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

431–440 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#431

Post by deong »

nilkn wrote: post #346
deong wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

You're reading me wrong. I wouldn't be up in arms about it -- I'd be giddy at the prospect of giving my friend shit over it. As presumably, my friends would be for me if I sent them sketches.

Re: The Apple Watch

#432

Post by porsupah »

bobochan wrote: post #133
pilsetnieks wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd wait and see how it actually works - for example, with the navigation scenario, it's far more likely that you'd choose your destination on your phone which will then handoff the navigation to the watch. Thus, no need to constantly look at the phone while you're walking + haptic feedback to guide you along the path.

Siri could be the big savior here. I'm actually very happy with my iPhone's voice recognition and Siri's performance. Another gripe, the "digital crown" is on the opposite side of the watch for me. It could be an impediment of being left handed, but having it on the right hand side of the watch increments the awkward factor for me.

Apparently, the orientation of the display will be a matter of setup configurability:

http://www.slashgear.com/wheres-our-left-handed-apple-watch-...

"So, it turns out the Apple Watch really works TWO ways. Apple tells us on initial setup, you can choose to have the watch face orient itself for use on the right wrist, making it friendly to lefties. The watch bands are also swappable, so your band isn't facing the wrong way. Good news for everyone involved, but like most things in life, Lefties will still have to deal with a right-handed design -- the crown will be on the bottom of the left side of the watch when on the right wrist."

Re: The Apple Watch

#433

Post by deong »

danabramov wrote: post #345
deong wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 othe…

Funny you should mention it, but I currently live about 10,000 kilometers from my girlfriend. And like I said, it's maybe an OK thing between partners. I think it's a stupid gimmick that would immediately get old even then, but that's it. You should not send a cutesy picture in lieu of an actual message to anyone else.

Re: The Apple Watch

#434

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.

As a serious runner, there is no way that I would run for an extended distance without my phone on me. First of all because I would rather not have to drag my injured self out somewhere to ask for help, rather than being able to call for it from my phone. Whenever I do triathlon training, I would also not think of leaving without my phone, as I tend to go for 30-40 mile bike rides into remote areas, and having a way to communicate with the outside world in case the worst happens (equipment malfunction, injury) is preferable. I don't think I have a single watch that can last more than 7 hours of continuous GPS usage, between running and biking, so I'd like to see what the battery life on the Apple Watch looks like before passing judgement.

Re: The Apple Watch

#435

Post by aioprisan »

boucher wrote: post #424
coldtea wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For less serious runners, the GPS serves no noticeable purpose. Without the GPS, the Apple Watch can still track your speed and distance.

Re: The Apple Watch

#436

Post by Bahamut »

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.

I am a serious runner (have run 3 marathons, running a fourth in a month and a half), and I'm entertaining the possibility of converting over to the iPhone + Apple Watch. For me though, it's more complicated.

I always run with my phone & wallet for emergency reasons. I don't use a sports watch anymore (I do have a Garmin), but largely due to their bulk & wanting to focus less on my time/pace & more on my body.

I also am getting sick of Verizon getting vendors to lock down Android phones AND forcing phone vendors to toss a bunch of crapware onto the phones. The only reason I haven't switched yet is because I am on a legacy $40/month/line family plan. I am not a huge fan of iOS - I love Google's integrations with its services with Android.

A lot of what I end up doing is taking out my cellphone to check for messages or the time. It's excessive, and quite inconvenient.

Why not one of the existing smartwatches? I haven't yet been convinced that they're built for my desires.

I'm not really in a rush to make a decision here, and likely will wait some before jumping in (probably will try out the Moto 360 in the short term), but the cost isn't really out of the realm of reason necessarily to me.

Re: The Apple Watch

#437

Post by aioprisan »

zimpenfish wrote: post #318
bane wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet your iphone is trying to use cell tower locations or wifi hotspots it's picking up around there and borking up the location. The area around there is kind of open and flat so I wouldn't be surprised if it's picking up location information from across the river.

It does seem to be WiFi related. But if I have to remember to disable the WiFi whenever I want to do some GPS tracking - and if I forget, I basically get random garbage - that pushes it well into "no bloody use" for me.

That's a feature, not a bug ;)

Re: The Apple Watch

#438

Post by ebbv »

greedo wrote: post #93
ebbv wrote: post #40

The fact that this requires me to bring my iPhone on a run kills it as a sport watch. I can get a high quality GPS watch for $150 that doesn't require me to bring my iPhone. Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it. Dumb, dumb move on Apple's part.

Hopefully it won't require the iPhone to be present all the time. Perhaps there's a sync function to send the running/sports metrics to the iPhone. Today's presentation left a lot to speculation.

It doesn't have its own GPS, so it cannot be a functional running watch without your phone. It's really dumb.

Re: The Apple Watch

#439

Post by ebbv »

pingec wrote: post #109
ebbv wrote: post #40

The fact that this requires me to bring my iPhone on a run kills it as a sport watch. I can get a high quality GPS watch for $150 that doesn't require me to bring my iPhone. Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it. Dumb, dumb move on Apple's part.

Perhaps the sport version will be iphone-independent at least that's what I'd assume...

Nothing they've released so far indicates that it would be. You'd certainly hope so, though.

Re: The Apple Watch

#440

Post by leoc »

deong wrote: post #244
MrScruff wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion you're utterly wrong about VR, it's going to be a transformative technology and will precipitate a massive push for high end real-time graphics. People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades. As far as the watch goes, I think it will make money but less than the iPad. It's clearly pitched as a fashion accessory and will find a market. Just not a big enough one t…

> People want new experiences without leaving their sofa and VR will bring that in spades. It's far from clear that they're actually willing to do anything about it. Look at 3D TVs. No one wants to sit on their couch lazily watching whatever's on with special glasses. If VR was a passive technology like HD -- by which I mean you buy a new TV and everything is better without any further action on your part -- I'd be m…

[I accidentally posted this comment in the wrong place; it was meant to go https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8294635 here.]
Post reply on HN