Live data from Hacker News

The Apple Watch

apple.com

511–520 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#511
post #136

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…

Whether this will be useful all rests on the quality and differentiation of the haptic feedback. For example, imagine walking down the street towards your destination and feeling the right side of the watch vibrate to signal that you should turn right. If your watch can communicate contextual information related to your intention and local then it will be superior to (1) wearing a socially inappropriate device like t…

> (3) fumbling in your phone in order to then open the correct app.

This isn't directly tied to you or your argument, but whenever people talk about about smart watches, 'fumbling with your phone' seems to come up. I can't recall the last time I thought of checking my phone as a hassle or felt like I was 'fumbling with it'.

That being said, I am excited to see what developers come up with for smart watches (either platform) and am interested to see how the haptic* feedback performs.

* I know Apple is calling it the Taptic Engine, so I'm not sure if we're supposed to be calling it taptic or haptic feedback, especially since it's not entirely haptic

Re: The Apple Watch

#512
post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist. It's frequently lost upon this crowd (I'm guilty of this myself) that half of the population in the West frequently wears clothes which lack pockets.

Your statistic confused me until I realized you were [assumedly] referencing females who keep their phones in their purses/bags.

Please try to say women, not "females." I don't think you meant anything by it but when you always see that usage, (common in tech spaces) it starts to feel a little dehumanizing.

Re: The Apple Watch

#513
It's amazing, the variety of attitudes and opinions on this thread. People don't spend this much energy arguing the fine points of war and yet, it really is just a watch.

The promotion is genius. Not sure about the watch, but if the chatter is any sign, it's already a success.

Re: The Apple Watch

#514
post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, the iPod touch is basically an iPhone without the phone app, so the analogy still works :)

Re: The Apple Watch

#515

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In the last 13 years, they've delivered three new platforms: the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. (I'm not counting Apple TV, since Jobs' "hobby" designation still very clearly applies). Each of these had extraordinary effects in areas that others either hadn't imagined, had imagined badly, or had imagined well but had written off as impossible to achieve. In every case, Apple's products - which went onto be world changing, industry revolutionizing, bazillion dollar successes - were widely panned at the time of their unveiling.

Not universally, to be sure. Some people loved the iPod instantly. But there were plenty of others who couldn't see past the $400 price tag and said "Sure, the iPod: idiots price our devices."

The iPad also landed with a thud, at least online. The people who got their hands on them said "no wait, you really have to try this, it's a totally new experience", but that had to compete with a loud chorus of "meh", which I certainly understand. Mine (an Air) may not be the most indispensable Apple product I own, but it's easily the one I love the most, and the one that gives men the best sense of where Apple is going. That said, it was also a gift, and not something I would have bought for myself. Not until I actually had it and had been using it did I see it less an an individual device, and more as the favorite interface for a (far from realized) cloud-based future of computing. My point is that the Apply routinely makes choices with a long-range logic that is far from immediately self-evident.

The iPhone came the closest to being regarded as revolutionary right out of the gate, but even there the excitement was shortsighted. It seemed like the biggest "breakthrough" was getting a handle on voice mail. There was still a lot of doubt about full-touchscreen vs. BlackBerry's then-dominant tactile approach. There was bitching about the lack of apps (third party development was web-only) and of course, the endless complaining about Apple's "failure" to include "basic" stuff like cut and paste. There was no GPS, no CDMA, and many of the individual components - from the phone itself to the camera to the battery life - were pretty crappy.

But all these problems resolved themselves with time. Meanwhile, the fundamentals remained astonishingly stable. So much so that in many cases, major updates were visually indistinguishable from their predecessors. It took most people a long time to recognize how far-thinking the essential design choices really were. And to be fair, it generally took Apple a while before their own development path realized the full scope of the platform's potential.

But that's what these are, platforms built for the long run. If the past is any guide three things should be clear. (1) They come with very well considered development plans (2) What come to be seen as fundamental features of the platform (e.g. the App store) go unannounced when the platforms launch and (3) the immediate negative reactions - of which there are many - tend to be very short sighted.

