# Apple Watch. What will you do?



## Shawnny

Well, for a watch, there's not much talk of it here. I think this watch scares people. So, what will you do?


----------



## Orsoni

I'm a bit of a Luddite. I still haven't fully adopted cell phone technology. Never have sent a text message in my life.

I appreciate that mechanical watches are incredibly tiny, hand-made engines.


----------



## JES1

If you've already bought into the Apple universe and want a new gadget, you'll get one of these. If not, you probably won't. Tying it to the new iPhones means you're excluding quite a lot of potential buyers. That's what I think. Looks like any other smart watch out there, perhaps slightly more refined, but that's it as far as I'm concerned.

What I really don't get is the solid gold version? Who'd want to buy something with an expected life span of 1-2 years for that kind of money? 

Just my two cents.


----------



## RichieP

I feel like a very happily married man who is *partly* envious of his single friends who get to flirt with cheap girls in the bar. Apple watch looks like a lot of fun, but there is no way I'm giving up a good watch for it.


----------



## Ace McLoud

Shawnny said:


> *Well, for a watch, there's not much talk of it here*. I think this watch scares people. So, what will you do?


Just logged in?


----------



## zoneinfo

I think most people were fairly skeptical near the beginning of each of Apple's product launches {ipod, iphone, ipad} and arguably they all turned out to be great products. If I still used an iPhone then I'd probably just spend the $350 to play with Apple's watch based on their prior track record. I bet the 2nd generation model next year will be even better.

For me personally however, I'll be picking up a Suunto now that I've seen what all the Apple Watch fuss is about.


----------



## aussielondon

I am currently working on the wrist sandtimer, I will call it "sandwatch" and it's going to be "retro-futuristic"

On a serious note, the iWatch looks ugly as hell, and the price is a joke, as I wouldn't buy it if it cost £5.99
It looks like a womens watch!


----------



## mew88

I'm gonna grab my Rolex and head down to the second hand dealer the moment I get home, I hope he still takes them in ...

Not.


I have no issues if others like them but personally I still see no need to buy an Ipad.. the same applies to the Apple Watch.


----------



## Fantasio

+1 |>



mew88 said:


> I have no issues if others like them but personally I still see no need to buy an Ipad.. the same applies to the Apple Watch.


But an iPhone and an iPod on the other hand are a different case... ;-)


----------



## Nikoloz

;-)









i liked the idea that they made an option of changing straps (or else you would be bored out of it in a week) but in everything else it looks like a toy, you can wear it for a month, entertain yourself and then abandon it for good. they still have to try harder...


----------



## Justin Stacks

Sure, I'll buy it. 

I won't wear it all that much, but it's cheap and I'll wear it to the gym or whenever I do not want to wear a "real" watch because I'm doing something that would otherwise destroy one of my nicer watches.

I never bought a G Shock, but I see more reason to buy an Apple Watch for those situations.

In that sense, it's not actually going to take away any wrist time form my current rotation, but it will add to the amount of time I wear a watch.

It'll just be classified as a beater/affordable.


----------



## BigEd781

I'm an engineer (just so you know that I am plenty keen on new technologies) and I, for one, will never wear one of these. Ever. Never ever.


----------



## privet

It sounds great compared to other *actually practical* watches. But buying it would require buying a new iphone too and I'm not sure I'm into spending 1k to get that watch.


----------



## I Like em BIG ! !

No interest whatsoever..., just curious - so, you need to own an iPhone to "run" it...???


----------



## StufflerMike

Thread moved to the more suitable forum and Time Out for poll set to 10 days.


----------



## IdiotSavant

of course most of you won't get it. like that guy said, he has never sent a text message. 90% of people into(and can afford) mechanical watches are old men who just don't understand anything. The world is different now and you guys need to sit your butts on the couch and watch price is right or something. I'm in my late 20s, got me a brand new subcnd, and I'm gonna buy this apple watch, AND the iPhone to go with it! gonna rock out with my clock out


----------



## mew88

IdiotSavant said:


> of course most of you won't get it. like that guy said, he has never sent a text message. 90% of people into(and can afford) mechanical watches are old men who just don't understand anything. The world is different now and you guys need to sit your butts on the couch and watch price is right or something. I'm in my late 20s, got me a brand new subcnd, and I'm gonna buy this apple watch, AND the iPhone to go with it! gonna rock out with my clock out


I'm in my late 20s and don't see the need for this device. Guess I'll just head over to that corner and hang out with the old men with cool mechanical watches.


----------



## Shikyo

People are too busy with looking at their phones. Keeping in touch with people. I don't want to be like that. I want to stay free and do what I want without being connected all the time if I so desire. There are times when I'll gladly toss my phone aside and let it stay there. Most of the time I only carry the phone just in case(emergency etc.) and most of the time it's muted anyway. A smart watch is kinda defeating the purpose of keeping ones phone on mute. Plus I really don't another thing to charge.


----------



## Datora

I think the whole idea is quite great, and that there is quite a lot of money to be made in this segment. 

I am too very keen on new technology, but I think it will take a few watch generations before I jump on. If even then, I too keep my iPhone on mute most of the time. I check it often, and I am a heavy user, but I want to have the control of the when & where... The watch would be quite the opposite. Not for me.


----------



## migo

I voted no, but that's because I won't buy an Apple watch, not because I won't buy a smartwatch. If a company makes a not too bulky GPS watch, I'll be buying it. GPS was the main reason I moved to smartphones, and I've stopped using a lot of the other features - but still use GPS, and a wrist mounted GPS would be a huge advantage for cycling. Ideally it's independent of a smartphone.


----------



## Shikyo

migo said:


> I voted no, but that's because I won't buy an Apple watch, not because I won't buy a smartwatch. If a company makes a not too bulky GPS watch, I'll be buying it. GPS was the main reason I moved to smartphones, and I've stopped using a lot of the other features - but still use GPS, and a wrist mounted GPS would be a huge advantage for cycling. Ideally it's independent of a smartphone.


Wouldn't a handheld GPS unit work much better than a wrist mounted one? For many models you can also find a mount to attach to the bike. This would allow a bigger screen and to view it you wouldn't have to move your hand away from the controls.


