# The iWatch thread.



## Crunchy

30 mins to announcement. Love it or hate it? Will it change the world? Is it the "quartz" disruption of the new millenium?

Post your comments here.


----------



## mew88

No idea what to make of it yet, but i noticed Apple invited Hodinkee


----------



## TheWalrus

Neither love it, nor hate it. And I can firmly say that without seeing it since I already know I won't wear one. I am, somewhat, interested in seeing what they come up with.

I've noted my theories as to consequence on here already. But I'll post them againP: 

This will have zero effect on the high end watches (Bregeut, Patek, JLC, etc.) The people that wear those watches are already part of the elite who are able to disconnect from the world.

This will noticeably hurt anything short of that - on a continuum. Rolex, Omega, Breitling, Grand Seiko, GO - they'll likely not be affected too terribly - these are watches that serve an entirely different purpose than the iWatch. They are jewelry. They reflect the wearers individuality. Some cynics will call them status symbols. They commemorate achievements and are designed to be a part of our culture - heirloom pieces that will remain relevant. People will still buy them, and wear them when they dress up - and an iWatch doesn't seem appropriate.

Watches like Hamilton, Mido, Seiko, in that $500 - $2000 range will see an impact. A big impact. Though hopefully not fatal. These are watches that people buy because they have a little money to spend and want something fashionable on their wrist. When they can spend less money and have something more useful - they'll do it. In a heart beat I suspect. That said, these watches will also, still, provide some ability to be different, to stand out from the iWatch wearing set.

Finally - watches like Fossil, D&G, Armani, etc... they'll be profoundly impacted - and I don't think the companies will care too, too much. They'll lose a small revenue stream to Apple. But their true market - clothes, goods, perfumes, etc... will be, obviously, completely untouched.

All that said, I suspec that we'll be seeing iWatches on every 2nd or 3rd wrist within 2 years of this release. It'll be a big thing, like the iPad.


----------



## sticky

I've got a house full of i stuff but you can bet good money that an iWatch will never darken my door.


----------



## Crunchy

Before you guys comment more, I urge you to go watch the event live on an apple product.


----------



## Arthur M

*iWatch*

First glimpse:


----------



## idkfa

The Apple Watch actually looks pretty good.


----------



## ck1109

*Re: iWatch*

38mm and 42mm sizes. That's quite thoughtful.


----------



## MisterHo

*Re: iWatch*

Well it looks better than some Korean smartwatches.


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

It's quite nice















Interesting feature:









I could see myself using that sometimes.


----------



## TavisC

*Apple Watch*

Apple just unveiled its latest offering, the Apple Watch. Stainless, sapphire, and several different strap options. Thoughts?


----------



## sleepyhead123

*Re: iWatch*

So it looks like they aren't aiming at Swatch but Swatch Group huh? That's interesting. That's a different direction than I was thinking of. I guess we should all be happy though. Now when we say our watch has a sapphire crystal the average person won't say "No it doesn't! It's clear!"


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

Looks somewhat normal, really.









Sensors on the back to get data from wrist. What data? Movement?


----------



## SteamJ

*Re: iWatch*

Wow, and people called the Samsung Galaxy Gear ugly. I think the crown has passed to a successor for that "honor".


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*

Well, technically it's "Watch" ;-)

I like the way they're using/honoring the crown in the design.


----------



## neurogenesis

*Re: Apple Watch*

Buh Tugly.


----------



## meth68

No more "i" watch, its called the Apple Watch, they drpped the I

I am not an apple sheep

I am not an apple hater

I love techonology

This watch looks "ok" at best after all this wait, and girls will love it. I would not put one on my wrist for free. It looks like a womens citizen sized face.


----------



## mike120

*Re: iWatch*

Im a blackberry guy so certainly not for me.... It sure looks like they're doing it right though, sapphire, springbarless lugs. Now to see what the WR looks like ;-).


----------



## ScholarsInk

Smartwatches aren't my thing, but this seems to be genuinely compelling. It's very cohesive.


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

Interesting way of switcing straps:


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*

Anyone want a Mickey Mouse watch with Mickey tapping his foot to mark seconds? Definitely cute.


----------



## Citizen V

*Re: iWatch*

Another picture of the lug:









I think someone said it attaches magnetically?


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

And here is the one I've been waiting for:

metal




















Looks very 70's. May prefer fabric in the end.


----------



## Fer Guzman

*New Apple watch high accuracy*

New apple watch accurate to +/- 50 milliseconds, thought it was cool they mentioned that in the conference.


----------



## jilgiljongiljing

*Re: iWatch*

The only thing exciting about all of this for me is the strap change system. I think its really cool


----------



## meth68

proprietary straps

​and there's 2 sizes of watches

​and they both have their own straps

​haha I hate when apple does stuff like this


----------



## Split Second

*Re: iWatch*

I think I'll be moving past this Apple product....


----------



## TheWalrus

*Re: iWatch*

hmnnnn interesting - they could have literally done nothing to convince me to wear one. But, I admit, they styled that nicely - more nicely than I would have thought possible.


----------



## TimelessFan

*Re: iWatch*



SteamJ said:


> Wow, and people called the Samsung Galaxy Gear ugly. I think the crown has passed to a successor for that "honor".


Yeah but it's made by Apple, so it's cool. Just like their gigantic phone. I hated it when other manufacturers made them but now that Apple's going big, I think it's cool!

Whom do I pay for an honor to wear this ankle bracelet?


----------



## Henry Krinkle

*Re: iWatch*



Arthur M said:


> And here is the one I've been waiting for:
> 
> metal
> View attachment 1627747
> View attachment 1627748
> View attachment 1627749
> 
> 
> Looks very 70's. May prefer fabric in the end.


Rado made a bunch of models that looked like that back in the seveneties. I didn't like them then and I still don't care for that look. I'll pass.


----------



## Alex_TA

*Re: iWatch*

Seems like Swiss and Japanese will sleep well tonight. Even with a big smile on their faces.


----------



## SteamJ

*Re: iWatch*



TimelessFan said:


> Yeah but it's made by Apple, so it's cool. Just like their gigantic phone. I hated it when other manufacturers made them but now that Apple's going big, I think it's cool!
> 
> Whom do I pay for an honor to wear this ankle bracelet?


I should admit I've only owned an iPhone 3 back when it was released and I didn't like it. I switched quickly to Android phones and never looked back. The only Apple product in our house is a very old iPod that my wife uses to play music in our son's room and a first gen iPad that her parents gave to our son so he could use the Reading Rainbow app. Even if I did like Apple products that thing is still ugly.


----------



## Phong Vu

*Re: iWatch*

The only thing I care about smartwatch is battery life. I have too many devices needed to be charged daily already.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

It seems to understand simple questions in texts and give you easy answers. Lazy, but so useful.


