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…
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…
The Apple Watch
781–790 of 863 posts
Re: The Apple Watch
#782Earlier quoted context omitted.
sapphire's selling point is scratch and crack resistance, i.e. strength. the ability to last 30 years is a byproduct of that strength. you can put unused pyrex on a shelf and it'll last 30 years. but try dropping it on your kitchen floor. every single non-sapphire watch i own has scratches on the glass. i've broken the screen on every single generation of phone to date. however, none of my sapphire automatics have a…
first, "strength" is not a thing. You need to be very specific what you are talking about. Scratch and crack resistance are very different things (one usually measured by taber, and the other by various other methods), and combining them is meaningless. So is "crack resistance". Do you mean when someone tries to indent it? DO you mean when flexed in some other specific way? Do you specifically mean when dropped? Mate…
also, it's not good hn form to downvote someone you disagree with. i don't mind though, i have the points to spare.
Re: The Apple Watch
#783While 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…
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…
They took the "Microsoft" route.
They refused to make hard decisions about what was right for users and use of this unique platform and it's all pointed in a bad direction for that lack of focus, attention to detail and execution.
Smart Watches -- particularly those that require a smart phone -- have about 2 seconds before you hit the "stylus moment". [1] But the watch demo was oddly fixated on long interactions (the most difficult way to text emoji to date) and stupid interactions (browsing pictures on a 1" screen?).
The cases where watch-interaction makes more (or primary) sense [2] were given very little screen time, or mere lip service. And, oddly enough, those cases seem to have been given more thought and have more obvious, natural, direct, and thus better interactions [3].
Enabling those complex interactions, that are going to be inefficient and annoying, is going to lead to an avalanche of apps that similarly invite users to do things fundamentally ill-suited to a watch. Poorly conceived apps, lazily-ported apps -- The ecosystem as a whole is going to suffer for having that around. [4]
And then there's the interaction methods. iOS was a boon for computer use because it's so obvious, direct and natural. Many/most people never really got the hang of click vs double-click vs right-click. Many struggled with the core indirection of pushing the pointer around the screen with their mouse and the whole "scroll down to push the page up" mess (that only makes sense if you grew up on keyboard-only interaction and the also-awkwardly-named "page up"/down keys).
Apple sweated the details, stripped away the distractions and non-essentials, and they nailed it.
But what does the watch bring? Quick-tap vs long-tap vs force-tap? Are they kidding? Undiscoverable hidden interaction zones in corner(s?) or off-screen-swipes to execute features with no articulated conceptual logic as to "what goes where" or how the (in)existence of those features is even conveyed? Those demo controls showed more arcane gestures than a Harry Potter movie.
And the crown? It zooms the screen, except when it doesn't. It scrolls lists, except when it doesn't. It manipulates input controls, except when it doesn't -- and only if you apply the appropriate tap to successfully shift focus to the desired input. This is a mode-switching UX nightmare.
Stated plainly -- that watch, that demo? -- they blew it.
They've got a few months where they could course-correct. They've got a review step where they could filter out "bad" apps to protect the ecosystem from what they accidentally enabled (and encouraged by focusing the demo on it).
But I am not optimistic that a group who could green-light that demo is capable of discerning the difference. I think Apple's fundamental "taste" is in question. [5]
[1] Jobs famously stated "if you see a stylus, they blew it." The key here is that "blew it" doesn't mean "they made a bad tablet". It means "they never understood mobile or touch." They never understood that the use cases and ergonomics require a fundamental re-thinking of interaction. They never understood that you can't just port over things that worked somewhere else and only make sense given prior experience with something else.
[2] e.g. when the phone itself is less accessible (while exercising, while in-bed, while hands are collecting purchased items), thus giving you longer than 2 seconds before the "I might as well have pulled out my phone" moment. e.g. when direct use of the phone would defeat the feature (to use the watch as remote viewfinder/shutter release for the phone's camera).
[3] notification triage; workout/stopwatch/timer start/stop; simple location-based interactions like payments, unlocking a hotel room door, etc. It all looked far more sane/natural/straightforward.