----------



## Arthur M

mew88 said:


> I'm in my late 20s and don't see the need for this device. Guess I'll just head over to that corner and hang out with the old men with cool mechanical watches.


Mid-20s here. I'll hang out with both crowds.


----------



## Hoonnu

Pass on it. Unless they insist that I test it for them...


----------



## Phong Vu

zoneinfo said:


> I think most people were fairly skeptical near the beginning of each of Apple's product launches {ipod, iphone, ipad} and arguably they all turned out to be great products. If I still used an iPhone then I'd probably just spend the $350 to play with Apple's watch based on their prior track record. I bet the 2nd generation model next year will be even better.
> 
> For me personally however, I'll be picking up a Suunto now that I've seen what all the Apple Watch fuss is about.


iPod is the only successful product of Apple. Both iPhone and iPad were just transitional phase where Apple thought they know what is the trend of the future (but they actually didn't). You can see the idea behind the current iPhone and iPad is no longer the same as its first versions where Apple thought they need to separate a phone and an information consuming device. That's why they were so stubborn to keep first versions of iPhone at 3.5' size and the iPad at 10'. The market proved that Apple was wrong, customer want one single device where they can make phone call, twitting, checking facebook,... So that is why Apple continuously downsize iPad and upsize their iPhone (with iPhone 6 plus is the newest evidence) as well as merging their Operating System on their devices.

So no, iPhone and iPad were flops until Apple starting to copy idea from companies who know how to do things the right way such as Samsung or Google.


----------



## Cannonball

I won't buy the first version of the Apple watch. I'll probably wait till slicker versions come out once they fine tune it to the audience.

For now, I have my iPhone.


----------



## garublador

Well, I don't have an iPhone so I'm not exactly the target market, but I won't be getting one either. I may get a Google Wear smart watch in the future, but only if I really find a need. I think they have the potential to be great devices, but I'm not sure I need one enough to pay a couple hundred bucks for such a new type of device. It may take a couple iterations before it's perfected enough to justify me getting one.


----------



## MrDagon007

Phong Vu said:


> So no, iPhone and iPad were flops until Apple starting to copy idea from companies who know how to do things the right way such as Samsung or Google.


Wow. Rewriting history, much?


----------



## Phong Vu

MrDagon007 said:


> Wow. Rewriting history, much?


 big companies copy ideas from each other all the time. iPad is not the first tablet the same way as iPhone is not the first smartphone. People often think all Apple does is creating original ideas when the company is up to their neck with lawsuits about patent infringement. Jobs was a great marketer but he didn't have the innovation and knowledge about technology as other billionaires in Silicon Valley (without the genius of Wozniak, Apple could never exist in the first place ).


----------



## Arthur M

Phong Vu said:


> iPod is the only successful product of Apple. Both iPhone and iPad were just transitional phase where Apple thought they know what is the trend of the future (but they actually didn't). You can see the idea behind the current iPhone and iPad is no longer the same as its first versions where Apple thought they need to separate a phone and an information consuming device. That's why they were so stubborn to keep first versions of iPhone at 3.5' size and the iPad at 10'. The market proved that Apple was wrong, customer want one single device where they can make phone call, twitting, checking facebook,... So that is why Apple continuously downsize iPad and upsize their iPhone (with iPhone 6 plus is the newest evidence) as well as merging their Operating System on their devices.
> 
> So no, iPhone and iPad were flops until Apple starting to copy idea from companies who know how to do things the right way such as Samsung or Google.


Huh??

"Apple has finally announced its long-rumored iPhone. True to the Apple "i" tradition, the iPhone is filled with features and touts an innovative interface more akin to a kiosk or video game than a telephone. By making music, videos and Web browsing available to its users, Apple hopes to set the standard in the entertainment/phone, all-in-one device market, much as it did in the music player market. Can it succeed? Frankly, and contrary to the reactions of Apple fans and the stock market, I am pretty skeptical. I don't think this device will meet the fantastic predictions I have been reading. For starters, while Apple basically established the market for portable music players, the phone market is already established, with a number of major brands. Can Apple remake the phone market in its image? Success is far from guaranteed. Apple will likely have a tough time convincing application vendors to build specialized clients for the iPhone until the volumes are there, and the volumes could be limited by the lack of third-party applications - a Catch 22."
Jack Gold, J. Gold Associates, 10 January 2007

"The iPhone's willful disregard of the global handset market will come back to haunt Apple."
Tero Kuittinen, RealMoney.com, 18 January 2007

"The iPhone is going to be nothing more than a temporary novelty that will eventually wear off."
Gundeep Hora, CoolTechZone Editor-in-Chief, 2 April 2007

"The forthcoming (June 29) release of the Apple iPhone is going to be a bigger marketing flop than Ishtar and Waterworld combined. Because its designers forgot Platt's First, Last, and Only Law of User Experience Design ("Know Thy User, for He Is Not Thee"), that product is going to crash in flames. Sell your Apple stock now, while the hype's still hot. You heard it here first."
David S. Platt, Suckbusters!, 21 June 2007

Apple was lambasted for thinking a combination device was the way of the future. These are all people who criticized them for not playing to the current compaction and trying to make an all-in-one device in the face of the market at the time. Like the guy above said, trying to rewrite history?


----------



## Phong Vu

Well, if you count revenue then both iPhone and iPad were hugh successes though, I agree with that.

However I disagree about saying Apple was trying to make one-for-all device with the original iPhone. This was not their goal at the time and with iPad coming out a little later solidified that stand. I don't understand what the hell the guy Jack Gold was saying ("By making music, videos and Web browsing available to its users, Apple hopes to set the standard in the entertainment/phone, all-in-one device market"). Seriously, Nokia and Palm intergrates web-browsing, music playing to their phone ages ago. The only new thing about iPhone at that time is probably the unique design (which was influenced heavily by the design of iPod by the way), and the business model that Apple using. Instead of releasing multiple versions of their phone like other companies, Apple focused its resources only on one product, and then bullying the ISP to sell it as well as marketing the hell out of the product to consumers. It is smart business strategy, but not innovative technology wise.



iPad is the only device that Apple planned as a media consuming device. Just look at all those ebook deal that Apple has been trying to make after the releasing of iPad. They want people use iPad to buy and consume contents (book, power point, email, and everything they could make digitally). Iphone was at first not intented to do those purposed hence the small screen and battery. Of cource you can go online with it a couple times an hour but this is not designed to browsing web or reading book in 5-6 hours straight.