----------



## Maine

*Re: iWatch*

Looks like it'll soon be cool to have a highly uncomfortable watch. I'll pass, which is a bit disappointing. I was looking forward to liking it.


----------



## CitizenM

*Re: iWatch*

I'm reasonably impressed actually. I can't predict the long term effects of the new "Watch," but I suspect that in the immediate future, it will actually make a serious dent in the luxury mechanical watch market. Most wealthy people I know love Apple and have Apple everything. They'll buy them and it'll keep them entertained at least for awhile. It'll be interesting to see how long Apple can keep the fashion of the thing up--historically they've done really well with things like the iPod and iPhone, which were fashionable for many years before they became so commonplace that they no longer had prestige significance.

I think the really damning thing about it is that it looks like it might actually be almost decent. The watch form factor simply does not, and never will, suit computing tasks because the interface and display are not on the scale that humans are designed to interact with in a very refined way. Keyboards, monitors and mice were not designed out of inherent size limitations, they achieved the size they have because that was the size that made sense for human beings. Therefore, a smart watch (I've been using smart watches since the late 90s actually) will never actually be good, at least with existing technological trends. But the key is that it doesn't need to be--the Watch will be unbelievably, massively successful in virtue of fashion. Consider the phone, something historically not associated with fashion, and Apple was able to spin it that way to great success. The watch IS something associated with fashion, and with by far the most successful name is fashion of all time behind it, it's just very difficult for me to see that this won't be a hit of the scale that affects the GDP of small nations.

So it'll be very interesting to see if the affluent owners of mechanical watches are willing to jump ship to something roughly equally impractical, at least for the time being. My estimation is that they will. The difference here from, say, the iPhone, is that it's a gizmo and not something that is actually effective. The iPhone remains very relevant today, despite a large amount of solid competition, in part because it actually works really well and we have to have a phone anyway, why not an iPhone. Watches don't work that way. You don't have to have one, and unlike the iPhone, which greatly enhanced the utility of phones when it was released, this will not significantly increase the wearer's overall utility because, in the real world, all owners of the Watch will also have new iPhones, and the iPhone will always be the platform they go to when it comes to do computing tasks when they're away from a "real" computer.

Consequently, aside from relatively short lived gizmo factor, the success of the Watch is something that is very much contingent on the brand and fashion of the thing. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes it difficult to determine when, if ever, it will subside.

In the mean time, I do predict even high-end watch sales will decline because multimillionaires and billionaires will buy it, exclusivity be damned, and at least for some period of time, from a few months to years, it will hold their attention because of the novelty of the thing. After that, it's anyone's guess.










It won't be that good, and yet, I'll probably still buy one for the entertainment value it brings. And I think I'm not the only one.


----------



## Crunchy




----------



## Jcp311

*Re: iWatch*

MECHANICAL WATCHES ARE DEAD. ALL IS LOST, ABANDON YOUR COLLECTION.

LONG LIVE THE IWATCH.


----------



## DustinC

Meh.


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*



Alex_TA said:


> Seems like Swiss and Japanese will sleep well tonight. Even with a big smile on their faces.


I think apple just threw a bomb into the under-$500 watch market. Higher than that, and these isn't even in consideration. You're looking for a "timepiece" after that. They could still price themselves out of contention, however.


----------



## Rad Red Brick

*Re: iWatch*



mike120 said:


> Im a blackberry guy so certainly not for me.... It sure looks like they're doing it right though, sapphire, springbarless lugs. Now to see what the WR looks like ;-).


Is it lonely being the last surviving member of your tribe? ;-)


----------



## You

*Re: iWatch*



Jcp311 said:


> MECHANICAL WATCHES ARE DEAD. ALL IS LOST, ABANDON YOUR COLLECTION.
> 
> LONG LIVE THE IWATCH.


Quick everyone to the sale corner!


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*



Jcp311 said:


> MECHANICAL WATCHES ARE DEAD. ALL IS LOST, ABANDON YOUR COLLECTION.
> 
> LONG LIVE THE IWATCH.


The king is dead, long live the king!


----------



## idkfa

meth68 said:


> proprietary straps
> 
> and there's 2 sizes of watches
> 
> and they both have their own straps
> 
> haha I hate when apple does stuff like this


Were you actually expecting a conventional spring-bar setup for this watch? EDIT: I think the Pebble is one of the few (or only?) smart watches with a spring bar lug setup.

I am okay with proprietary, Casio does the same thing with the G-Shock. They are able to tailor the strap to perfectly fit the design and function required for the watch.


----------



## Crunchy

Sorry for bad pics, but quick & dirty screen shots from tv.


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*



Citizen V said:


> Another picture of the lug:
> 
> View attachment 1627745
> 
> 
> I think someone said it attaches magnetically?


Which end? Pretty sure I saw one of the rounded-end rectangles bracketing the circle, clicking into place as a the end was slid into place. The other end, varies. Some are magnetic, at least one has a deployant, at least one has a buckle.


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

No word yet on whether it connect through bluetooth, 4G or something else?


----------



## Alex_TA

*Re: iWatch*



Jcp311 said:


> MECHANICAL WATCHES ARE DEAD. ALL IS LOST, ABANDON YOUR COLLECTION.
> 
> LONG LIVE THE IWATCH.


I'll buy your Pelagos and Speedy for $10 each, only because I'm a good man.


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*



Arthur M said:


> I think apple just threw a bomb into the under-$500 watch market. Higher than that, and these isn't even in consideration. You're looking for a "timepiece" after that. They could still price themselves out of contention, however.


To avoid pricing themselves out of the running they'll have to be priced pretty low because they need to be paired with an iPhone...


----------



## Phong Vu

*Re: iWatch*



Arthur M said:


> I think apple just threw a bomb into the under-$500 watch market. Higher than that, and these isn't even in consideration. You're looking for a "timepiece" after that. They could still price themselves out of contention, however.


You are saying like Apple has the magic power to defeat anyone they want without the need to be in the same industry . What's next? Apple set the prize of iWatch to $10,000 and destroy the sub-$10,000 watch market? IWatch will kill of Samsung's, Motorola's and other Chinese Android-based smartwatch, that's it. I doubt that it can even touch Swatch or Invicta, lets alone high-end Swiss brands.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheWalrus

*Re: iWatch*



Jcp311 said:


> MECHANICAL WATCHES ARE DEAD. ALL IS LOST, ABANDON YOUR COLLECTION.
> 
> LONG LIVE THE IWATCH.


Actually - sell your collections to me - I'll pay pennies on the dollar, sure. But it's more than you'll get on the market, now.


----------



## Jcp311

*Re: iWatch*



Alex_TA said:


> I'll buy your Pelagos and Speedy for $10 each, only because I'm a good man.


DONE. IM INCONSOLABLE AND SWIMMING IN TEARS.