[4] We all just saw what happened with Microsoft's odd mode-shifting app circus on their Surface tablets. If you enable the "conceptually new, thus more difficult, but right" interaction method and "conceptually familiar, thus easier, and wrong" interaction method, how many devs are really going to put in the work to get it right? Recent experience suggests enough devs will take shortcuts that your users will become frustrated and your ecosystem stained.
[5] I don't think Apple's taste is definitely gone. But the notion that Apple might be "coasting on momentum" is no longer something I can laugh off. Not on a core design level.
And an alternative explanation to "they're coasting" on momentum, is that the Watch is pushing iphone/ipad interactions where they don't belong because Apple's captured by their own momentum. And that's far, far worse.
Re: The Apple Watch
#784Earlier 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.
You are wrong. iTunes was such a monumental hit that it carried iPods with it - there's even a business case on the matter: http://hbr.org/product/apple-inc-ipods-and-itunes/an/905M46-...
I've learned that this works with women as well.
Re: The Apple Watch
#785Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. "Siri, give me walking directions to the nearest Starbucks."
Isn't the whole scenario far fetched? Does anyone really wander around and then suddenly have an urgent need to be somewhere (other than a restroom :)? The only thing I can think of that might make me suddenly need to go somewhere is a message/reminder...from my phone.
Re: The Apple Watch
#786My 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.
Re: The Apple Watch
#787I wear a watch, but I think about it as jewelry, and incidentally as a time piece. And until there is a killer app for a watch, I will continue to do so. Originally, I posed myself the question _if_ I would wear a smartwatch if there is no such thing as a killer app. The answer is yes, but _when_ is a better question. And the partial answer isn't about it being a smartwatch or dumbwatch, but about being an uglywatch…
This Apple watch is clearly not intended for people like you and me. You won't see James Bond wearing an Apple Watch and you won't see NASA strapping them around the sleeves of space suits like an Omega Speedmaster. This is another piece of electronics that will look as dated as a CueCat or dot-matrix printer fifteen years from now. A classic timepiece, on the other hand, will retain or gain value over time. I bought…
Of course, that doesn't mean you can't find someone dumb enough to unload it on for more than you paid it, but a collector isn't going to give you that value for it.
The Rolex Daytona is the exception to this rule though, but Submariners are mass-produced and common for luxury watches.
Source: I collect watches.
Re: The Apple Watch
#788Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but we live in the physical world where there are actually finite number of positions that the strap could attach. "Infinite" is just marketing speak here.
No, the "infinitely adjustable" comment refers to the Milanese Loop: http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch/ It is, by definition, infinitely adjustable, since the band is sized continuously and attached magnetically (so that any part of the band works as a sizing point). It does not have discrete holes, like most watch bands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
Of course, that's being super pedantic, because 10^31 is practically infinite, or at least more than you'll have time to try in your lifetime.
Re: The Apple Watch
#789My 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 am a serious runner (have run 3 marathons, running a fourth in a month and a half), and I'm entertaining the possibility of converting over to the iPhone + Apple Watch. For me though, it's more complicated. I always run with my phone & wallet for emergency reasons. I don't use a sports watch anymore (I do have a Garmin), but largely due to their bulk & wanting to focus less on my time/pace & more on my body. I also…
The Echo is now compatible with several Android phones as well. Given your description, I think you'd really like it.
Re: The Apple Watch
#790I spent about 20 minutes reading through some of the now 650+ comments, and I'm a bit surprised how common the arguments are on both sides. It feels like the entire tech community has the same basic argument every time a new 1.0 apple product is released: Those who don't like the product: - it is feature incomplete - the hype doesn't match the actual product - it doesn't actually look that great - there are other, be…
As someone that's followed HN and gadget-news blog comments far too closely since the late 90's, I promise you won't find a single thread too unlike this one. The only exceptions, oddly, might be the iPod nano and the iPod touch, which caught the competition completely flat-footed.
The iPhone announcement brought out everyone that owned a Nokia N95 to tell us how backward we were for being mildly impressed. The iPad brought out yawns. Every iPod model was an overpriced Archos or iRiver.