The current iPhone is totally different though, Apple is giving up the original idea and conversing the 2 devices (hence my previous post). When both iPhone and iPad become one single device which could help consumers to read contents comfortable (with bigger screen and longer battery), and have enough processing power to process games and video then we would have a true one-for-all device.


----------



## Shawnny

stuffler said:


> Thread moved to the more suitable forum and Time Out for poll set to 10 days.


Thanks a lot there! The idea was to see how the whole watch community feels about this watch. This watch will at least make a small impact on the watch industry. I didn't create this post to see how people feel, who are already looking for info on smart watches. It kind of skews the results.


----------



## Jay_The_Nomad

I'll wait for the next generation of the apple watch. 

Hopefully it'll be thinner and waterproof and shock proof. If they do that, I'll gladly replace my digital polar sports watch with an apple watch. It'll be like the ultimate exercise watch.


----------



## Shawnny

Phong Vu said:


> iPod is the only successful product of Apple. Both iPhone and iPad were just transitional phase where Apple thought they know what is the trend of the future (but they actually didn't). You can see the idea behind the current iPhone and iPad is no longer the same as its first versions where Apple thought they need to separate a phone and an information consuming device. That's why they were so stubborn to keep first versions of iPhone at 3.5' size and the iPad at 10'. The market proved that Apple was wrong, customer want one single device where they can make phone call, twitting, checking facebook,... So that is why Apple continuously downsize iPad and upsize their iPhone (with iPhone 6 plus is the newest evidence) as well as merging their Operating System on their devices.
> 
> So no, iPhone and iPad were flops until Apple starting to copy idea from companies who know how to do things the right way such as Samsung or Google.


This is is hilarious!! Apple gives people what they want as trends change. A company that has made about over 1,850,000,000 is not wrong! In case you don't know, that's 1.85 billion USD!!


----------



## StufflerMike

Your welcome.


----------



## Shawnny

Just so you guys know: The Apple watch works with all the iPhone 5s. Which means, there are already 200,000,000 iPhones out there that can be used with the Apple Watch.


----------



## tony20009

I don't know what I'll do. I am fairly certain I am not going to be among the first to buy an Apple watch.

All the best.


----------



## garublador

The iPod was cool because it had a neat new interface and nice hardware. It was revolutionary because of iTunes. After a couple generations the higher capacity versions were fairly price competitive, too.

The iPhone was cool because it had a neat new interface and nice hardware. It was revolutionary because of the app store. Getting software on older, portable computers and phones wasn't as easy and the selection was pretty weak. Getting all of the apps in one place that's easy to access was the reason to get an iPhone. It wasn't until a year and a half later that Android caught on in the same way and a couple years after that until they got to the same quality of iOS. Granted, now it seems more like iOS is catching up to Android, but most just call it, "waiting for features to be proven before they're implemented." 

The iPad was cool because of the nice hardware. It was revolutionary because the assumption before was that a tablet should act like a PC or laptop, but Apple realized it should act like a big smart phone. It took me a while to come around on that one, but that's really what it boils down to. Tablets existed before the iPad, but they ran something like Windows XP embedded in pretty specialized applications and were a giant pain to use. The form factor was pretty much brand new as a consumer product and Apple did a great job of getting it right from the beginning.

The iWatch, however, just seems to be another smart watch. They got scooped by Motorola, LG, Samsung and others. IMO they aren't behind the curve on this one, but they aren't setting it either like they did with the iPod, iPhone or iPad.


----------



## Thijsmens

How long will it take before someone develops the combination of a mechanical watch with Apple features?


----------



## johsch

You go girl!!!


----------



## zoneinfo

Nikoloz said:


> ;-)
> 
> i liked the idea that they made an option of changing straps (or else you would be bored out of it in a week) but in everything else it looks like a toy, you can wear it for a month, entertain yourself and then abandon it for good. they still have to try harder...


I think it's actually a better watch than you're giving it credit for. 316L steel, sapphire crystal, low $350 price tag; people who are buying $50-$2000 watches will consider this as a reasonable substitute.


----------



## LHF1120

Buying it. Saw the release info on the Apple site and it looks decent.

For the price it's a cool piece of technology.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## robi516

The Apple watch is first and foremost computer technology, not really a watch, and as such it will be become obsolete in 12-24 months. Yes it tells time, like my iPhone does, and with the high resolution screen it can miraculously "simulate" the look and feel of a real watch with incredible life-like detail. But it is all an illusion. The sweeping second hands of my Rolex Explorer and my Omega Speedmaster are real, and I know these are true classic watches that will never go obsolete.


----------



## NedSchneebly

I have an ipad, iphone and a macbook, and I will not go anywhere near an apple watch. I'll admit that it is pretty damn cool, but I want simplicity on my wrist. I like putting my phone and all its features someplace far away from me so I'm somewhat disconnected. It wouldn't make sense for me to clasp it all to my body.


----------



## Iwhalperin

I'm going to ignore the iWatch, Apple Watch, iW, AW, or whatever. There will 
be a time wearables are useful, with real battery life, etc. That time is not
today.


----------



## BarracksSi

robi516 said:


> The Apple watch is first and foremost computer technology, not really a watch, and as such it will be become obsolete in 12-24 months. Yes it tells time, like my iPhone does, and with the high resolution screen it can miraculously "simulate" the look and feel of a real watch with incredible life-like detail. But it is all an illusion. The sweeping second hands of my Rolex Explorer and my Omega Speedmaster are real, and I know these are true classic watches that will never go obsolete.


There's "discontinued" and then there's "obsolete". For the sake of simplicity, I'm going to define "obsolete" as "no longer will receive system software updates."

The iPhone 4 was released in 2010 running iOS 4, and it will run the current system software, iOS 7 (specifically 7.1.2, so far). It will not run iOS 8. But, its slightly upgraded successor that was released in 2011, the 4S, will run iOS 8. iOS 7 may receive another update or two and be carried into next year.

