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

551–560 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#551

Post by thinkling »

pat2man wrote: post #56
rebel wrote: post #30

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…

One would assume that third party apps could provide a watch face.

Yes, I was thinking that screen savers are back! (AfterDark, anyone?)

Re: The Apple Watch

#552

Post by duney »

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…

Re: "It's a cool gadget and I have fun wearing it in public."

Having a camera pointed in your general direction is enough to give most people pause. I have really bad anxiety, and if someone wearing Glass looks in my direction, I will be made incredibly uncomfortable. It's the kind of thing that makes me want to never leave my house. Not saying you should live your life based on how I feel, but I think people who wear GG should at least be aware of the (great) potential for making others feel uncomfortable.

Re: The Apple Watch

#553

Post by prawn »

72deluxe wrote: post #191

I notice in all of the pictures and videos that the "crown" (nub on the side) is a render....? Kind of like all of Behringer's new product announcements: you see them on their website and they may or may not ever actually exist or get released. Does this mean they haven't finished it, or have rushed to get to appear to be in the market before it is swallowed up by Android watches?

Many of IKEA's catalogue images are renders now too.

Re: The Apple Watch

#554

Post by Rapzid »

My take away from the page is that it is entirely focused on cosmetics and construction. It seems loud and clear they are positioning this as a piece of designer apparel... I think Apple understands the most important thing most people in the market for a watch are interested in; How desirable it is to others. The whole page just talks about how hawt it is.

As others have mentioned, I believe Google has put massive thought into smart-watch interaction and how it integrates within your life as a utility. I'm not saying Apple hasn't. But I am saying Apple's watch sales are going to be crazy nuts. People have room for one watch as a fashion statement. If it's not going to be an Armani who do you think they'll go with?

Re: The Apple Watch

#555

Post by DannyBee »

madeofpalk wrote: post #460
DannyBee wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing." Yes, quite a lot. Have you? Additionally, apple's device won't even be out for a minimum of 3 months (assuming it came out in january). Which is the not completed thing again? Truthfully, seeing what I saw, Apple's watch is just not a leap forward in any interesting way i can think of over…

> Truthfully, seeing what I saw, Apple's watch is just not a leap forward in any interesting way i can think of over android wear. Isn't this the whole point? When iPod, iPhone and iPad were first announced, it wasn't immediately obvious (to everyone) that they were a huge leap forward. It's not until people actually use them and we have the luxury of hindsight that we can say how groundbreaking they might have been.

"Isn't this the whole point?"

No

"It's not until people actually use them and we have the luxury of hindsight that we can say how groundbreaking they might have been."

I'm not even sure what to make of this statement. There have been a lot of history rewrites on why the iPhone succeeded. If you want to say "we should wait and see", i'm fine with that. If you are saying "i'm sure they are amazing, and we are all just dumb for second guessing apple", this sounds a lot like the emperors new clothes. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Apple had plenty of failures in the past that get glossed over and disappear (remember their social network?). This is true even of hardware (remember the cube? whee) and other major features.

While I doubt they'd get called out over it in the media, it may just disappear the same way a lot of other things did that didn't work out.

So assuming it will be one of the revolutionary devices, despite it seeming like it won't be, is a little too much for me. Happy to be wrong of course (i'd love to buy one if it's truly better), but not going to put faith in them :)

Re: The Apple Watch

#556

Post by arihant »

prawn wrote: post #539
arihant wrote: post #492

Here are my first thoughts (I kind of won't be doing device specific nitpicking as this is the first iteration. We are sure the concept will evolve with time): Good things: 1.) The Tap-talk feature is an absolute genius for me. This, exactly this, is the perfect non-intrusive yet hyper connected way to intimately stay in touch with someone. Just tap on their wrist, so simple. Make a little scribble to show emotion, s…

I'm surprised that the Apple Watch looks so much like a watch. I was keen to see how they might break that concept apart and create something really novel.

I actually felt better about this design. I, too, was anticipating something radical. But we have seen what happened with Google Glass. I think the way to innovate in wearables is to start with something that doesn't stand out and then steer people into more innovative directions?

But if anybody could pull off a radical design without making it the status quo for creepy geeky young men, it is Apple.

Re: The Apple Watch

#557

Post by dreyfiz »

alexqgb wrote: post #516
joshstrange wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nope, people who paid $600+ for an iPhone still had to have a two-year contract, they didn't even get compensated for it with a subsidy. And at the same time that you paid $600, AT&T was giving Apple a cut of the contract, something like 10 bucks a month from your AT&T bill went straight to Apple in the beginning. So Apple was really getting around $840 per iPhone over the life of the contract, $600 up front and $10/month for 24 months.

Re: The Apple Watch

#558

Post by DannyBee »

Tycho wrote: post #390
DannyBee wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing." Yes, quite a lot. Have you? Additionally, apple's device won't even be out for a minimum of 3 months (assuming it came out in january). Which is the not completed thing again? Truthfully, seeing what I saw, Apple's watch is just not a leap forward in any interesting way i can think of over…

On the other hand high-end wrist watches have been using sapphire crystal faces for over 30 years, so there's probably something in it. I have one - my watch still looks perfect 8 years since I got it.

Sapphire is nicer on really high end stuff just for protection purposes. It's abrasion resistance is much much higher. If i was buying a smartwatch for 10 years, i'd agree it'd be a great feature. But i don't, i buy them for 3 years.

High end watches have it for the same reason - people expect them to last forever.

If people are expecting a smartwatch (apple's or anyones) to last them 10 years, sapphire is going to be the least of their problems :)

FWIW: The reason they likely didn't put it on phones is because they haven't solved the brittleness problem that nobody else has really solved that well. If you drop sapphire, it tends to shatter. If you drop gorilla glass, it tends to bounce.

It makes sense on watches because nobody really drops watches that often, since they are normally held on your wrists by bands.

Re: The Apple Watch

#559

Post by DannyBee »

beachstartup wrote: post #463
tptacek wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"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."

Compared to gorilla glass, on a watch that lasts 3-5 years? Why?

What do you think sapphire buys you? Have you ever done tests (I know for a fact that at least one of the very high end watchmakers didn't)?

In any case, high end watches last 30 years. Sapphire makes sense on that.

It's nice, don't get me wrong, but i don't see it as a prerequisite to having a good smartwatch that lasts 3-5 years.

Re: The Apple Watch

#560

Post by abandonliberty »

wildfire wrote: post #375
MCRed wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am old enough to remember when the first Mac came out. There was a response to it very much like you see here (only it happened on BBSes because there wasn't much of an "internet") then. It's been the same way for every major product- iMac was chastised for lacking a floppy drive, the iPod, iPhone and iPad were all poo-poohed. In every case someone has said "X is better!" And in every case so far that X has turned…

I'm old enough to remember to spell, and remember when the first Mac came out. The response has always been the same; one segment pointing out problems, another pointing out how "visionary" the new thing is. If you are as old as you claim to be, and still fall foul of corporate machinations - then "sucks to be you". Next you'll tell us what your current corporate master told you to say. There a many things wrong with…

So what part of our culture don't we buy?
Post reply on HN