Anyone else not care about this? Cool no doubt.


----------



## adi4

*Re: iWatch*

I could see myself using this as a sport watch, would be great for the gym and running if it doesn't scratch too much. Don't necessarily want to reach for my phone when I'm grabbing barbells, sweating, etc. Let's see what the price is... If under 300-400, I will probably get the aluminum version.

Otherwise, no way it compares in looks or quality of my other watches for actual time telling.


----------



## TheWalrus

*Re: iWatch*



Jcp311 said:


> DONE. IM INCONSOLABLE AND SWIMMING IN TEARS.
> 
> Anyone else late not care about this?


Anyone claimed your Doxa yet?


----------



## Likestheshiny

*Re: iWatch*

I was really expecting Apple to knock this one out of the park, design-wise. The guts of a smartwatch are nothing new, but if they've waited this long, I figured it would at least be really pretty.

It's not. Meh. I have no interest in wearing that.


----------



## TheWalrus

*Re: iWatch*



adi4 said:


> I could see myself using this as a sport watch, would be great for the gym and running if it doesn't scratch too much. Don't necessarily want to reach for my phone when I'm grabbing barbells, sweating, etc. Let's see what the price is... If under 300-400, I will probably get the aluminum version.
> 
> Otherwise, no way it compares in looks or quality of my other watches for actual time telling.


Can't see it doing anything so special that it'd eclipse my Suunto for sports wear. Maybe it will. But I doubt it.


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*



Arthur M said:


> No word yet on whether it connect through bluetooth, 4G or something else?


Don't think that's been mentioned yet. I'm betting BT.


----------



## TimelessFan

*Re: iWatch*

So, given that Apple products are made in China, does this mean Chinese watch manufacturers are having the last laugh? And how long before I'm screaming at a moron in front of me to stop fiddling with his Apple watch and pay attention to the road?


----------



## Rad Red Brick

*Re: iWatch*

With the tech they packed in, not to mention that curved sapphire, I don't see how this sells for less than $400. Unless they are gonna pull a Prius and take a loss on each unit to establish the market. Seems to me Apple is tacitly positioning this as a luxury item (more so than the other stuff). I'm still skeptical about the level of demand, but then again Fitbit adoption is starting to look like the Livestrong bracelet epidemic of 2006.


----------



## Jcp311

*Re: iWatch*



TheWalrus said:


> Anyone claimed your Doxa yet?


You can just have it dude. I was walking to the trash can before I read your post.


----------



## UKMike

*Re: iWatch*

Not quite as hideous as it might have been - but still hideous!


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*



Phong Vu said:


> You are saying like Apple has the magic power to defeat anyone they want without the need to be in the same industry . What's next? Apple set the prize of iWatch to $10,000 and destroy the sub-$10,000 watch market? IWatch will kill of Samsung's, Motorola's and other Chinese Android-based smartwatch, that's it. I doubt that it can even touch Swatch or Invicta, lets alone high-end Swiss brands.
> 
> Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


They are gunning for the same demographic as swatch and can certainly win them over. Tech is another hobby I enjoy and those I follow as well as many friends have abandoned wrist watches in favor of smart watches. I never said anything about high end stuff.


----------



## theinterchange

*Re: Apple Watch*

To paraphrase Manuel (speaking for Basil) on _Fawlty Towers_, it is a HEEDEOUS O-RANG-O-TANG.

Randy


----------



## alx007

*Re: iWatch*

I hate to admit, but I kinda like it. I love the sweeping seconds. That was the killer feature to me.


----------



## Crunchy

More info here 
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/9/6125873/apple-watch-smartwatch-announced


----------



## adi4

*Re: iWatch*



TheWalrus said:


> Can't see it doing anything so special that it'd eclipse my Suunto for sports wear. Maybe it will. But I doubt it.


For me it would be music, maps, and weather. We'll see if that maps feature works without the phone, otherwise it will be useless on runs. I never take my phone with me on runs.


----------



## You

*Re: iWatch*

$349 is too much for me. You could get another phone for that much...


----------



## Cal8500

*Re: iWatch*

$349.00. I don't think it's a bad price all things considered.


----------



## 93EXCivic

*Re: Apple Watch*

Usually Apple makes fairly good looking stuff but this is a swing and a miss by a mile.


----------



## Phong Vu

*Re: iWatch*

How water resistance is it? Does anyone know?

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

ouch


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

350 is a lot. Does anyone know how the current market is going? What's the average price so far?


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*

It'll work with iPhone 5, 5S, 5C, 6, and 6 Plus.

its prices start at $349 USD. Given that it requires an iPhone, that's right on the edge of ouch.


----------



## You

*Re: iWatch*



Phong Vu said:


> How water resistance is it? Does anyone know?
> 
> Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


Their presentation is pretty much over now and nothing was said about water resistance. Since you have to manipulate the screen by moving and touching the crown, I would guess that it wouldn't even be suitable for the shower (unless they've somehow coated everything with some type of substance).


----------



## BarracksSi

I'm going to have a hard time not getting one. It's f'ing pimp.


----------



## X2-Elijah

*Re: iWatch*

I really dislike the looks of it. It just seems... cheap. Wait, no, it seems like it's a re-sized iphone strapped to a wrist, not something meant to be worn as a watch in the first place.

So, yeah, I will stick with my own collection, tyvm.


----------



## LTR

*Re: Apple Watch*

I'm sure the suites over at Swatch group just had a good laugh and opened a nice bottle of bubbly.


----------



## savka

*Re: iWatch*

How can it be used as a fitness watch if it needs to be paired with an iPhone? I don't want to go for a run with my smart watch AND my smart phone...


----------



## TheWalrus

*Re: iWatch*



adi4 said:


> For me it would be music, maps, and weather. We'll see if that maps feature works without the phone, otherwise it will be useless on runs. I never take my phone with me on runs.


Nah man - how are you going to have any fun on a run if you know where you're going, and what sort of weather you're running through? Until I'm stuck in a muddy ravine, 15 km from home in the middle of a thunderstorm, I'm feeling like I haven't accomlished anything, yet.


----------



## idkfa

*Re: iWatch*



You said:


> Their presentation is pretty much over now and nothing was said about water resistance. Since you have to manipulate the screen by moving and touching the crown, I would guess that it wouldn't even be suitable for the shower (unless they've somehow coated everything with some type of substance).


The crown uses some sort of IR light system, it is entirely possible it can be sealed.


----------



## Jcp311

*Re: iWatch*

It can be used as a viewfinder for the iPhone and as a walkie talkie...I don't know what else you guys could ask for in a watch....oh wait, it's a watch too?


----------



## BarracksSi

Oh yeah - due out early 2015.

They'll be releasing a developer tool called WatchKit for writing apps. I don't mind the release date, because all those app developers can't keep a secret about a piece of hardware like this, and they'll have at least several months to try stuff out. Cook says he controls his AppleTV with it, and that another exec uses it as a viewfinder for his iPhone.

