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

71–80 of 863 posts

Re: The Apple Watch

#71

Post by xienze »

MBCook wrote: post #45
xienze wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why you don't buy v1 of Apple products. Guaranteed that the next version will be at least $50 cheaper... which still makes it too expensive.

With the notable exception of the first iPhone not having a subsidy price for a month or two Apple products don't tend to drop in price much year to year. They've had the $199/$299/$399 price structure for the newest iPhones for more than 6 years.

That might've been true a long time ago but we've seen price drops for iPods, iMacs, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro, iPad 2 at its EOL, etc. over the years.

I'm calling a $50 price drop for version 2 after this thing doesn't quite hit sales numbers.

Re: The Apple Watch

#72

Post by masklinn »

personZ wrote: post #31

As much ink was spilled about competitors' failures, it's interesting that this won't be available some until vague window next year, and needs to be tethered to an iPhone. The interface looks interesting. The ridiculous draw pictures to each other bit, though -- what a gimmick.

The complete and utter lack of battery life mention was odd when inductive charging (still missing from the iphone) was mentioned multiple times.

Re: The Apple Watch

#73

Post by zimpenfish »

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.

I doubt "people into serious running" run into the 10s of millions that Apple are aiming the watch at though.

(I agree with your point though - I have a 910XT for the battery life - the Apple Watch would be useless as an activity tracker for me since the iPhone 5S doesn't really cope with 5h+ activities.)

Re: The Apple Watch

#74

Post by arrrg »

k2enemy wrote: post #51
personZ wrote: post #31

As much ink was spilled about competitors' failures, it's interesting that this won't be available some until vague window next year, and needs to be tethered to an iPhone. The interface looks interesting. The ridiculous draw pictures to each other bit, though -- what a gimmick.

Really? I thought that looked like one of the neatest things about it. I imagine that people will find all sorts of creative ways to use it for quick communication.

But nobody else will have it. Messaging that no one else has is dumb and useless.

Re: The Apple Watch

#75

Post by amitdeshwar »

skc wrote: post #65
georgemcbay wrote: post #29

Who would have thunk that of all the end-of-2014 smartwatches, the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola? Shame about the battery life, though. Please fix that Motorola, I want to give you my money so bad, but cannot do it until you fix the battery life.

I haven't seen anything on battery life actually. You have some estimates?

The Ars review talks about the poor battery life: http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/09/moto-360-review-beaut...

Re: The Apple Watch

#76

Post by digikata »

craigching wrote: post #33
ChuckMcM wrote: post #16

Interesting, a payments system that works only if you have the latest iPhone, and a watch that only works if you have (possibly latest) iPhone. I love the display, and I think they have some great ideas here but I was hoping more for the 'ipod' replacement that would work with any iOS 8 device (like iPads too) instead of a remote for your phone.

Apple Watch works with 5, 5c, and 5s. And of course 6 and 6+

And if you notice, NFC of course isn't in the 5, 5c, 5s. So it makes me wonder if Apply Pay will work with a watch paired to an iPhone 5 series device. That might be a little nudge to get the Apple watch.

Re: The Apple Watch

#77

Post by masklinn »

georgemcbay wrote: post #29

Who would have thunk that of all the end-of-2014 smartwatches, the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola? Shame about the battery life, though. Please fix that Motorola, I want to give you my money so bad, but cannot do it until you fix the battery life.

> the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola?

The band connection to the very bottom is really too bad, it makes the watch look extremely thick.

Re: The Apple Watch

#78

Post by k-mcgrady »

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 was surprised at how bad the watch faces were. Motorola are the only ones to have done well in that area. Remember though that this device is still 4-6 months away so that's probably not the final software.

Re: The Apple Watch

#79

Post by 3pt14159 »

acjohnson55 wrote: post #61
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…

I agree that any real fitness tracking solution should be able to capture a gym workout accurately, but how would you propose the dumbell thing would work? With NFC or something?

With the right accelerometers and gyros you can actually do this very easily. I've actually done something similar during a basic engineering course (we were detecting earthquakes, but the math is the same).

Edit: Downvote me all you want, but this is not that complicated to calculate.

Re: The Apple Watch

#80

Post by k-mcgrady »

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.

>> (I won't comment the lack of info on battery life and water resistance)

Did they comment on water resistance? I thought they had a photo of someone pouring water over it...

Post reply on HN