Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 118 posts

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#51

Post by psbp »

mladenkovacevic wrote: post #39

I have no interest in the exclusive "I make more money than you" objects so let's talk about that digital crown instead. I think Apple messed up here. I might be proven wrong after millions of people are joyfully spinning their little digital crowns between their thumb and forefinger a couple of years from now, but I would wager a small sum that I'm not wrong. Would it not have been better to put a touch-sensitive pa…

>Perhaps there's some use case where the digital crown is a preferable method of input (setting a very exact numerical value for example)

Home automation.

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#52

Post by LeoPanthera »

rtpg wrote: post #44
Kylekramer wrote: post #28

My impression of Android Wear is that it’s best thought of as a wrist-worn terminal for your Android phone and for Google’s cloud-based services. An extension for your phone, not a sibling device. Android Wear devices are almost useless other than for telling time when out of Bluetooth range from your phone. I don’t think that’s a device that many people want; it’s a solution in search of a problem. I don't see how t…

> don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch. This is something that nobody seems to want to acknowledge in (for lack of a better word) the Apple fanclub. If you look at the features of the Apple watch, they are basically the same as every other smartwatch released by Samsung and motorola (except for the NFC/Apple Pay stuff, which I am genuinly excited for). People are trying really hard…

Ars Technica recently did a comparison of (what we know of) the Watch software, and the Android Wear software:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/09/smartwatch-wars-the-app...

Android Wear looks very primitive in comparison.

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#53

Post by elblanco »

craigching wrote: post #46
Kylekramer wrote: post #28

My impression of Android Wear is that it’s best thought of as a wrist-worn terminal for your Android phone and for Google’s cloud-based services. An extension for your phone, not a sibling device. Android Wear devices are almost useless other than for telling time when out of Bluetooth range from your phone. I don’t think that’s a device that many people want; it’s a solution in search of a problem. I don't see how t…

> I don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch. Playing music via Bluetooth only But Gruber says this: > It has internal storage and Bluetooth, so you’ll be able to use it for music playback without taking your iPhone with you. Is Gruber wrong about that? I admittedly don't know, but he sounds authoritative here that the Apple Watch has storage for tunes. That's pretty cool to me.

Pretty much all the smartwatches have sufficient internal storage for some music. They're probably all just an app away from supporting this kind of use-case.

In other words Gruber's case on this is irrelevant.

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#54

Post by LeoPanthera »

swang wrote: post #38

"The iPad/iPhone is soooo egalitarian!" "Is Apple losing the egalitarianism it never had? No, it had Macs, it was never egalitarian!" Why was this in the article at all then? Using an analogy that in the end the author itself destroys is bad writing, or at worst extra reading for the reader for no gain. In his own article he never considers Apple egalitarian, yet he is asking a hypothetical question as though Apple w…

I'm not sure I understand your criticism. He seems quite clear to me. He thinks that iThings are egalitarian products, but demonstrates that Apple as a whole is not, given the existence of Macs, and now the watch.

This is a worthwhile point to make, since people will compare the watch to iThings, not Macs.

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#55

Post by drcode »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #17
drcode wrote: post #11

IT'S A F@#&ING KNOB! Just because you're Apple doesn't give you the right to call it a "digital crown".

As your comment rightfully deserves due to language and general non-contribution, you've been down-voted into oblivion. Nevertheless, educating the uninformed is a public service, so here goes: amongst professionals and connoisseurs in the watch industry, the "knob" is called a "crown", so they have every right to call it that; they didn't just make it up.

To defend my position: They're not calling it a "crown", they're calling it a "digital crown", and digital knobs are common place objects that already have a name.

If I build a car with a joystick instead of a steering wheel and call it a "digital steering wheel" everyone would say, "No, somebody invented that already, it's called a 'joystick'"... they would not say "I am going to educate the uninformed and tell them that among car connoisseurs, a joystick is called a steering wheel."

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#56

Post by blinkingled »

craigching wrote: post #46
Kylekramer wrote: post #28

My impression of Android Wear is that it’s best thought of as a wrist-worn terminal for your Android phone and for Google’s cloud-based services. An extension for your phone, not a sibling device. Android Wear devices are almost useless other than for telling time when out of Bluetooth range from your phone. I don’t think that’s a device that many people want; it’s a solution in search of a problem. I don't see how t…

> I don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch. Playing music via Bluetooth only But Gruber says this: > It has internal storage and Bluetooth, so you’ll be able to use it for music playback without taking your iPhone with you. Is Gruber wrong about that? I admittedly don't know, but he sounds authoritative here that the Apple Watch has storage for tunes. That's pretty cool to me.

Android Wear has that functionality included in an update - http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/android-wear-moving-f...

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#57

Post by elblanco »

blainsmith wrote: post #5

And yet it is still square and ugly because of it.

It really is an ugly square brick, regardless of how nice the bands are.

For a company that wanted you to think difference, which I interpret to mean "don't be a square", all this squareness and market conformity is really disappointing.

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#58

Post by jnevill »

51Cards wrote: post #20
tlb wrote: post #3

The combination of solid gold and the obsolescence period of wearable electronics is uncharted territory.

Agreed, I don't see any decent percentage of even the high end market investing that much in a watch that will be largely obsolete in 2 years tops. You buy a Rolex to have it for years and pass it down. A $5000 watch that no one will want in 2 years is not a wise investment.

That was brought up in Gruber's post as well. What is more audacious then dropping 10k on something that will be obsolete in 2 years. There's an audience for that kind of ridiculous spending and you can bet people will notice a 10000 dollar Gold iWatch strapped to your wrist and know that you are someone with so much money that having an obsolete piece of technology that costs 10k is no big deal.

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#59

Post by freshyill »

XorNot wrote: post #49
freshyill wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the electronics are obsolete, you've still got a chunk of gold hanging off your wrist. Gruber mentions this, and raises the possibility of trade-ins. They do it with phones, and it makes sense for watches made of solid gold.

The only way you could make this work would be to make the electronics swappable out of the chassis, to give the object some sort of historical permanence for the owner. Of course, if you could do that though, then you're not really in the smartwatch business, since it would mean anyone could make compatible wrist-bands. Conversely - that might not be a bad business to be in.

Well if it comes down to the bands, you just know there will be knockoffs. As for the enclosure itself, Apple seems really proud of their manufacturing process for these things. If the guts of the thing are swappable (even if only by Apple), it might be tough for anybody else to come up with a comparable knockoff.

Re: Apple Watch: Initial Thoughts and Observations

#60

Post by stefanu »

bane wrote: post #40
mladenkovacevic wrote: post #39

I have no interest in the exclusive "I make more money than you" objects so let's talk about that digital crown instead. I think Apple messed up here. I might be proven wrong after millions of people are joyfully spinning their little digital crowns between their thumb and forefinger a couple of years from now, but I would wager a small sum that I'm not wrong. Would it not have been better to put a touch-sensitive pa…

> put a touch-sensitive pad along the whole side of the Apple Watch That's exactly what I thought when I first saw it explained. Coming from the iPod and all this touch sensitive stuff (and then the "hard tap" being introduced here) a physical thingamabob to fiddle with seems really odd.

What about a cold weather? You can still turn the crown in gloves when it is freezing.
Post reply on HN