Realize that anyone who tries the same UI now will immediately be branded a copycat.


----------



## AC81

*Re: Apple Watch*

If Apple are making it, it won't be 'affordable'...

* just encase your wonding why my post doesn't make much sence, replied when thread was in F71, affordables...


----------



## Morethan1

*Re: Apple Watch*

Meh... not a fan. No mention of battery life. Price is pretty steep.


----------



## Smaug

*Re: Apple Watch*

Love it. It has surely made a liar of me, since I just the other day said joined in the "I'm done for 2014" thread.

The websites seem to be protecting against Copy & Paste, so I typed a good URL in for you.

www.techcrunch.com/2014/09/09/meet-the-apple-watch/


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

Well, it seems finished. U2 is playing. I still have a lot of questions. WR level. Connectivity. OS updates. Battery life. Will the old models be made obsolete every year or so. Serviceability. etc. I've either missed these thing or they remain to be seen. Anyway, liked these shots:


----------



## StufflerMike

*Re: New Apple watch high accuracy*

Any other *news* ?? The new Apple has been posted here a couple of times.


----------



## adi4

*Re: iWatch*



TheWalrus said:


> Nah man - how are you going to have any fun on a run if you know where you're going, and what sort of weather you're running through? Until I'm stuck in a muddy ravine, 15 km from home in the middle of a thunderstorm, I'm feeling like I haven't accomlished anything, yet.


Haha, true, although there is a very fine line between "I'm exploring and this is so fun!" to "It's getting dark awfully fast in this forest and did I turn left or right at that fork?" 

So I'm guessing the lack of info regarding battery life, WR, and music storage means abysmal for all 3. Well, at least the battery life, I can't imagine it lasting more than 12 hours with all that stuff going on. If the battery runs out before you get back home, it's kind of an ugly, non-functional bracelet to be left with isn't it?


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*

Tangent: Did my ears deceive me or did the phrase "f-ing great" just get livescast right after U2 finished its song?


----------



## 93EXCivic

*Re: iWatch*

It is so ugly....

Someone just made a small iPhone and stuck it on the wrist.


----------



## thumos

*The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

Disappointing to say the least.







After all the brouhaha about Johnny Ives talking smack about the Swiss watch industry being doomed, Apple hiring Marc Newson and some ex-Tag dude, this is all they manage to produce.
Please weigh in on this.
I personally think it stinks of 'me-too', with no real appreciation of watch makes a watch beautiful.


----------



## neurogenesis

*Re: Apple Watch*



neurogenesis said:


> Buh Tugly.


Well, I was just trying to be funny. It's not really terribly ugly, for a smart watch. I just don't particularly like the looks of smart watches; not even the best of them. I like some of the concept pictures better than the real thing. The bangle one would be pretty neat.


----------



## X2-Elijah

*Re: iWatch*

Also - just had a wee bit of a rant about the apple watch on twitter. My basic point is this:

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/509413805349429248


----------



## adi4

*Re: iWatch*



Arthur M said:


> Well, it seems finished. U2 is playing. I still have a lot of questions. WR level. Connectivity. OS updates. Battery life. Will the old models be made obsolete every year or so. Serviceability. etc.


WR: Probably splash-proof based on the fact that they hesitated to show any in actual water.

Connectivity: Has to be nearby a phone at all times I would think for most functions, besides maybe some local music storage.

OS updates: That should be relatively straightforward like other Apple hardware. Sure you can update the iPhone 4s to the latest and greatest, it will just be slow as mud. 

Battery life: Crickets... 

Obsolescence: You can bet your life on it, this is Apple after all. This first model will seem useless in 2 years, similar to what was said before regarding the first iPad.


----------



## Smaug

*Re: Apple Watch*



Morethan1 said:


> Meh... not a fan. No mention of battery life. Price is pretty steep.


It's got inductive charging, which is even more convenient than solar, and equally convenient as an automatic winding rotor, IMO.


----------



## brrrdn

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

Not too bad imo. The fanboys will still line up to buy it


----------



## Smaug

*Re: Apple Watch*



AC81 said:


> If Apple are making it, it won't be 'affordable'...


It's in the range of what some folks here consider affordable.

In the WRUW thread the other day, someone posted a Rolex Sea-Dweller. (> $7k)

Speedmaster Pros are routinely there (> $2500) Seamaster Pros too (> $2k)

Compared to some of those, the Apple Watch will be _quite_ affordable. Also, IMO, it is easier to justify, since it is genuinely useful.

Man, I'm stoked. Not that it will replace a mechanical watch's character, but Casio better up their game pretty quick if they're going to stay relevant.


----------



## KangarueTheDay

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

I think they did a great job. I'll be buying one. However, it won't be replacing any of my mechanicals.


----------



## Smaug

*Re: Apple Watch*



LTR said:


> I'm sure the suites over at Swatch group just had a good laugh and opened a nice bottle of bubbly.


Wouldn't be the first time the Swiss discounted something industry-changing in regards to watch technology.

Last time, it was the Japanese they underestimated, in about 1969.


----------



## thumos

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

I think LG managed to make a watch with a round screen, not chopped off on the bottom like Motorola's offering.
That was a real engineering feat.
I find it too bad that fanboys drive certain "industry leader's" profits as opposed to innovation.


brrrdn said:


> Not too bad imo. The fanboys will still line up to buy it


Do you think they did a good job with respect to other smart-watches? Or with respect to watches in general?


KangarueTheDay said:


> I think they did a great job. I'll be buying one. However, it won't be replacing any of my mechanicals.


----------



## StufflerMike

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

See all the other threads....


----------



## Henry Krinkle

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

Elsewhere I used a stronger term than disappointing; hideous. The Apple Corps will be lined up for it though.


----------



## fatehbajwa

*Re: iWatch*

Worth trying out ...... I probably will.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## fenderjapan

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

I actually kind of like it.


----------



## OvrSteer

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

I think they missed the mark in terms of understanding existing consumers of smart (and dumb) watches.

- No leftie configuration
- Limited design customization mostly related to color of the band and case
- Nonstandard straps and clasps just to be different.
And the kicker:
- It exists only as a subordinate device to your iPhone 5 or later. If you're not in the iPhone ecosystem, and have no intention of being... it's useless.

Other Smartwatches are less tied to a single product, and some are (correctly) trending towards being an independent device on its own with no phone connection *necessary.*

I can't speak to the quality of the interface though. It looks like that and the charge connector are better thought out than other companies' first efforts.

But for me? No way. The design is uninspired/can't replace watches for sure and tying to the iPhone ecosystem is a complete non-starter. I have a very strong preference for Android, having to support both.


