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

661–670 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#661

Post by vishnugupta »

kingkawn wrote: post #594
2xlbuds wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree, having watched this year's Google I/O panel on smartwatch interaction design, it is very obvious that Google has put an enormous amount of thought into their watch platform. They came to a fundamentally different conclusion for what a smartwatch should do, and I really enjoy the experience. The contextual information from Google Now is incredibly useful and it feels like my watch tells me not only…

Your comment has given me my first quantifiable measured sensation of feeling old. if you go out every Tuesday, you will learn the traffic patterns, and will naturally develop a series of contingency routes that you could take in the event of traffic. The watch is novelty more than useful. It will make you forget how you used to do things and in turn feel dependent on it, when in fact it is simply a novelty that dist…

I couldn't up-vote this more! I just don't have a compelling reason to use such a device. Weather, traffic, map and such data is just novelty for me. If I question myself what can I do with watch that isn't possible otherwise there's just one or two (heart rate monitor and perhaps chat). Even those aren't really necessities as much as novelty. Perhaps app developers will come up with good problems to solve but I can't think of any use case right now.

Re: The Apple Watch

#662

Post by gurkendoktor »

threeseed wrote: post #383
personZ wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." You've soundly beaten down notions that I certainly didn't state. Nor have I seen everyone else. However the narrative among the Apple camp was that competitors were desperately rushing to deliver vapour, and that their stodgy square mega watches were non-starter…

Sorry but you keep bringing up dynamic layouts without having a clue why they were introduced. It wasn't to create a "one app, run many" type system that Android has. It was merely to help developers support the different screen sizes within each category (iPhone, iPad). Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience.

> Apple still encourages developers to have UIs that are specifically tailored to the iPhone or iPad experience.

iOS 8 introduces a concept called Size Classes, and the tl;dr is that the iPhone 6+ in landscape is considered a tablet.

Re: The Apple Watch

#663

Post by krrrh »

deong wrote: post #472
Spooky23 wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're on the right track here. The idea that Apple is putting out a vision where you can communicate with people nearby in non-verbal ways is really powerful. You have a company that has managed to deliver an awesome mobile experience on for consumer and enterprise shipping a device that can do everything from payments to health monitoring to door access. That's a ridiculously powerful thing. What android ca…

The good thing is that we all should benefit. I've had NFC on at least my last two phones (maybe 3?), but the hardware is not ubiquitous enough to matter. I'm assuming that there's nothing locking the POS hardware into Apple Pay, and so NFC payments become a thing everyone can use.

Exceptions that Apple has negotiated "card-present" rates from banks for apple pay, because they believe touch-id, tokenized cc numbers, and the secure enclave are such an effective fraud prevention mechanism that they have shouldered extra fraud risk for the banks. I'd argue that no one in the android space can match this at scale. With the lower rates apple can either make bank or pass through better rates to merchants, which means that apple pay suddenly becomes the preferred payment method for a tonne of large merchants.

Re: The Apple Watch

#664

Post by MrScruff »

deong wrote: post #637
MrScruff wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess what I'm saying is that if the experience is 10x more compelling (which is what I think it will be), then people will put up with it. Putting on skis and getting to the top of a mountain is inconvienent but people still do it.

Some people ski, occasionally. I can totally see that future for VR as well, and I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. For gaming, it's at least potentially very compelling. I just don't see it as a technology people want for more general use. I don't think we'll be using it browsing Facebook or sitting in the park. People don't wear skis around in their daily life. Skis are very much a special purpose item that most p…

I think you're taking the ski thing a little literally. I'm using it as an example of how people will do something quite arduous, expensive and dangerous because it gives them a unique experience. Obviously the 'overhead' of putting on a VR headset is massively less than that of skiing.

If you think of VR as being a new screen technology, I can see why you might come to the conclusion you have. But true VR (where you have 'presence') goes far, far beyond that. I agree it's not going to be a general purpose platform like the smartphone, but I think it will still be high impact.

Do I think people will be browsing Facebook with VR? Probably not. The challenge for Facebook will be to create an environment based on their content that you would want to visit.

Re: The Apple Watch

#665

Post by gurkendoktor »

DannyBee wrote: post #559
beachstartup wrote: post #463

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no way the watch will last 3-5 years. The original iPad lasted two years in terms of software updates, the original iPhone had one more year. But most importantly, the watch is about fashion, and as soon as v2 or v3 is only half as big as v1, everyone carrying a v1 will look like a clumsy nerd from the past.

I think the v1 will only look fashionable for at most two years.

Re: The Apple Watch

#666

Post by moe »

72deluxe wrote: post #600
beedogs wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no "early success" for the iPod. It was a failure until the third generation, when it finally got PC support.

Even then, as I recall iTunes was widely bashed? Its UI was obviously Apple UI on Windows, ignoring all Windows UI guidelines.

Even then, as I recall iTunes was widely bashed?

Was?

iTunes is still the same trainwreck that it was 10 years ago.

Apple seems to work hard to keep it the same sluggish nightmare, no matter how fast the hardware becomes that it runs on.

Re: The Apple Watch

#667

Post by gurkendoktor »

72deluxe wrote: post #621
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…

Very informative, thanks. It made me chuckle when you said that Metro UI was innovative - it really was. Unfortunately, for some of the use-cases they put forward, it isn't really suited or very good. I mean, on a Mac how many people use Launchpad?

> I mean, on a Mac how many people use Launchpad?

I do when I forget the name of an app. Pinching all five fingers together on a trackpad is super easy. But then again, I also use the Dashboard :)

Re: The Apple Watch

#668

Post by LeicaLatte »

72deluxe wrote: post #650
LeicaLatte wrote: post #505

As someone with 5 watches, I can't wait for this to release.

Do you have that many arms too?

Are you saying you don't wish you had 5 arms? You must be a fool.

But the answer to your question is, I was gifted 4 of them once people saw that I wear a watch. Watches work like that.

Re: The Apple Watch

#669

Post by gurkendoktor »

paul_f wrote: post #94

The iPhone only seems affordable because it is tied to a 2-year contract. Otherwise it would be $800 and Apple wouldn't sell anywhere near as many as they do. At $350, I don't see how Apple Watch is going to crack the volume markets. Think 15yo girls.

I am pretty sure that many contracts will throw in a watch for a few $/month.

Re: The Apple Watch

#670

Post by unclebunkers »

3pt14159 wrote: post #416
unclebunkers wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! Exactly how do you propose this would work? You are disappointed by diabetic specific monitors, the lack of an app that I'm sure someone will create someday, and something that physics will likely never be able to solve. I think it's safe to say that your expectations started in the realm of fantasy. Innovation can't ignore realit…

There are already devices that have proved this concept in production (and waiting FDA approval) or on the market.

Could you provide a link? I feel I'd have heard if any physics defying devices exist.
Post reply on HN