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

671–680 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#671

Post by julianpye »

crwll wrote: post #579
julianpye wrote: post #8

The main innovation I like is NFC in the Watch. This makes so much sense. What is the big advantage of pulling a phone from your bag instead of a wallet? Paying with a wrist, opening doors with your wrist, entering the metro with your wrist. Can't wait for the next Wear releases from Samsung to have it integrated :)

Sony Smartwatch 3 has NFC (and GPS). Too bad it's rather ugly. AFAIK, it only currently uses NFC for pairing to a phone, but the hardware is there and Android Wear will hopefully soon include complete support for it, like they recently did with watch GPS support.

Unfortunately it is only a passive tag for pairing. You can't to do anything else with it, so it cannot read other tags itself.

Re: The Apple Watch

#672

Post by computerjunkie »

3pt14159 wrote: post #55

Super disappointed with this. I was hoping for a bunch of sensors that fed my iPhone. Not something to discretely take meetings during a meeting. Here is what is missing for me: 1. Sweat sensor. 2. Insulin sensor. 3. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently automatically detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! My iPhone should auto update a fitne…

Number 2 and number 4 - this is what a "smart" watch should aim for. Being able to detect an early heart attack or low/high insulin levels and send out warning SOS's to hospitals is a great idea. The amount of costs this would save, the lives this would save...but sending smiley face to someone is innovation.

It amazes me how companies that have so much resources at their disposal cannot conduct research in these kind of domains.

Re: The Apple Watch

#673

Post by unclebunkers »

__david__ wrote: post #221
unclebunkers wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A $350 watch is a too expensive, but $325 beats headphones are chill? When I walk through the seedier parts of town where most of the rent is paid in food stamps and wishes, I still see beats headphones.

Watches are a fashion accessory and have a very wide price range. I consider watches under $150 to be low end, under $400 to be middle end and above that to be high end. Headphones are different because (until Beats) they were mostly about function and not form. You can get very good sounding headphones for under $100, which is why people whine about Beats being so expensive. Beats's innovation wasn't making good hea…

Seriously?

MP3 Players are different because (until Apple iPod) they were mostly about function and not form.

Phones are different because (until Apple iPhone) they were mostly about function and not form.

Tablets are different because (until Apple iPad) they were mostly about function and not form.

Smart watches are different because (until Apple Watch) they were mostly about function and not form.

It's not hyperbolic to say that the company redefines categories.

Re: The Apple Watch

#674

Post by gurkendoktor »

doczoidberg wrote: post #596

serious question: Does this watch anything do what my phone in my pocket doesn't? I can't see a benefit of using a smartwatch.

Not for you and me, I guess, but most women have a large, crowded bag instead of pockets. Which also explains how anyone could ever carry a Note around.

Re: The Apple Watch

#675

Post by orkoden »

makr wrote: post #599
danellis wrote: post #582

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did they actually say that? What's the exact quote? I thought they said something about all their products using innovative interfaces, not that the innovations were theirs. Still, when they were talking about the digital crown, they did make it sound like they were trying to claim they invented the optical rotary encoder.

"Macintosh introduced the mouse." from the official liveblog: http://www.apple.com/live/2014-sept-event/2cd7d38c-f769-4fc4...

It was the first PC that was widely available, that shipped with a mouse. There were mice before that of course. But the Macintosh was centered around the use of the mouse.

Re: The Apple Watch

#676

Post by personZ »

nardi wrote: post #563
JohnTHaller wrote: post #546

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

How did this suddenly get redefined to "when released"? If that is the case, Taco's widely criticized assessment was dead on - the iPod was initially a failure.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg

We know that it took off, but that was wholly on the back of iTunes - 0.99 tracks and much easier use than competitors sold the iPod, not some fundamental excellence of the device.

People forget now but while we revile iTunes generally now, at the time it was the killer feature of the iPod, and the initial iPhone success.

Re: The Apple Watch

#677

Post by personZ »

wdr1 wrote: post #508
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…

> 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.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg

Very few bought the iPod in the first two years, and it was a commercial failure. It was iTunes on Windows that brought it mainstream.

Re: The Apple Watch

#679

Post by shawabawa3 »

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…

> There a many things wrong with what you wrote; the most glaring is: "haven't seen anything innovative from Google since 2001". Later you go on to say, "unless you count gmail". 1. gmail wasn't released until 2004 2. the whole thing called "ads" wasn't available until 2001. 3. Android copied iOS. Which copied Windows. Which copied MacOS. Which copied GEM. Which copied x/PARC. Someone once said "good artists copy, great artists steal". 4. I guess you keep missing the news about Google's moonshot project (loom, wing, self-driving cars).

Ironically you kind of reinforced his point... Ads was in 2001 - that's his claim of most recent innovation from Google unless you count gmail.

You point out gmail was released in 2004, but he's just said he's not counting gmail.

iOS didn't copy windows at all - it was innovative in that it was by far the best mobile operating system UI. Windows didn't have a mobile operating system at the time

Google's research projects aren't products yet - what happens if they cancel them because they're infeasible in 10 years time?

You could have mentioned chrome/android/chromebook/nexus

Re: The Apple Watch

#680

Post by LaGrange »

coldtea wrote: post #355
joesmo wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this is a huge impediment to its usefulness. Having to carry around a phone while running is a drudge regardless of how serious of a runner or athlete you are. Not to mention so many other sports that could benefit from this but won't. This is especially so considering the larger size of the iPhone 6 and especially the iPhone 6 plus.

What casual runner goes running without their phone? That's how we get GPS, work with Nike+ gear, and can be reached if someone needs us or make a call if we need to. How many leave their phone on the house and go out jogging?

> What casual runner goes running without their phone?

Judging by the answers you got, ones who have oversized phones and think that shaving a little weight is worth not being able to call emergencies (who cares, they can use a strangers phone if that happens, just like the guys who cycle and skip tools, patches and pumps and then end up asking people passing them by, and anyway emergencies happen to other people).

OTOH, I don't know why anyone would ever wear a watch after 1993.

Post reply on HN