----------



## TheWalrus

*Re: iWatch*

"After securing the rare artifact from the depths of the ocean, and rescuing the gorgeous damsel in distress from the clutches of an evil matermind, Dirk Pitt checked his iWatch for new tweets before jumping into his self driving GoogleCar."

....

.....

......

nah. Doesn't work.


----------



## Letter10

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

I don't think it is bad...I won't be buying one but it's not because it isn't cool. If I cared more about what I am getting out of my workouts, or wanted something to use for that purpose then I would be all in. However...I don't see reading or replying to emails or text messages as something that is a great experience on a watch. There is no getting away from having a phone that is a better way to communicate so this didn't change that aspect. I don't buy digital watches now because I don't like the look, so dressing it up with a screen image of a clock is not something I am into.

I don't think this will change the watch industry like Johnny Ive alluded to, but I see them selling a lot of them because of the functions they do and there are a lot of people that want them. And let's face it...we've all probably paid $400 for something we thought was cool even if we didn't use it as much as we thought we would.


----------



## LeopardBear

*Re: iWatch*

I'm really impressed, I've never been able to watch the breakdown of a multibillion company live on the internet before. This really is the future.


----------



## Quicksilver

*Apple Watch*

Probably get one at some point. Very cool technology. Design is better than most. Early 2015 is the release date. $349 US


----------



## Alex_TA

*Re: iWatch*

I feel a strong need to buy a watch with manual winding.


----------



## Chris Hughes

*Re: Apple Watch*

I like the design a lot, actually. And as with ALL Apple products this is just the launch version. It'll become increasingly attractive, varied and functional as the years go by. Just look at the first generation iPod, iPhone and iPad for ready examples.

But what I REALLY like about this watch is the FACT that it puts the lie to every single one of the gripes and moans we've seen here over the years in countless posts about how "watches are on the way out" and "no one wears watches anymore" and "it's a dying industry because people use their cell phones now" and "kids and young people don't wear watches anymore" and on and on and on and on and on.

Sorry, but you're all wrong. The Apple Watch proves it once and for all. Watches are NOT a thing of the past. They are NOT going the way of the dinosaurs. The wrist IS still valuable real-estate. People ARE still interested in wearing watches. Cell phone clocks do NOT replace wrist watches. Everyone who has ever made a post like that can now feel free to dig into their crow dinner and never post that kind of nonsense again.


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: iWatch*

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When the iPhone first came out, the majority of "those in the know" were quite disparaging towards it. In the end, it dominated. The apple watch isn't for us watch enthusiasts. It's for normal people who go buy a swatch, or a fossil and leave the store thinking they have a high quality watch. Considering all the hype on all the sites I follow (even wus), the apple watch will dominate its own genre, assimilate many who go after swatch/fossil and the sub $400 watch crowd (with the possible exception of the Seiko and Citizen purchaser; they tend to be looking for a mechanical watch rather than a useful accessory) and bleed into the ranks of the "WIS". The question is: will the apple watch be enough to compel the many who have jumped ship to come back from android. For me, yes; then again, that might be because I'm with blackberry&#8230;


----------



## Professor S

*Re: Apple Watch*

When Tim revealed the Apple Watch on the Keynote my pulse went up. For a minute...

This watch, or even the entire smart watch industry as a whole, won't be damaging the Swiss watch industry. EVER! But if I was a chinese quartz manufacturer however, I'd look for a new job.


----------



## sriracha

*Re: iWatch*

Most Wis won't like this, but I'm sure it will sell like hotcakes.


----------



## SundayDuffer

*Re: Apple Watch*

no thankyou on the watch...yes on the iphone plus.


----------



## millenbop

*Re: Apple Watch*

I'm really disappointed in the design, was hoping for a round watch. Glad to see that they have a smaller version too. Will probably get one for work though for testing and prototyping.


----------



## Phong Vu

*Re: Apple Watch*



Smaug said:


> Wouldn't be the first time the Swiss discounted something industry-changing in regards to watch technology.
> 
> Last time, it was the Japanese they underestimated, in about 1969.


Well, last time the Swiss got in trouble because they sold their watches for its functionality. On the other hand, people at that time bought mechanical watches because they want to tell time (how much a Rolex was sold at that time?). Of course they got in trouble when quartz can do the same thing with much lower price.

The situation today is much different. Besides the ability to display times, there is nothing common between a Tissot and Apple's Watch. I think the industry that this new smartwatch is threatening is the smartphone industry. As long as smartwatch can work independently without connecting to the phone, it will rendered all smartphones obsolete. Google Glass would be another force which target the same thing - liberate us from evil smartphones 

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Fantasio

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

How true... :-d



Letter10 said:


> And let's face it...we've all probably paid $400 for something we thought was cool even if we didn't use it as much as we thought we would.


----------



## CitizenM

*Re: iWatch*

They should have brought in Seiko's direct drive tech so you can extend the battery life by "winding" the crown, although it's unclear how many turns this would take and if this would interfere with their weird IR sensor design for a crown.

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block of it, functionally speaking (which is again, irrelevant), is that we now need to travel with three different power cables. One for our laptop or iPad or whatever, one for our iPhone or other smart phone, and one for our watch. How many times have you been at your office and you look down at your phone and you see it has 15% left because you forgot to charge it last night and you have to plug it in or even borrow a coworker's cable. Now there will be days where you're wearing a blank dead watch. You're going to lift it up to your eyes to check the time and nothing will happen. And you'll look stupid.

BUT

You will also look awesome because you are super hip and modern and wearing Apple stuff. That's not an anti-Apple thing, I've got my iPhone 5 right here, but that's really the key to the whole thing.


----------



## CWMV

*Re: Apple Watch*

Never in a million years.


----------



## OneRandomGeek

*Re: iWatch*

I was reasonably impressed with the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus announcements and was "very interested" in what the rumored watch/wearable would prove to be, but I wasn't exactly left breathless by what was revealed. I hate the design (although I do love the "digital crown" in terms of it being a "nod" to the watch world) and every strap they showed was hideous (although 3rd party accessories will soon remedy that, I'm sure). I think the Moto 360 looks 10 times better than the Apple Watch (but I'm not in a hurry to buy that either).


----------



## StufflerMike

12 threads/posts merged.


----------



## Arthur M

*Re: Apple Watch*



Phong Vu said:


> Well, last time the Swiss got in trouble because they sold their watches for its functionality. On the other hand, people at that time bought mechanical watches because they want to tell time (how much a Rolex was sold at that time?). Of course they got in trouble when quartz can do the same thing with much lower price.
> 
> The situation today is much different. Besides the ability to display times, there is nothing common between a Tissot and Apple's Watch. I think the industry that this new smartwatch is threatening is the smartphone industry. As long as smartwatch can work independently without connecting to the phone, it will rendered all smartphones obsolete. Google Glass would be another force which target the same thing - liberate us from evil smartphones
> 
> Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


They have nothing in common except similar demographics with only one watch wrist. That's why the apple watch is a threat to tissot and other low priced entry consumer watches.