So that's at least four years, and three major versions, of OS updates on a device that's got more components-most of which, like the cameras and cellular radios, will receive incremental upgrades-than an Apple Watch. I'm also leaving out application updates that continue supporting older models.

I posted this earlier today in another thread:

https://www.watchuseek.com/f513/app...watch-i-kind-like-1082714-17.html#post8347813


BarracksSi said:


> There are space and power limitations in phones, but watches are severely constrained. Maybe they'll add a camera, especially a front-facing, Dick Tracy-like FaceTime camera, but that's going to eat up precious cubic millimeters, and I don't think there's yet enough room for much else.
> 
> Maybe they will build a stronger processor, but that would need power, and for now, that's coming from a small cell and nothing else (as far as we know). Not a good idea to double the clock speed yet.
> 
> *This means that the hardware probably won't change very much.* I'm not expecting a yearly upgrade cycle. Maybe three years; I don't know, though. Bigger changes can be made in software, whether it's just apps or OS updates. (and remember, those can already be handled wirelessly)
> 
> For all we know, maybe a happy user will get a Sport model for everyday use, working out, etc, and splurge on an Edition model for nights out. All the data is synced to the phone anyway, so you would still be adding to your walking mileage total during a post-dinner stroll along the pier.


----------



## tony20009

Thijsmens said:


> How long will it take before someone develops the combination of a mechanical watch with Apple features?


I don't know, but I know I wouldn't want to have to carry it around. Have you ever seen any of the watches that have 20+ complications? They are huge and thick. I believe the most complicated ever made was made for Henry Graves and has some 30+ complications. It's about as thick as a small paperback novel.

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-sty...d-handmade-watch-for-sale-20140716-ztir4.html










All the best.


----------



## garublador

robi516 said:


> The Apple watch is first and foremost computer technology, not really a watch, and as such it will be become obsolete in 12-24 months.


That is a good point about obsolescence, but there's the possibility that many of the upgrades from year to year with smart watches will focus on cheaper prices and longer battery life rather than feature and benchmark type upgrades like you see with phones. So your "obsolete" watch may just have cost you more and not last as long on a charge as the newer versions.

If that doesn't happen, and you do need to upgrade watches every few years, then $350 on top of a new phone will get to be a hefty price tag that I'm not sure too many will be willing to live with.

We'll just have to see what happens.


----------



## Sixracer

On the one wrist, my iPhone is always buzzing. Being able to put it down and walk away is pretty nice. If my watch was buzzing every time something happened I might commit suicide. 

On the other, I watched the Apple video and am TOTALLY sold! Love it. Getting it. Money is already mentally spent. Almost as spent as the price of the new Steinhart I got in the mail today. Ok, well, I will need to see some decent battery specs. 

I was sold on the customizable display/face. Moon phase, GMT, weather. So cool. 

My solution: Apple watch quite seamlessly rotates the display and becomes a lefty watch. I will wear it on my right while my real time piece is on the left. Overkill, YES! the key I think will be to, ironically, remove the time display from the Apple Watch to keep the mechanical relevant.


----------



## TimSH

Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been a tech enthusiast for most of my adult life. My first computer was and Altair I built from a kit back in the 70's. I'm an IT manager and have worked in IT for over 25 years. I'm also fully invested in the Apple ecosystem at this point. iPhone, iPad, iMac, iPod. The works. 

I will not be buying an Apple Watch. I have a nice (though relatively small at 7 'good' watches) collection of analog timepieces that I wear and I can't see replacing any with this. It also doesn't make much sense to me unless it's a constant companion. Therefore, there's no place for it in my life or my wardrobe. I would much rather have something like the Citizen Eco-Drive Proximity than an Apple Watch, thanks very much.

Compared to the current crop of smart watches, it's a winner. Unfortunately, the entire category loses so far as I'm concerned.


----------



## El Gato

I am first and foremost a WIS...but a close second is I am a gadget geek.

I like a lot of the Apple products, but I am not a fanatical cult follower like those camping out waiting for the phones to come out.

Whether you like Apple or not, Apple typically thinks through their products very carefully, and they are beautifully designed and engineered. This watch is no exception. To me it looks like it will clearly be the best implementation to date of a smart watch. I am impressed by the features and function, the style, etc. And if you watch their video overview of this watch, they clearly know that winning over the watch nuts is a concern to them. They clearly have thought about how to make this appeal to people who like watches....but winning over those of us who are hardcore watch people is another question.

I might admire the design but I would never buy this. First, nothing is going to replace the Speedmaster professional on my wrist. Except another nice mechanical from my case....on occasion. Or if it's an electronic it will be a g-shock or a nice Casio for durable situations. But mainly I will always be a guy who prefers traditional, mechanical watches. But even aside from that, this watch just has too many redundancies with my iPhone. Why would I read a text on that tiny watch screen when all I need to do is pull the iPhone out of my pocket? An iPhone that the watch depends upon, by the way, so it's not like the watch allows you an alternative to carrying your phone. 

Honestly, looking at photos, text, schedule, maps, etc on this watch, because....why, I am too lazy to take my iPhone out of my pocket and look at it with a much nicer and fully functional screen?

i mean no slight to those that are into smart watches. I think they are cool. But this apple watch to me just seems like a very redundant accessory, one more thing to have to charge up all the time, and why leave so many gorgeous other watches in my case to wear this $350 device that's like a remote for your smart phone.

Sorry Apple, this one is a miss for me. No matter how cool it is.


----------



## Sixracer

The funny thing is in northern climate it is harder to pull back your coat/gloves to check the time than to look out a phone in your outer pocket. So even wearing the watch I think the phone would be the go-to on many occasions.


----------



## cheoah

Kind of the antithesis of an automatic watch. Not particularly appealing. Cool, but not for me.


----------



## Mediocre

Will not own one


----------



## Matt Stone

If this one were made by someone other than Apple, yeah, I probably would. It's not spectacular looking, but the app support will make it what a true smart watch should be. Me though, I'm an Android guy mostly. I get tons of opportunities for free phones (I work in cell phone stores), sometimes even 3 a year... but never apple. I've had probably 10 different Android handsets, and I'm completely sold into the ecosystem at this point.

