Live data from Hacker News

The Apple Watch

apple.com

561–570 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#561
post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

He didn't say a watch is "just a watch", he said a watch "is still a watch".

Re: The Apple Watch

#562

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…

Taco's criticism of the iPod was that it didn't do enough - didn't have enough features, didn't have enough storage etc, and he was rightly panned for getting it wrong. Criticisms of the price or lack of features of Apple products historically have been proved unfounded (it's easy to lower the price and add more features). So I agree if someone says 'but it doesn't do x', they can easily be satisfied by later models.

In contrast, many of the criticisms of this watch centre on the incoherent design, awkward interaction with a physical scroll-wheel AND touch interface (which Apple are not even allowing people to try out in the demos), and the grab-bag of features added to it, apparently without thought about how they all interact. It looks like it does too much, and none of it well.

They can possibly rescue this mess in the time they have before launch by polishing the software, but I'm hesitant about the concept of this scroll wheel (what they call a digital crown), which they have now committed to for the long term, and sounds like it is going to be very awkward when combined with physical touches and on the wrist, and pointless if you also require users to touch the screen. It would have been far nicer just to keep this simpler and use swipes and taps, and not try to hobble it with a traditional 'watch' shape.

It really does feel as if no-one was in charge of the design here, and lots of different teams worked on different features, which were mashed together at the last minute, without someone to force them all to integrate properly. I do believe Apple is entering a new era now - becoming a larger more stable company, and is now led by an operations person (Cook), not someone obsessed with design and willing to take massive risks in pursuit of perfection (Jobs). That is starting to have an effect on the products they make.

Re: The Apple Watch

#563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

GGP is talking about the iPod, not the iPhone. GP is right that iTunes had no foothold when the iPod was released, and Apple had no "empire."

Re: The Apple Watch

#564
post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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). I think that's a very weak argument, as iTunes wasn't available for the PC market for years . The Mac market at that point was nascent and lots of people were buying iPods w/o the ability to use iTunes.

> The Mac market at that point was nascent and lots of people were buying iPods w/o the ability to use iTunes. The iPod was supported on Windows before iTunes was available through Musicmatch Jukebox, which Apple bundled with Windows iPods. I don't think there were many people buying iPods before then just to look at. :)

He didn't say they were. You seem to be in violent agreement.

Re: The Apple Watch

#565
post #148

I haven't bought into Apple stuff too much, just an iPad and an Air. No iPhone, I have Android instead and my desktop is Linux. Question: Is the phone a mere accessory to the iPhone, or can it stand alone or with any phone (inc' Android and Windows Phone)?

iPhone only

Re: The Apple Watch

#566
post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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.

Its a bit of both.

But when it comes to utility. A simple watch has not been replaced by smart phones yet. That is because there are places, instances and people where/who just can't pull out their phones and check time.

Re: The Apple Watch

#567

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

The first generation iPod was Mac only. The 2nd generation iPod was Mac + Windows but iTunes was still Mac only. Windows syncing was done with third party software (Musicmatch Jukebox)

iTunes did not have a foothold in the marketplace until after the success of the iPod was evident.

Re: The Apple Watch

#568
post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counting Google's unreleased moonshot products as innovation seems like counting one's chickens before they hatch. It is easy to innovate in the abstract, much harder to fully realize a vision in the form of a product.

Innovation is innovation. Just because an innovation isn't a success in the market place doesn't mean it was not innovative.

Correction:

> Just because an innovation is only a research project*

To which I will have to vehemently disagree with you. Otherwise we'll have to start celebrating science fiction authors for their "innovation."

Re: The Apple Watch

#569
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…

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.

Re haptic feedback:

I'm forever feeling my phone vibrate in my pocket when it isn't vibrating... and still manage not to notice when it does vibrate.

Perhaps I would perceive the signal more accurately if it was on my wrist instead of my thigh.

Re: The Apple Watch

#570
post #566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Its a bit of both. But when it comes to utility. A simple watch has not been replaced by smart phones yet. That is because there are places, instances and people where/who just can't pull out their phones and check time.

Why do you think anyone cares whether phones replace watches? How is that at all relevant to the purpose of watches?
Post reply on HN