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

421–430 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#421

Post by schrodinger »

eli wrote: post #309
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…

(Totally offtopic but running near the Whitehouse in DC is funny because they screw with GPS accuracy so you bounce all over the place)

How is that possible? GPS satellites are sending the same signal out to everyone, I don't see how they could possibly target a certain area.

Re: The Apple Watch

#422

Post by threeseed »

personZ wrote: post #410
threeseed wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry but you keep bringing up dynamic layouts without having a clue why they were introduced. It wasn't to create a "one app, run many" type system that Android has. It was merely to help developers support the different screen sizes within each category (iPhone, iPad). Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience.

Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience. You mean exactly like Android . Pretty remarkable having clueless people telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about: I develop in both Android and iOS. But please, inform me.

No. Android doesn't have controls that behave very differently on tablets versus phones (regardless of screen sizes) e.g. UIActionSheet or only exist on tablets e.g. UIPopoverController.

Apple baked into the SDK what it tells developers: iPhones and iPads are different devices that need different UIs. Android doesn't have this clear delineation.

Re: The Apple Watch

#423

Post by fphhotchips »

_red wrote: post #272
bobochan wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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…

In fairness, and to think a little more about your throw-away joke than I suspect you intended, the 'push and forget' nature of a button as compared to holding up your hand is important in some situations.

The Software Carpentary workshops that I've worked with/seen, for example, use a post-it note system that signifies that a student has a question (or is done, depending on the colour of the note). This allows the student to continue trying solutions without holding up their hand looking for attention. When an instructor is available, they can go over and help.

The advantage of a button system, then, would be that you could gather data on which students were asking the most questions, how long they generally have to wait, etc.

Re: The Apple Watch

#424

Post by boucher »

coldtea wrote: post #355
joesmo wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is a huge impediment to its usefulness. Having to carry around a phone while running is a drudge regardless of how serious of a runner or athlete you are. Not to mention so many other sports that could benefit from this but won't. This is especially so considering the larger size of the iPhone 6 and especially the iPhone 6 plus.

What casual runner goes running without their phone? That's how we get GPS, work with Nike+ gear, and can be reached if someone needs us or make a call if we need to. How many leave their phone on the house and go out jogging?

I think the point is that lots of runners would prefer not to bring their phone if that was an option and this watch could have enabled that. It's a legitimate (minor) annoyance to carry your phone while running.

Re: The Apple Watch

#426

Post by jroseattle »

nardi wrote: post #409
jroseattle wrote: post #26

I haven't worn a watch in at least 15 years. A good chunk of my friends and colleagues as well. I'm sure there are interesting use cases, but my summary view is this seems like a current-generation iPod with a wristband. No prediction of how successful it will be, but I kind of think this will be more niche than mainstream.

This is an "iPod with a wristband" in the same way an iPad is a "really big iPod touch": not very much.

Actually, wouldn't the iPad be a really big iPhone without a phone app?

Re: The Apple Watch

#427

Post by simplexion »

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…

"The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way."

If you ignore the LG Prada.

Re: The Apple Watch

#428

Post by aioprisan »

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.

Whoa, a Garmin Forerunner 910xt for $300? Hardly. My triathlon bundle cost $500, $400 for just the watch itself. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/prod90671.html

Re: The Apple Watch

#429

Post by capkutay »

The only reason I want this watch is the exact features they were demo'ing:

Quickly respond to texts without having to pull out and unlock my phone

See who's calling me

Using the map to track where I am in a route

It seems like they nailed the low-hanging fruit and designed a pretty nice looking watch. Apple watch and the moto 360 both deserve credit for making smartwatches that don't look like total nerd gadgets

Re: The Apple Watch

#430

Post by akfanta »

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 is pretty ridiculous comparison. The Apple watch is clearly not targeted to any serious runners/triathletes. I don't recall anyone claim it's a "sports watch".
Post reply on HN