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?
I can't speak to Apple's intentions but it is what makes iOS fundamentally different to Android. It could be related to product marketing. People buy iPads for fundamentally different use cases than buying a phone (even a large one).
Edit: Because I am being downvoted so heavily for this let me be clear. I don't agree with what Apple did only trying to explain it. I would imagine that Apple never expected to be releasing phones and tablets that are so close in physical size to each other.
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…
"Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work"
What's interesting to me is the extent to which the Apple Watch is designed to be interacted with, which contrasts strongly with Google's vision of wearables (both Android Wear and Glass) as assistants that are there when you need them, but which otherwise disappear so you can stay immersed in life.
"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…
Apple's execution on what came to be core "built-in" smartphone features with the iPhone 1 was arguably better than any other implementation that had ever been on the market. It's not reasonable to refer to it as a "prototype". It's germane to this discussion, because even though I'm as baffled as you are by the thought of the Apple Watch as a fashion accessory, there's some evidence that if Apple can nail the basics…
as far as i'm concerned, anyone who dismisses sapphire crystal on a watch as some kind of useless feature isn't to be taken seriously about watches, smart or otherwise.
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 wa…
Pretty sure we go through this every year. People are 'disappointed' by Apple product announcements, people have a whinge about Tim Cook, then they turn out to be fairly successful and well received.
> 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
And of course the one thing we've heard over and over for the past few years from Apple is "teenagers don't wear watches". Presumably one could also add, "teenagers don't have a grand in cash to spend on a phone/watch combo" as well.
I think the logical conclusion to draw here is that there was an elaborate "Trading Spaces" style bet in the Apple executive ranks on who could get Tim Cook onstage doing the most ridiculous product demo. Kudos to whoever won that one.
Tim Cook tried to make the Apple Watch his iPhone moment but it came across as off - the Watch really is nothing as revolutionary in any way shape or form as the iPhone was. It is thick. They had to resort to gimmicks - communicating heart rates, drawing fish, three dots to ask for lunch(!) - to make it sound useful. The price is off by at least $100. They specifically danced around mentioning battery life - with the…
The original iPhone was thick also when it came out. Wait till the 2nd revision.
I agree the price for the low end version is off but the high end versions I expect to be in the 1k-2k range.
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.
Ok, ok; bad phrasing on my part. I meant that with Apple's branding around affordable luxury and challenging the status quo, a round screen would most definitely have been a talking point for this product and a differentiator from everything else on the market.
That said, I've since been reminded about the Moto360 which _did_ have a round screen, so my point is moot anyway.
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.
Two small things: * The product pages for the individual Watch lines, especially http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-sport/ , are the first time I can recall Apple using sex or (literal) sexiness in its advertising. (We'll pass over the "Rip. Mix. Burn." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECN4ZE9-Mo cringefest ...) * I await Gruber's reaction with considerable interest...
I found this really surprising too. Seemed quite out of character, really.