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

611–620 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#611

Post by simias »

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…

> And their is mention of actually how a watch is accurate with time, something 3 other companies didn't do.

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you imply other smartwatches drift a lot? That sounds hard to believe.

Re: The Apple Watch

#612

Post by 72deluxe »

beedogs wrote: post #578
ibrahima wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. The fact that you believe what Apple says about Google rather than taking the two minutes to actually look at how Android Wear works and see that that statement is completely false shows that the distortion field is in full effect.

I mean, this is the same company that, during the keynote today, repeated the lie that they're the mob that brought us the computer mouse. People just accept Apple's misstatements and half-truths and outright lies as fact now.

That's a real pity. It sours their other statements and makes them untrustworthy if even just one false statement is made.

Re: The Apple Watch

#613

Post by theon144 »

aioprisan wrote: post #437
zimpenfish wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does seem to be WiFi related. But if I have to remember to disable the WiFi whenever I want to do some GPS tracking - and if I forget, I basically get random garbage - that pushes it well into "no bloody use" for me.

That's a feature, not a bug ;)

Uh, no, I'm pretty sure that's a bug. Unless you literally want to consider inaccurate tracking a feature.

Re: The Apple Watch

#614

Post by theon144 »

DCKing wrote: post #376
dkulchenko wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. I strongly disagree. I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here - they seemed to have approached the problem as "how can we make iOS usable on a smaller screen" and came up with interfaces like the crown and the (albeit pretty) circle-based homescr…

These were my thoughts too when watching the presentation. The ironic thing here is that Android Wear seems to be the simpler solution . Android Wear is an extension of your phone - a way to process information on your wrist. Apple Watch seems to be another way to interact . They mentioned glanceable information as somewhat of a footnone during the presentation (although their implementation seems pretty good). They…

Having tried out Android Wear once, isn't Apple's implementation of their "Glances" pretty much identical to how notifications work on Android Wear?

Re: The Apple Watch

#615

Post by sz4kerto »

aioprisan wrote: post #434
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.

As a serious runner, there is no way that I would run for an extended distance without my phone on me. First of all because I would rather not have to drag my injured self out somewhere to ask for help, rather than being able to call for it from my phone. Whenever I do triathlon training, I would also not think of leaving without my phone, as I tend to go for 30-40 mile bike rides into remote areas, and having a way…

Many Garmin watches last much more than 7 hours. My old 310XT lasts around 12.

Re: The Apple Watch

#616

Post by [deleted] »

encoderer wrote: post #195
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…

I couldn't disagree more. I was impressed at the massive number of attractive variations. Incredibly well done IMO.

[deleted]

Re: The Apple Watch

#617

Post by 72deluxe »

alexqgb wrote: post #515
madeofpalk wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cha…

I remember using an iPad 1 at work. Very quickly I (and those around me) realised that you couldn't actually do a fat lot of work with it, and were pretty disappointed with it. We were expecting a PC.

BUT! give it to me for web browsing (and shopping???) and it was absolutely great. This bright realisation that many of our parents don't sit at home writing software or documents suddenly made sense; people had been buying computers for years just to go online.

And this influenced the entire market, such to the point that everyone is tagging on touchscreen this and touchscreen that, even where it isn't needed. Thankfully Apple hasn't done this and hasn't made the MacBook a touchscreen device.

Very clever. I am hopeful that this trend of influencing the market continues, and new Android watches with similar features come out. Competition is good.

Re: The Apple Watch

#618

Post by return0 »

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.

My impression from the marketing video where Ive speaks is that this is more like a vanity jewelry item, not anything serious and definitely not something that can handle abuse. I don't think they even market it as a sports item.

Re: The Apple Watch

#619

Post by Kequc »

rwhitman wrote: post #537
agscala wrote: post #11

The watch looks very nice indeed but starting at $350 is ominously steep especially since it requires an iPhone

In the world of watches, $350 is dirt cheap

They're different objects. You can buy $350 watches that are 10 years old in pawn shops, the v1 Apple watch is going to be obsolete in 2 years.
Post reply on HN