HN