----------



## Crunchy

*Re: iWatch*



CitizenM said:


> They should have brought in Seiko's direct drive tech so you can extend the battery life by "winding" the crown, although it's unclear how many turns this would take and if this would interfere with their weird IR sensor design for a crown.
> 
> Perhaps the biggest stumbling block of it, functionally speaking (which is again, irrelevant), is that we now need to travel with three different power cables. One for our laptop or iPad or whatever, one for our iPhone or other smart phone, and one for our watch. How many times have you been at your office and you look down at your phone and you see it has 15% left because you forgot to charge it last night and you have to plug it in or even borrow a coworker's cable. Now there will be days where you're wearing a blank dead watch. You're going to lift it up to your eyes to check the time and nothing will happen. And you'll look stupid.
> 
> BUT
> 
> You will also look awesome because you are super hip and modern and wearing Apple stuff. That's not an anti-Apple thing, I've got my iPhone 5 right here, but that's really the key to the whole thing.


True, the apple watch could be so much more functional if it was kinetic based charging.


----------



## BarracksSi

*Re: Apple Watch*



LTR said:


> I'm sure the suites over at Swatch group just had a good laugh and opened a nice bottle of bubbly.


I'm sure they just pooped their pants.

Android isn't at this level yet; neither is Pebble. Swatch's previous touch-LCD watch doesn't even count (and I think they knew it).


----------



## Phong Vu

damn, my post just got merged from another thread :|

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## Arthur M

Phong Vu said:


> damn, my post just got merged from another thread :|
> 
> Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


mutliple threads, actually. Mine had the most comments ;-)


----------



## Crunchy

Yes, mods can you change the title to "The Apple Watch Thread" to reflect all the merged threads. Also, poll added.


----------



## amb3rgris

Color me intrigued. I actually don't mind the design. I would much less interested if it ended up having tons of dongles and doodads hanging off of it. I think square/rectangle is the right shape, as it's going to need to present a lot of data and I think a square shape is more efficient for that (especially text).

For me, the real magic for Apple is two things:
1. The interface (click wheel, touch screen, etc). I'm always amazed at how other devices try to emulate a lot of Apple function/interface, but end up being obviously dodgy and ultimately frustrating (laptop trackpads especially). I will be very curious to see how this crown + button + haptic touch screen works.
2. The "walled garden"/ecosystem. In my youth, I was more than happy to spend hours and hours a week customizing, building, and of course fixing my technology solutions (home brew PC, DVR, jail break iPhone, etc). But now, I really just want my stuff to work. And they seem to hit a good balance of promoting/allowing external developers, most things seem to just work, and work within a standard frame of reference (interface, display ,etc).

I'm still not going to sell my mechanical watches, though


----------



## Fer Guzman

I don't know why my post got merged from the HAQ forum since my post only dealt with accuracy. But I will be getting this. 

I'm very intrigued by the straps.


----------



## Phong Vu

amb3rgris said:


> Color me intrigued. I actually don't mind the design. I would much less interested if it ended up having tons of dongles and doodads hanging off of it. I think square/rectangle is the right shape, as it's going to need to present a lot of data and I think a square shape is more efficient for that (especially text).
> 
> For me, the real magic for Apple is two things:
> 1. The interface (click wheel, touch screen, etc). I'm always amazed at how other devices try to emulate a lot of Apple function/interface, but end up being obviously dodgy and ultimately frustrating (laptop trackpads especially). I will be very curious to see how this crown + button + haptic touch screen works.
> 2. The "walled garden"/ecosystem. In my youth, I was more than happy to spend hours and hours a week customizing, building, and of course fixing my technology solutions (home brew PC, DVR, jail break iPhone, etc). But now, I really just want my stuff to work. And they seem to hit a good balance of promoting/allowing external developers, most things seem to just work, and work within a standard frame of reference (interface, display ,etc).
> 
> I'm still not going to sell my mechanical watches, though


But how are you planning on wearing both Apple's Watch and your mechanical watch though? Athur had a good point about how we only have one wrist for watch 

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## BarracksSi

*Re: Apple Watch*



Smaug said:


> It's got inductive charging, which is even more convenient than solar, and equally convenient as an automatic winding rotor, IMO.


I'll disagree, because the sun is always around, and so is my moving arm. Haven't had to worry about my solar watch in two years.

But, it makes a lot more sense than a socket (would've been Lightning anyway) or power-only contact points. Follow me -

Either a socket or electrical contacts would mean compromised water resistance. Even my Garmin is only splash-resistant because of its bare contacts. Apple has also been refining wireless syncing and OS updates for a couple years, so there's no need to provide a hard connection to the watch.

This is when it gets funny, though. I was watching the show and this guy standing next to me laments that wireless charging is a poor choice. I asked him why, and he said that it's inefficient. He goes on to say that he's been an electrical engineer for twenty-five years and he knows how these things work. I asked what would work better, and he says that a wire and socket would be a better idea. I remark that they'd lose water resistance, and he goes, "Well, it's all about the tradeoffs, I guess," and walks away. Seems like he was thinking about computers, not wristwatches.


----------



## LeopardBear

*Re: Apple Watch*

They literally never mentioned battery life so it probably isn't more than like 10 hours, and lol watch running out of power at the end of the day. dead watch, dead company


----------



## BarracksSi

Who's ready to make snap-in adapters for NATOs?


----------



## Fer Guzman

there is a nato type strap


----------



## Arthur M

Hodinkee's article makes for an interesting read:

Introducing The Apple Watch, A New Player In The Ever Evolving Smartwatch Industry

"While the new Apple Watch won't replace the inherent beauty and elegant utility of a vintage Patek Philippe, it will disrupt the low-end market for overpriced quartz wristwatches (and maybe even some mechanical watches). The value proposition in this segment has long been questioned by the consumer market, and for some, this new release may be the final compelling reason to make the jump from gears and pinions to circuitry and accelerometers."


----------



## mlcor

I am an Apple product user, but am not excited by this one. Clearly it will need to be recharged every night, and that means heavy use during a day would potentially leave it dead. Also, has anyone noticed that there is not a single mention of how thick it is? My guess is it won't be slipping slickly under shirt cuffs, from the look of it. Not a fan of the "shrunk down iPhone" look, either. Maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon, but I like a more traditional look (at least most of the time).

Bottom line is I like mechanical watches because they are mechanical and things of beauty. A smart watch is neither, and therefore isn't something I'd wear every day, or even regularly, although I could see its usefulness as a workout device.

I think generally, other than fitness uses, it's not going to excite a lot of WUS folks, because most of us like mechanical watches for the reasons I mentioned. But I bet they will sell gobs of them to the general public. If they came out with one half as thick, round, and with twice the battery life (which they probably will, eventually), I'd consider it seriously as a weekend/fun watch.


