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

541–550 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#541

Post by orbitur »

eli wrote: post #305
zimpenfish wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've got 18 months of Moves data logged against corresponding tracks from my 910XT and the difference in consistency, accuracy, etc., is telling - the iPhone is frequently off by 10s (if not 100s) of metres and especially coming round the Millennium Dome is a joke - it has me jumping from the south to the north of the Thames every few hundred metres. Moves iPhone 5S - http://imgur.com/kjYf8Tj Garmin 910XT - http://im…

How long does the Garmin take to find you at the start of a run? I admittedly had an old model, but it was basically a dealbreaker with the forerunner. I was wandering around for 5-10 mins with my wrist in the air waiting to start.

I use the 910XT in a very cloudy part of the world (which I'm assuming makes things worse). I've just integrated the startup time into my prep.

Before I put my running stuff on, I turn on the watch and let it figure stuff out while I'm taping my nips, and if it's winter, gloves, tights, mentally bracing myself for the cold, etc.

Re: The Apple Watch

#542

Post by n09n »

stevewilhelm wrote: post #525
n09n wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality distortion field and the ability to spin those negatives as positives are features, though. A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. How well it tells the time or does other things is much less important than how fashionable it is. Branding is one of Apple's strong suits, and you can't take that away by adding features as if consumer purchasing decisions are based on some kind of checklist-like RFPs like…

My Nike+ SportWatch GPS is not primarily jewelry. It combined with Strava is primarily a fitness motivation and management tool.

Watches in general, obviously. There's an exception to every rule.

Re: The Apple Watch

#543

Post by rwhitman »

I started wearing watches on a regular basis about a year ago and it has become an addictive new hobby, I'm up to 4 now and feel naked without one.

The primary use-case for a wristwatch - being able to glance at your wrist to tell the time - is actually very underrated in it's usefulness. We forget that watches started out as a pocket device until the military started strapping them onto the wrist for practical purposes.

When the cellphone came around we abandoned 100+ years of natural design evolution in favor of the more powerful new technology, but when that tech starts to fit comfortably in the same place that was so natural for the last century it will be a sea-change in the way we look at wireless tech...

Re: The Apple Watch

#544

Post by threeseed »

kamaal wrote: post #540
n09n wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reality distortion field and the ability to spin those negatives as positives are features, though. A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. How well it tells the time or does other things is much less important than how fashionable it is. Branding is one of Apple's strong suits, and you can't take that away by adding features as if consumer purchasing decisions are based on some kind of checklist-like RFPs like…

>>A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. Not actually though. A watch is still a watch. There are so many places where you can't carry or even have the opportunity to use your smart phone to check time. Students can't carry it to exam halls, people who are driving cars, workers, there many professions and use cases where a simple device strapped to your hand is indispensable when it comes to keeping track of time.

A watch is not just a watch to many people. Otherwise companies like IWC, Brietling, Rolex etc wouldn't be making as much money as they do.

Anything you put on your body that is visible to the public affects how people see you. Whether you care about this influences if you think a watch is fashionable or purely functional.

Re: The Apple Watch

#545

Post by UrMomReadsHN »

alttab wrote: post #530
UrMomReadsHN wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What personal reactions do you have with Google Glass that are untainted by what you've read? It's fear dude. I've had old ladies, young children who read about it and are amazed, and technology enthusiasts who would have nothing more than to try it on and give it a go. I know people theorize about the mark of the beast and cyborgs and privacy but I simply haven't seen it. It's a cool gadget and I have fun wearing it…

The reaction I had was not tainted by what I read since I don't read about Google Glass and I'm only vaguely aware of anything about it. My knowledge of Google Glass mostly comes from these HN comments, really. I have no fear (I'm not sure WHAT I am accused of be afraid of??) I had no opinion of it at all whatsoever until I saw someone wearing it in real life. This was in a bar, btw.

My visceral reaction was that of human disconnect. I hope I am explaining it right, it is a hard feeling to describe. It is the same sort of reaction I get (except stronger) when someone is wearing those bluetooth ear things. It makes me feel uneasy. The person isn't "completely there." A disconnect.

Uh, I think it is too complicated to explain, but it is a human interaction thing, not a technology thing.

Re: The Apple Watch

#546

Post by JohnTHaller »

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #522
personZ wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire” That is absolute crap. iTunes had no foothold to speak of in the marketplace. The notion of Apple having an "empire" at the time of the iPod’s release (or even at the time of the iPod’s mainstream success) was laughable.

It absolutely did. You may have forgotten, but the early success of iTunes/iPod was in being able to organize your music and get it on your device. iTunes/iPod was the first to really get this right on any kind of scale. And, compared to the competition of the time, they really nailed it. So, a phone that had that integrated was a really big deal, even if it couldn't run any apps (as the first iPhone did and couldn't).

Re: The Apple Watch

#547

Post by euske »

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.

"Steve Ballmer Laughs at iPhone" in 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

Re: The Apple Watch

#548

Post by eslaught »

leoc wrote: post #458

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...

Regarding your first point, see:

http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/advertising-and-fut...

Re: The Apple Watch

#549

Post by prawn »

nilkn wrote: post #457
n72 wrote: post #455

For many watches are used as a signaling device. That is, an expensive watch indicates to people that you have money. I assume these people aren't going to downgrade to an apple watch. I don't know what percentage of watch owners this is or whether it could affect uptake, but it could be factor.

While this might be true on one level, once you get into the realm of $350+ watches it can be very hard (if not impossible) for the casual and uninformed observer to guess whether a watch cost $500 or $5,000. $350 is already more than most people spend on any watch, and that's only the entry-level price -- I imagine some of the more premium versions of the watch are going to be $500+, though that's just speculation.…

I think their premium watches may be more like $1k+ even.

Re: The Apple Watch

#550

Post by robotresearcher »

bobochan wrote: post #107
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.

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…

> now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?

Did you ever use a Blackberry? Tiny rotating nubs are really good.

Post reply on HN