I think the best thing about Apple Watch is that it could help to legitimize smart watches in general, and maybe even rekindle a love for traditional watches, that'd be great.


----------



## hantms

The risk of getting one is that I might like it.. a LOT. Suppose I get used to seeing Facebook updates and whatever else on my wrist, then every time I wear a regular watch I'll still look at it expecting to see some twitter posts, the weather, my location, boarding pass information or whatever else, and it'll feel like a disappointment to only find the time. 

Fortunately I don't have an iPhone so the combined expense will probably mean I won't be getting one. Unless someone finds a way to come up with an Android app or hack that will make it work with a Android phone for certain things. (Location, messages, etc.)

Of course I could just use it as a watch, and to heck with getting the iphone. Then I won't get hooked on the additional features, it'd just be an interesting watch to add to the rotation. Although I might as well wait for the Parnis version in that case. I can almost hear Chinese factories working on those as we speak..


----------



## Shikyo

Sixracer said:


> The funny thing is in northern climate it is harder to pull back your coat/gloves to check the time than to look out a phone in your outer pocket. So even wearing the watch I think the phone would be the go-to on many occasions.


Personally, pulling back your goat/gloves is still much easier than taking off your gloves(or actually mittens if we're talking about cold climate) than to reach into your pocket and take out your phone. I also recall having some trouble with touchscreens because my fingers were so cold the screen simply wouldn't react to the screen at all.


----------



## Nikoloz

zoneinfo said:


> I think it's actually a better watch than you're giving it credit for. 316L steel, sapphire crystal, low $350 price tag; people who are buying $50-$2000 watches will consider this as a reasonable substitute.


Steel and saphire version would cost considerably more, no?
as far as i understand 350 is for a basic, sports version of a watch, which comes with a plastic case and non sapphire crystal (however i might be rong on this one).


----------



## anaplian

I'm not planning to buy one. The main reason for this is that I feel that I already have enough devices which often serve to distract me from the important things in life - being with my family and friends. By 'being with' I mean 'giving my full attention to'.

I'm try to cultivate a kind of 'mindful use of technology'. This means not adopting it just because it's available. The Amish are very good at this. They do adopt modern technology (e.g. computer-controlled lathes, state-of-the-art BBQs) however before they do so they always ask 'will this bring us closer together or drive us apart?'. I realise that an argument could be made for the Apple Watch bringing folks together - the heartbeat sharing is very cool - but, on balance, I think that this is outweighed by the massive time suck which it will constitute overall.

I am interested in the health monitoring aspects of wearables - I wear a Nike Fuelband which has help to make me much more active. However, I'm sure health monitoring devices will become available which don't also bring along the other negative aspects of smart watches.

Oh yeah, I also have some nice mechanical watches which I'm loathe to give up wearing. :-!


----------



## oroloi

Mediocre said:


> Will not own one


Will own two


----------



## migo

Shikyo said:


> Wouldn't a handheld GPS unit work much better than a wrist mounted one? For many models you can also find a mount to attach to the bike. This would allow a bigger screen and to view it you wouldn't have to move your hand away from the controls.


I already have a handheld GPS, it's called a smartphone. I could get a mount for it if that actually would be a meaningful advantage over having it in my pocket.


----------



## migo

garublador said:


> The iPod was cool because it had a neat new interface and nice hardware. It was revolutionary because of iTunes. After a couple generations the higher capacity versions were fairly price competitive, too.


Not really, it pretty much copied Creative but did it in a more polished and aesthetically pleasing fashion.



> The iWatch, however, just seems to be another smart watch. They got scooped by Motorola, LG, Samsung and others. IMO they aren't behind the curve on this one, but they aren't setting it either like they did with the iPod, iPhone or iPad.


It's actually exactly analogous to the iPod when it initially launched. There was budding, but competitive, MP3 player market already in existence.


----------



## unpleasantness

Orsoni said:


> I'm a bit of a Luddite. I still haven't fully adopted cell phone technology. Never have sent a text message in my life.
> 
> I appreciate that mechanical watches are incredibly tiny, hand-made engines.


May you live to be a thousand years old, sir.


----------



## shnjb

Yes I will buy it. 
Why not? 
It's only $350.

I probably won't buy the gold version though, because I'm just a poor person


----------



## tony20009

shnjb said:


> Yes I will buy it.
> Why not?
> It's only $350.
> 
> I probably won't buy the gold version though, because I'm just a poor person


I don't think I'm poor, but I'm certain that if I buy one, it won't be a gold one.

All the best.


----------



## garublador

migo said:


> Not really, it pretty much copied Creative but did it in a more polished and aesthetically pleasing fashion.


The interface was new, not unique. The point is that iTunes (i.e. an online music store) was what was actually revolutionary about it.



migo said:


> It's actually exactly analogous to the iPod when it initially launched. There was budding, but competitive, MP3 player market already in existence.


But the big thing was buying digital copies of individual songs with the iPod. With the iPhone it was the app store. The smart watches that are already out have app stores (at least I know the Android wear ones do) just like the iWatch. They didn't add something that the other watches don't have that isn't just a feature.


----------



## BarracksSi

The kicker this time—and I don't think most people understand this—is Apple Pay. It's different enough from the existing NFC services that it can shake things up. Some astute commentators are thinking that it'll reduce banks to mere money holders, much like Apple's control over the iPhone helped reduce cellular providers to "dumb pipes" of data transmission.

Add the inevitable point-of-sale hardware upgrades that merchants will have to make over the next year to comply with the EVM standard (the US is lagging behind the rest of the planet on this), and we're seriously close to not carrying plastic cards altogether.

For the Apple Watch, this matters because it can be used as a payment device.


----------



## garublador

BarracksSi said:


> The kicker this time-and I don't think most people understand this-is Apple Pay. It's different enough from the existing NFC services that it can shake things up. Some astute commentators are thinking that it'll reduce banks to mere money holders, much like Apple's control over the iPhone helped reduce cellular providers to "dumb pipes" of data transmission.
> 
> Add the inevitable point-of-sale hardware upgrades that merchants will have to make over the next year to comply with the EVM standard (the US is lagging behind the rest of the planet on this), and we're seriously close to not carrying plastic cards altogether.
> 
> For the Apple Watch, this matters because it can be used as a payment device.