----------



## tony20009

*Re: iWatch*

Whether I'll buy and use it depends on what value it provides to my daily life and how compelling that value is relative to the alternatives I have should I not choose to wear/buy one. What I'm not going to do is go about wearing two watch-like objects on my wrist(s).

All the best.


----------



## headless

*Re: Apple Watch*



Smaug said:


> It's got inductive charging, which is even more convenient than solar, and equally convenient as an automatic winding rotor, IMO.


Not sure I agree. With solar or a rotor powering a generator you don't have to do *anything*. With inductive, you have to take it off your wrist.


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> there is a nato type strap


Which one? Certainly not the one I have sitting in a box at home.


----------



## Smaug

*Re: Apple Watch*



millenbop said:


> I'm really disappointed in the design, was hoping for a round watch. Glad to see that they have a smaller version too. Will probably get one for work though for testing and prototyping.


The usable surface area of our wrist is rectangular, with a curve around the sides. The watch is the perfect shape to take advantage of that.

Round would waste a bunch of space, which is not good for something that must display so much with so little room already.


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*



Jcp311 said:


> You can just have it dude. I was walking to the trash can before I read your post.


We don't really know each other, but if you'd rather not have that Speedy Pro keep weighing you down...


----------



## KiwiWomble

i kind i feel i have to hand in my WIS card...i like it....will depend on, battery life, water resitance, cost and if it can at least work as a watch away from my phone but i will check it out....i like the mesh strap and the idea of chance the face design

i'm actually more disappointed with the phone announcements...too big, if your making a 5.5inch phone do you really need a 4.7? why not have a 4 for those of us that still like to be able to put in out pocket


----------



## headless

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*



OvrSteer said:


> I think they missed the mark in terms of understanding existing consumers of smart (and dumb) watches.
> 
> - No leftie configuration


i'm not so sure about this. Shouldn't be hard to code an "invert everything" bit into the software. The crown would be below the pusher when flipped, though.



> - Limited design customization mostly related to color of the band and case
> - Nonstandard straps and clasps just to be different.


To the former, if it's not an equal amount of customization possible with iPhone colors and Apple-produced cases (let alone third-party cases), it's close. As to the latter, Apple considers itself a hardware company first and foremost. They write software so you'll buy the Apple-branded things containing it.



> And the kicker:
> - It exists only as a subordinate device to your iPhone 5 or later. If you're not in the iPhone ecosystem, and have no intention of being... it's useless.


It may move in that direction, but requiring another piece of Apple gear to be useful is again right in line with seeing themselves as a hardware company. It makes sense according to their business strategy. Whether or not people will buy into it, we'll see.


----------



## headless

*Re: iWatch*



TheWalrus said:


> "After securing the rare artifact from the depths of the ocean, and rescuing the gorgeous damsel in distress from the clutches of an evil matermind, Dirk Pitt checked his iWatch for new tweets before jumping into his self driving GoogleCar."
> 
> ....
> 
> .....
> 
> ......
> 
> nah. Doesn't work.


It would really, really suck if Dirk's watch whistled at him to inform him of an incoming call/tweet/email right as he was trying to sneak past the heavily-armed platoon guarding the safe containing the stolen plans...


----------



## Brian Underdown

my thoughts


----------



## headless

Brian Underdown said:


> my thoughts
> View attachment 1627958


As opposed to the days when everyone on the bus/subway had their nose buried in a newspaper or book instead of talking to others? Smartphones/watches have given people the ability to walk with the nose in a gadget -- though I have seen people walking while reading something printed on a form of paper -- but that's the main difference.

This stuff isn't really making us any more unsocial.


----------



## headless

In looks, I prefer the Moto 360 or the LG Watch R, but I think square/rectangle is the better form factor for a smartwatch. When it's time to retire my Forerunner I'll replace it with a different model, or maybe a Suunto, one that has GPS, HRM with a chest band, and is designed for swimming. Though I don't plan to take smartphones swimming.

I do take my smartphone when tramping about in the wild; if I sprain an ankle or get mauled by a wildebeest I want an alternative to a whistle or yelling really loudly.

I think my current Forerunner can designate a point and navigate back to it. Whatever I replace it with will have this feature, and there are only about 2.73x10^15 smartphone apps with the ability, so I have redundancy here. With any 'phone-linked smartwatch, if the phone breaks both pieces of tech are down.

That's the way I see myself going, anyway.


----------



## Rob Roberts

*Re: The new smart watch from Apple is out and it is...*

are you sure no lefty configuration? I would bet the straps swap then screen reverses&#8230;.



OvrSteer said:


> I think they missed the mark in terms of understanding existing consumers of smart (and dumb) watches.
> 
> - No leftie configuration
> - Limited design customization mostly related to color of the band and case
> - Nonstandard straps and clasps just to be different.
> And the kicker:
> - It exists only as a subordinate device to your iPhone 5 or later. If you're not in the iPhone ecosystem, and have no intention of being... it's useless.
> 
> Other Smartwatches are less tied to a single product, and some are (correctly) trending towards being an independent device on its own with no phone connection *necessary.*
> 
> I can't speak to the quality of the interface though. It looks like that and the charge connector are better thought out than other companies' first efforts.
> 
> But for me? No way. The design is uninspired/can't replace watches for sure and tying to the iPhone ecosystem is a complete non-starter. I have a very strong preference for Android, having to support both.


----------



## mew88

*Re: iWatch*

oh look, they shrunk the Iphone, added a crown and lugs ..

Disappointing.


----------



## elconquistador

Everyone holding off getting the moto 360 can go ahead and order.










So much better looking and water resistant.


----------



## BarracksSi

Ceramic back, according to the engraved text. You also see the push button for removing the strap. No word on water resistance on the back, though.

(Edit - found full pic)


----------



## KiwiWomble

elconquistador said:


> Everyone holding off getting the moto 360 can go ahead and order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much better looking and water resistant.


am i right in thinking its 46mm though? the 39 option of the apple phone is very attractive

I have a fenix (admittedly larger than 46) that i wear when i bike to work or something and although great when actually biking...i'm very conscious of it in my work clothes


----------



## balzebub

I love tech products and am usually an early adopter. I like Apple products and have used iPhones, MacBook pro in the past and currently do own a iPad air. I will be picking up the iPhone 6 plus BUT I have zero interest in the iwatch. Since it cannot replace my phone, I don't need it. As a time piece, digital do nothing for me, I wear my gshock only when I exercise or am called up for reserve duties.


Sent via carrier pigeons


----------



## blubarb

*Re: iWatch*

Not for me thank you kindly. I wonder how long it will take to charge the battery (non wrist time) and how long it will stay powered. For me, 5 to 8 full rotations on the crown of my Speedy and I get 44 hours of "charge", suits me if it doesn't send my pulse to some other person - bit too creepy...