So no, I will not be buying an Apple Watch in 2015, and probably not in 2016 either. But if the past is any guide, I expect that Apple will be delivering on this for a decade, if not decades to come. By the time it's ready to untether from the iPhone, I can see buying in. I'm looking forward to it.

Re: The Apple Watch

#516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple tends not to lower their prices. Instead, they offer newer models will with more features at stable price points. If prices do drop (e.g. the 5s) it's because an older product is still being sold alongside a newer one at the standard price.

This is not the case with first run products. The original iPhone's price was $599 (8GB) and $499 (4GB) when it was released in June 2007. Then in September of the same year they discontinued the 4GB model and dropped the price of the 8GB down to $400. I'm not saying that they will drop the price of the watch but there is a history of them doing this with the first run of a product. Also someone mentioned they did so…

Good point, though I think that few people paid that directly. From what I recall, base models have been $200 with a two year contract from the word go.

Re: The Apple Watch

#517
post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The overriding feeling I had during this keynote is that every feature that I found cool in the watch I would much prefer on my phone. Cool watch app? Wait, actually that would be cooler and more usable on a big screen... Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist.

> Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist. It's frequently lost upon this crowd (I'm guilty of this myself) that half of the population in the West frequently wears clothes which lack pockets.

Phones already do this. My android phone vibrates when I have walking directions on and I need to turn.

Re: The Apple Watch

#518
To those who are concerned about mainstream adoption of a watch like this, I remind you of the Pebble Kickstarter which was one of the most successful in Kickstarter history. And all those contributors had no guarantee that the Pebble would see the light of day. There is serious demand for a watch that does even what the Pebble originally promised, which is still far far less than what the Apple Watch has now proposed to do.

I have been a Pebble watch owner for over a year, after having given up wearing watches around the time I owned my first cellphone. I have come to feel the same NEED of having my Pebble on as I, and everybody else, has with their phone in their pocket. All of the quirks of the Pebble and everything that I have come to realize is missing with the Pebble, is addressed elegantly with the Apple Watch. 'Canned' and voice responses to messages... Huge. A non-obvious alternative to the classic vibration (which is obvious to people nearby when using the Pebble) in the 'tap' technology... also clever and smart.

Re: The Apple Watch

#519
post #236
post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whether this will be useful all rests on the quality and differentiation of the haptic feedback. For example, imagine walking down the street towards your destination and feeling the right side of the watch vibrate to signal that you should turn right. If your watch can communicate contextual information related to your intention and local then it will be superior to (1) wearing a socially inappropriate device like t…

In my experience, Google Glass turns you into a walking celebrity, and has been as far from "socially inappropriate" as it can get. I'm not in San Fran, which seems to be the only place that pours haterade.

Walking celebrity? I saw someone wearing Google Glass (on the east coast) and I had a very negative reaction. Just felt not at ease with this stranger around me.

Re: The Apple Watch

#520
post #110

I wear a watch, but I think about it as jewelry, and incidentally as a time piece. And until there is a killer app for a watch, I will continue to do so. Originally, I posed myself the question _if_ I would wear a smartwatch if there is no such thing as a killer app. The answer is yes, but _when_ is a better question. And the partial answer isn't about it being a smartwatch or dumbwatch, but about being an uglywatch…

This Apple watch is clearly not intended for people like you and me. You won't see James Bond wearing an Apple Watch and you won't see NASA strapping them around the sleeves of space suits like an Omega Speedmaster. This is another piece of electronics that will look as dated as a CueCat or dot-matrix printer fifteen years from now. A classic timepiece, on the other hand, will retain or gain value over time. I bought my Rolex Submariner for about $6000 in 2009. Just five years later, a new Sub costs close to $9000. The value of used Rolexes is even higher. I wouldn't be surprised if my watch has doubled in value.

The Apple Watch has its place: it's an alternative to a Suunto or Garmin training watch, or an everyday watch for people who wouldn't spend more than $500 on a timepiece. It's a fashion item but it's not jewelry. Like the original iPhone, its scarcity may create an initial aura of exclusivity but things will die down once you see a 14 year-old on the bus wearing one.

Post reply on HN