I don't think the watch is that big of a deal when it comes to payments, though. It's not like making a payment is something that's done more than a small handful of times per day. I go many days without paying for anything. It's not like checking the time or getting some sort of notification where it happens many times per day or even hour. The cool thing about a watch is you have access to functions you use very often and with no warning that doesn't depend on someone else. If it's a function you know is coming and have to wait for someone else to prepare for you. Getting a phone out ahead of time zero to five times a day isn't much less convenient than using a watch.

I do hope that Apple Pay takes off and brings the US to the 21'st century as far as NFC payments go. I think they're rolling it out at a great time. Hopefully they're lucky enough to not pick a name that ends up being associated with a terrorist organization like one of their main competitors. I'm just not sure the watch has much to do with it. My experience with them is that picking a card and entering your PIN on a phone or watch isn't much, if any, more convenient than just picking a card from your wallet and entering a pin. I usually have my card out by the time it's time to pay, so a faster way won't really save any time. It's easier to manipulate a phone or a card with handheld payment devices (like they'd use at a restaurant) when you're sitting down, too. Trying to bend your wrist the right way so the waiter can scan it with his handheld device could be difficult in some cases, especially if you're on the wall side of a booth.

It would be like arguing that a watch is required for SMS to take off. It's slightly easier and more convenient to see incoming SMS's on a watch, but it's not that big of a deal to check them on your phone, either, especially if you don't get that many per day.


----------



## TheWalrus

You know, if any Apple / smart watch marketing people stumble across this board, they must be positively elated at what they're seeing in that poll.

Almost _40%_ of watch enthusiasts either will buy, or seriously think about buying, a Smart watch and either entirely replacing, or replacing in part, their traditional wrist watches.

Bear in mind this is a subset of watch enthusiasts who are so crazed about traditional time pieces that they're willing to join a forum, and participate in it.

And almost 40% of them will seriously consider a smart watch.


----------



## BarracksSi

Daniel Eran Dilger, formerly running roughlydrafted.com and recently joining AppleInsider.com full-time (as "full-time" as bloggers get, I guess) is like a sniper when it comes to Apple commentary. He picks his targets well.

Apple's new Watch, Apple Pay and iPhone 6 met with nervous mocking by competitors

Regarding Apple's watch specifically, he writes:



> LVMH mocks Apple Watch, then says we "must not copy it," "cannot afford to just follow"
> 
> At the other end of the spectrum, Jean-Claude Biver, the head of LVMH's TAG Heuer luxury watch brand, immediately complained to the _Telegraph UK_ that Apple Watch "has no sex appeal. It's too feminine and looks too much like the smartwatches already on the market."
> 
> Days later, he told Swiss paper _NZZ am Sonntag_ that "we want to launch a smartwatch at TAG Heuer, but it must not copy the Apple Watch," adding simply, "We cannot afford to just follow in somebody else's footsteps."
> 
> While Biver couldn't quite align a coherent statement of whether he thought Apple Watch was a terrible design or, alternatively, challenging to copy in way that didn't give the appearance of being like Samsung, other luxury watch talking heads insisted that Apple's watch was "too masculine," rather than being "too feminine" or alternatively having "no sex appeal" at all.




He puts together these blog posts better than I ever could.


----------



## tony20009

BarracksSi said:


> The kicker this time-and I don't think most people understand this-is Apple Pay. It's different enough from the existing NFC services that it can shake things up. Some astute commentators are thinking that* it'll reduce banks to mere money holders*, much like Apple's control over the iPhone helped reduce cellular providers to "dumb pipes" of data transmission.
> 
> Add the inevitable point-of-sale hardware upgrades that merchants will have to make over the next year to comply with the EVM standard (the US is lagging behind the rest of the planet on this), and we're seriously close to not carrying plastic cards altogether.
> 
> For the Apple Watch, this matters because it can be used as a payment device.


What exactly do you mean by "money holders?" Are you saying that the Apple Pay model will interact directly with the Federal Reserve and bypass banks in the transference of cash between parties to transactions? (I haven't read much about Apple Pay...if you prefer to direct me to a good reference site that explains it comprehensively rather than discuss it here, that'll be fine.)

All the best.


----------



## BarracksSi

tony20009 said:


> What exactly do you mean by "money holders?" Are you saying that the Apple Pay model will interact directly with the Federal Reserve and bypass banks in the transference of cash between parties to transactions? (I haven't read much about Apple Pay...if you prefer to direct me to a good reference site that explains it comprehensively rather than discuss it here, that'll be fine.)
> 
> All the best.


Not quite that drastic. However, I think I've *misread* some things (or even read ideas that are suddenly outdated) --

Remember how cell carriers used to have their own phone features? The Blackberry I had with T-Mobile had a function where it kept my five favorite contacts easier to access, and these contacts were also in my T-Mobile "Circle", or whatever it was called. It was an example of carriers installing their custom software on phones. Apple (or really, Steve Jobs and, I'm sure, Eddy Cue) pushed and pushed to have sole control over their still-secret iPhone platform, and only Cingular was willing to take the bet. Since then, the result has been that cell carriers don't have much of themselves to sell besides data plans. They hardly have exclusive phones anymore, and the only custom software might be an app or two if the phone comes with any at all (iPhones don't).

Some commentary from back in 2012 referring to banks as possibly becoming "dumb pipes of the mobile payment industry" --
http://readwrite.com/2012/02/20/banks_in_danger_of_becoming_the_dumb_pipes_of_the

Unlike the scenario described in that post, however, Apple is working directly with the banks instead of starting their own payment service without them. They're bypassing the likes of PayPal, Softbank, and even retailers like Starbucks who have you pay into their account so you can take your money out again later.

Despite what I said earlier, then, banks -- card issuers, really -- won't be left out of the loop as much as they could be.


