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?
Every runner I know, casual or not, myself included. Not to mention other athletes in such sports as football, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc.
It's very inconvenient to run with a phone and almost impossible to play other sports with one.
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.
Sure it might not be for serious runners but about half the people I see running have a phone strapped to their arm. If they also have the watch it means they can see the display while running and get more accurate data. For those people it's not a big deal. If you're the sort of person who buys a GPS watch of course it won't be for you. When has Apple ever catered to niche markets?
Yeah, that's exactly my point. I used my iPhone 3G for 2 years of running when I first started. Why would I blow $350 on an Apple Watch to get marginal gains that a $150 GPS watch can also give AND let me ditch carrying the phone. Which, arm strap or no, is bulky and at risk of destruction.
Agreed. Apple make beautiful devices that are fashion accessories... but this isn't one of them, in my opinion.
I know it's wasteful to cut the corners off LCDs to make them round, but I am a little surprised that Apple didn't go that route just for novelty value if nothing else. Would've made a nice interface paradigm with a rotary dial on the face too.
You're surprised that Apple didn't make a fundamental design decision for novelty value? Not sure you have been paying attention to Apple lately.
The watch-to-watch communication with all the sharing your heart rate and sending little pictures was the most Samsung thing I've ever seen anyone but Samsung do. Seriously, is there a real problem lurking around somewhere for which this is a solution? The force sensitive display might be useful, I couldn't really tell from the coverage. At least one person there commented that they were having a hard time seeing the…
> The watch-to-watch communication with all the sharing your heart rate and sending little pictures was the most Samsung thing I've ever seen anyone but Samsung do. Haha, yes I thought the same thing too - communicating heart rates, hand drawn fish for sushi, 3 dots for asking lunch - that was _very_ un-Apple-y.
"But think of the teenagers! They will love this feature!" - words probably uttered at Apple HQ during the design phase that made Steve Jobs shake in his grave
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.
What would be the point of behaving differently regardless of screen size? The screen size is the difference that causes different behavior between tablet and phone, or at least it should be so. If the screen size is the same, why have different UI?
"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…
I own a Pebble Steel, and am quite interested in a Moto 360. I'm guessing you've tried the former too? What are your thoughts on the two? I'm trying to decide if I should switch my mobile back to Android and get a 360 instead of my iPhone + Pebble Steel :)
I have a Pebble Steel too, silver one, and if you've gotten used to the battery life of that, I have a feeling after reading Ars Technica's review that you'd find the Moto 360 less to your liking.
I absolutely love the always on epaper screen on my Steel, plus how classy the whole device looks and feels - and the functionality it offers me. None of the new smartwatches have any appeal to me as having to charge them daily doesn't float my boat. If I need more functionality I'll just whip out my Samsung S5.
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…
I completely agree, having watched this year's Google I/O panel on smartwatch interaction design, it is very obvious that Google has put an enormous amount of thought into their watch platform. They came to a fundamentally different conclusion for what a smartwatch should do, and I really enjoy the experience. The contextual information from Google Now is incredibly useful and it feels like my watch tells me not only what time it is, but information personally tailored to my lifestyle. For example, I always go out after work on Tuesdays, and right now my watch is telling me that there is lots of traffic on the way to my favorite bar. In the morning, it tells me how long my commute will be and what the weather will be that day. I can start navigation from my watch with my voice and get every direction as I need it. I can control any music player with notification support. I don't run any interaction-heavy apps on my watch, and I can't imagine ever wanting to do so. The thought of browsing a photo library or sending my heartbeat to someone seem like features for the sake of having features but in reality are completely unnecessary.
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.
It certainly serves some purpose to map your runs even for less serious runners. It would also be cool to have music without being tethered to the phone.
Am I the only one who thinks the available/previewed watch faces don't match the intended goal of the device? This event was all about fashion, inviting all of the fashion journalists and talking about personalization. Not a single one of those watch faces look appealing, and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I think the design has potential when it gets a little bit…
Apple making it could make it un-geeky. I don't know how or why, but when they touch something, sometimes it becomes cool.
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.
It's more than a minor annoyance. The problem is how to carry it. Pockets are out of the question (for those that have them) as is any sort of bag or purse. I used to have a band for my old iPod that would strap to my arm. I suppose going back to that contraption with a phone is a possibility, but considering the discomfort and weight, not to mention the possibility of rain destroying the phone, I would do anything to avoid that. And if it's on my arm anyway, why would I need the watch interface?