----------



## Shawnny

^ They can't be left out of the loop. Unless Apple wants to become a banking or credit institution. Which isn't a bad idea. Apple, are you listening? I think it's great that Apple will take a chunk out of other payment methods.


----------



## captain_hx

iWatch is not a watch, in my book anyway


----------



## Shawnny

On this payment subject, I have to tell you what happened to me:

On the 9th, I was watching the Apple presentation. I was watching the part about the Apple Pay. I was thinking to my self that it sounded like a really great idea, being so secure and stuff. I hope it turns out to be as secure as they say. Because during the Apple Pay segment, my credit card company called and asked if I was in Russia. I said no, I'm at home. The girl on the phone told me that someone in Russia was partying it up with my credit card info. So, they shut my account down, and I had to get a new card. It's the first time I've been compromised like that. I think it would be great if Apple could put an end to that.


----------



## tony20009

BarracksSi said:


> Not quite that drastic. However,* I think I've misread some things* (or even read ideas that are suddenly outdated) --
> 
> ...
> 
> *Despite what I said earlier, then, banks -- card issuers, really -- won't be left out of the loop as much as they could be*.


That strikes me as quite plausible and possible. Indeed, it reflects reality as I understand it.

AFAIK, credit and debit cards are the only payment means, besides cash, that support real time "balance" availability. EFT/ACH transactions (consumers think of them as "direct debit" from their checking or savings accounts) take two "cycles" to "settle up." In the first cycle, one bank will present a claim to another bank. In the next cycle, the bank that received the request for funds will either confirm and remit the funds or, reject the request. Until the banking industry is able to as a whole support online, real-time transactions, I doubt that will change, and I happen to think that batch processing will endure for the noted transaction types for many, many years to come. (Note, wired funds are a different type of transaction. They effect balance changes immediately for all parties involved. Transfers, which are exchanges that have only one banking institution involved, can also happen immediately.)

All the best.


----------



## Shawnny

captain_hx said:


> iWatch is not a watch, in my book anyway


It tells you the time doesn't it? It goes on your wrist, doesn't it? How does the saying go? If it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck.......


----------



## BarracksSi

Shawnny said:


> On this payment subject, I have to tell you what happened to me:
> 
> On the 9th, I was watching the Apple presentation. I was watching the part about the Apple Pay. I was thinking to my self that it sounded like a really great idea, being so secure and stuff. I hope it turns out to be as secure as they say. Because during the Apple Pay segment, my credit card company called and asked if I was in Russia. I said no, I'm at home. The girl on the phone told me that someone in Russia was partying it up with my credit card info. So, they shut my account down, and I had to get a new card. It's the first time I've been compromised like that. I think it would be great if Apple could put an end to that.


On this tangent --

I bought some bike parts via an online shop. They're legitimate, as was the company they used for processing payments (and that company worked with a lot of other online retailers, too). However, that processing company got hacked, and all of their info got leaked. I got a call from Western Union one night, asking, "Hi, Mr. [BarracksSi], this is [Bob?] from Western Union -- were we speaking on the phone a few minutes ago?" Uh, no, I replied. Bob said, "Ah, ok. Well, this is now a fraudulent case," and explained that someone was using my account to wire a thousand dollars, and that this phone call was part of their validation protocol. He stopped the transfer, and on his advice, I called my bank, who said that someone in NYC had bought a song on iTunes, and then the Western Union attempt was made. Kept my money, shut down the card, and got a new one.

My wife and I went out for lunch on a trip to NYC. Paid for the meal, went on our way. That night, the next time I tried to use the card, it wouldn't work. I called my bank and asked what had happened. They asked me if I ate at that restaurant earlier at so-and-so time, which I did, and they confirmed that my card had been swiped in the machine for payment. They then said that, less than two hours later, someone at that restaurant tried to key in my credit card number but got the wrong expiration date, and then they tried to do it again an hour after that. That triggered their system and they locked my card. Got a new one after that.

So, first case: credit card info was stored on a server somewhere and it got hacked. Second case: an unscrupulous, and stupid, restaurant employee tried to re-enter my card info, which may have been on a receipt or was copied by hand (probably the former, since receipts don't show the expiration date). Both instances would have been avoided if my card number was not used.


----------



## BarracksSi

Shawnny said:


> ^ They can't be left out of the loop. Unless Apple wants to become a banking or credit institution. Which isn't a bad idea. Apple, are you listening? I think it's great that Apple will take a chunk out of other payment methods.


I don't think they want that.

CEO Tim Cook made a point during the presentation that Apple doesn't want to keep their customers' transaction information -- what you buy, where you've bought it, or even how much you've paid. He also said in an interview with Charlie Rose earlier this week that, "Our customers are not our product," and that computers, music players, phones, and software are their only products. He was inferring that other companies (say, Google and Amazon) treat their customers as "products", selling ad impressions to as many people as they can, targeting people in ways that are more attractive to companies who'll buy those ads. It's like saying, hey, I've got twenty thousand people who are looking for gold watches, would you like me to show them a picture of your watch for a dollar a person?


----------



## garublador

BarracksSi said:


> So, first case: credit card info was stored on a server somewhere and it got hacked. Second case: an unscrupulous, and stupid, restaurant employee tried to re-enter my card info, which may have been on a receipt or was copied by hand (probably the former, since receipts don't show the expiration date). Both instances would have been avoided if my card number was not used.


I might be missing something, but I don't see how services like Apple Pay and Softcard can prevent the hacking. Your account/credit card data has to be stored somewhere or else there wouldn't be any way to identify which account to process.

The NFC payments, even when used in a credit card, do a much better job of protecting you against the second type of fraud. The credit card information isn't shown to the person performing the transaction, AFAIK (unless they're somehow able to memorize it for the second or two they see the card) and they won't have your PIN, or card so face to face transactions won't work. They'd probably have to guess at your billing information for any online transactions, which would be difficult.


----------



## BarracksSi

garublador said:


> I might be missing something, but I don't see how services like Apple Pay and Softcard can prevent the hacking. Your account/credit card data has to be stored somewhere or else there wouldn't be any way to identify which account to process.


As far as I've read, Apple doesn't store any of the card info on the phone. You can take a picture of your card, type it in (I believe), or use the card in your iTunes account, which gets sent to your bank. The bank then sends a unique device identifier to the phone. When you make a transaction, a new, one-time-use encrypted number, or "token", is generated, which goes to your bank, confirms the purchase, and is immediately expired. Someone standing nearby with an electronic scanner may catch that token, but it's useless because it's already expired.

Your bank still stores your card info, of course, but it wouldn't need to be stored anywhere else. The fewer places that have it, the more secure it should be.


----------



## garublador

BarracksSi said:


> As far as I've read, Apple doesn't store any of the card info on the phone. You can take a picture of your card, type it in (I believe), or use the card in your iTunes account, which gets sent to your bank. The bank then sends a unique device identifier to the phone. When you make a transaction, a new, one-time-use encrypted number, or "token", is generated, which goes to your bank, confirms the purchase, and is immediately expired. Someone standing nearby with an electronic scanner may catch that token, but it's useless because it's already expired.
> 
> Your bank still stores your card info, of course, but it wouldn't need to be stored anywhere else. The fewer places that have it, the more secure it should be.


Ahh. That's an awesome idea. So the POS only has these token numbers that they reference to the bank and the tokens are only good for that one transaction. It sounds like Apple still keeps records of your credit card infomation, though. While it's probably more secure than having your info out at every place you shop, Apple's security hasn't exactly been show to be infallable. Just ask Jennifer Lawrence.


----------



## BarracksSi

garublador said:


> Ahh. That's an awesome idea. So the POS only has these token numbers that they reference to the bank and the tokens are only good for that one transaction. It sounds like Apple still keeps records of your credit card infomation, though. While it's probably more secure than having your info out at every place you shop, Apple's security hasn't exactly been show to be infallable. Just ask Jennifer Lawrence.


Not really -- if you already have an iTunes account, then yeah, Apple has your CC info. But, if you scan a different card via the phone to use for Apple Pay, Apple doesn't keep that card's info, whether on their servers or on the iPhone itself.


----------



## garublador

BarracksSi said:


> Not really -- if you already have an iTunes account, then yeah, Apple has your CC info. But, if you scan a different card via the phone to use for Apple Pay, Apple doesn't keep that card's info, whether on their servers or on the iPhone itself.


I couldn't find anything confirming that. The Apple site says it's stored in Passbook, which is stored in iCloud. I don't use iOS devices enough to know what sort of options you have (I'm assuming it can be turned off), but isn't iCloud what was hacked with the celebrity pictures? Though they might encrypt things like credit card numbers but not pictures. The Apple site also says that the credit card numbers are never shared by Apple with merchants, but it doesn't say whether or not they're stored at all.


----------



## BarracksSi

garublador said:


> I couldn't find anything confirming that. The Apple site says it's stored in Passbook, which is stored in iCloud. I don't use iOS devices enough to know what sort of options you have (I'm assuming it can be turned off), but isn't iCloud what was hacked with the celebrity pictures? Though they might encrypt things like credit card numbers but not pictures. The Apple site also says that the credit card numbers are never shared by Apple with merchants, but it doesn't say whether or not they're stored at all.


I've only got a few minutes, hence the brief reply --

http://www.macworld.com/article/260...mobile-payment-system-youll-actually-use.html



> The first step is, you buy an iPhone 6 or 6 Plus. These are the only phones to support Apple Pay, because the entire system relies on two new pieces of hardware: the secure element and the NFC chipset.
> 
> Phone in hand, you next need to load it with a credit card, either by taking a picture of your credit card or by approving an existing card that's already tied to your Apple Store account. Apple is the first vendor to support this loading system-possibly because it may be the first to get permission from the credit card brands to do so.
> 
> But this is where things get interesting. When the iPhone scans the number off your card, it doesn't store it locally, or even on Apple servers. According to Apple sources, Apple mediates a connection to the payment network or issuing bank associated with your card, which then provides a _Device Account Number_.
> 
> This technique is known as _tokenization_. Tokenization has many flavors, but at core what it's doing is replacing a sensitive piece of data (your credit card number, say) with a random piece of data that (typically) has the same structure and formatting. For example, there are a variety of tokenization systems that take a real, 16-digit credit card number, store it in a database, and return another 16-digit number that meets all the structural requirements of a credit card (it passes the LUHN check).
> 
> Tokenization is great because it reduces or eliminates the need to update legacy systems that expect a credit card number, without ever exposing the real number. Tokenization is typically handled by the payment network, which (in some implementations) encrypts the credit card number right when you swipe it, sends it back for the token, and then provides that to the merchant to keep for things like refunds or customer tracking. If the merchant's system is breached, no real numbers are exposed; the tokens can also be merchant-specific for any given credit card, making them useless anywhere else.


The part about storing it in Passbook doesn't refer to the device ID token, though. You'd go to Passbook to choose the particular card you want to use, but when the data is pulled up for the POS reader, it takes the token from the secure area on the phone's chip (same place as where the Touch ID is stored).

About the iCloud "hack" - that was pretty much "brute force" entry using known usernames and having a computer guess at passwords until they hit. Nothing that sneaky about it, just weak passwords.


----------



## captain_hx

Shawnny said:


> How does the saying go? If it sounds like a duck and looks like a duck.......


Someone could argue that it sounds like an iphone and looks like an iphone so its an iphone


----------



## garublador

BarracksSi said:


> I've only got a few minutes, hence the brief reply --
> 
> Why Apple Pay could be the mobile-payment system you'll actually use | Macworld


Thank you for finding that. That's what I couldn't find. All of the documentation on the Apple site is very vague about how it's done.



BarracksSi said:


> About the iCloud "hack" - that was pretty much "brute force" entry using known usernames and having a computer guess at passwords until they hit. Nothing that sneaky about it, just weak passwords.


Yeah, but you'd think that after a few failed attempts that Apple would realize what's going on.


----------



## BarracksSi

garublador said:


> Yeah, but you'd think that after a few failed attempts that Apple would realize what's going on.[/COLOR]


Right, and I think that's why they've added two-step authentication earlier this week.


----------



## gaopa

I would not trade my Pebble even for the new Apple watch! Cheers, Bill P.


----------