----------



## Mediocre

*Re: iWatch*

No doubt they will do well. I will watch from afar though.


----------



## Crunchy

The new iphone is disrupting the ipad mini, so they needed a smaller display to do micro activities such as checking the time and seeing notifications.

Although, I wonder who will spend money on a gold apple watch only to see it obsolete in 2 years...


----------



## MrDagon007

It won't replace mechanical watches but it is a good execution. I think that in future generations it will become really interesting with more health related sensors and more independence.

This being said, the bracelet looks like a VERY fine piece of engineering. The straps are nice as well.

I think this will eventually disrupt the fashion watch segment, meaning what most people wear.

About:


> True, the apple watch could be so much more functional if it was kinetic based charging.


I think that, since it is a computer at heart, hence needing more power than a classic quartz watch, that kinetic and/or solar charging would at the current state of technology not provide enough energy for charging. I think it is ok to assume that Apple investigated such charging methods.


----------



## hoosh

*Re: iWatch*



CitizenM said:


> I'm reasonably impressed actually. I can't predict the long term effects of the new "Watch," but I suspect that in the immediate future, it will actually make a serious dent in the luxury mechanical watch market. Most wealthy people I know love Apple and have Apple everything. They'll buy them and it'll keep them entertained at least for awhile. It'll be interesting to see how long Apple can keep the fashion of the thing up--historically they've done really well with things like the iPod and iPhone, which were fashionable for many years before they became so commonplace that they no longer had prestige significance.


I worked in private banking for a while and thus knew a lot of wealthy people, the kind that had most of their money offshore. I agree most of my former clients love Apple and bought Apple everything, and while I'm sure they'll buy them for themselves and as gifts for everyone, I don't think they'll necessarily wear one for long. They'll go back to their APs, Piagets, Cartiers and JLCs pretty quickly. It just won't cut it in certain circles. This is just my impression of course. I'm interested to see if it's right! (I also acknowledge there are a few different kinds of wealthy people... the kind I knew were the ones for whom perceived image was everything)

Where I'm much more confident this will take hold is the Gen Y and millennial generation who don't wear a watch and are into 'normcore' fashion (The Gap, American Apparel etc.).


----------



## BarracksSi

MrDagon007 said:


> I think that, since it is a computer at heart, hence needing more power than a classic quartz watch, that kinetic and/or solar charging would at the current state of technology not provide enough energy for charging. I think it is ok to assume that Apple investigated such charging methods.


I think so, too. Kinetic charging may be the only version that can't be shrunken down very much because an oscillating mass, whether it rotates or just bounces back and forth inside a coil, still needs to have enough _mass_ to work. Solar would be a better bet, but I suspect that it won't yet fully _recharge_ the watch, instead just giving enough oomph to keep it from dying too quickly.

The [still unpublished] battery life would be the only thing holding me back. Maybe I can wear it for workdays while I need notifications and pop it on its charger when I get home and can disconnect for a while.

There's a guideline in tech that one shouldn't buy the 1.0 version of a product. I held off on an iPhone until the second generation came out, but I couldn't resist the first iPad. I gotta think about this watch.


----------



## MrDagon007

Even sceptics have to admit that the bracelet and the magnetic mesh are both really quite nice:


----------



## unpleasantness

*Re: iWatch*



adi4 said:


> Haha, true, although there is a very fine line between "I'm exploring and this is so fun!" to "It's getting dark awfully fast in this forest and did I turn left or right at that fork?"
> 
> So I'm guessing the lack of info regarding battery life, WR, and music storage means abysmal for all 3. Well, at least the battery life, I can't imagine it lasting more than 12 hours with all that stuff going on. If the battery runs out before you get back home, it's kind of an ugly, non-functional bracelet to be left with isn't it?


Nah. Just pull out your phone, which you have to have with you anyway for any of the features to work, and use it to navigate home. That's why I think it's a very attractive joke. You have to have your phone with you, so what's the point of the freakin' watch? All the Smart features depend on being link to the iPhone. It's actually pretty pointless, like all smart phones. A solution looking for a problem. And this is coming from a very happy Apple user.


----------



## BarracksSi

Oh yeah: Apple Watch Public Beta, aka iPod Nano 6th generation.

IMO, the best iPod Apple ever made, yet not a proper smartwatch. Only rudimentary movement tracking (counting steps as a Nike+ app), no water resistance, requires a touch to see the time, does not sync calendars or contacts, can't send or receive notifications, no voice control. None of the underlying tech was ready yet, either, like low-energy Bluetooth, efficient GPS chips, on and on.

But the fact that third-party watch bands like this were created within hours of its launch, and Apple's own employees often wore it as a watch, was-and I'll bet five bucks on this-the reason that it got killed and its replacement had a dramatically different form factor. Apple realized that they had _really_ made a proto-smartwatch and yanked it from the lineup so they could bake it a few more years in their secret labs.


----------



## sidmind

Very nice, I will own one. I wonder what the price point will be....


----------



## BarracksSi

sidmind said:


> Very nice, I will own one. I wonder what the price point will be....


Starts at $349. That's probably for the Sport model in aluminum with a composite back. I'll guess $649 for the steel-ceramic model and high-four-figures for the 18k.


----------



## Happytalk

Anybody know what it does? For example, I don't carry my phone when I run. I carry an iPod classic full of music. Just curious if my girlfriend can ask me to pick something up at the store while I'm out without my phone but with the watch. Otherwise it seems useless. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## STEVIE

*Re: iWatch*



Alex_TA said:


> Seems like Swiss and Japanese will sleep well tonight. Even with a big smile on their faces.


I think they'll be worried, very worried. There are 500 million+ iPhone users on this planet who will get one in the coming years. Shopping Malls, Gyms, Pubs, Cafes and Offices will be full of the iPhone owners wearing this watch. The presentation part which demonstrates the numerous functions it has are stunning to say the least. They said the price is going to start at US$349 which is upmarket G-Shock prices.

I have been an Apple buyer since 2007 and will be ordering one as soon as. 

The naysayers should take a more in depth look at the Apple presentation, especially the features and functions of the watch.


----------



## Alex_TA

*Re: iWatch*



STEVIE said:


> I think they'll be worried, very worried. There are 500 million+ iPhone users on this planet who will get one in the coming years. Shopping Malls, Gyms, Pubs, Cafes and Offices will be full of the iPhone owners wearing this watch. The presentation part which demonstrates the numerous functions it has are stunning to say the least. They said the price is going to start at US$349 which is upmarket G-Shock prices.
> 
> I have been an Apple buyer since 2007 and will be ordering one as soon as.
> 
> The naysayers should take a more in depth look at the Apple presentation, especially the features and functions of the watch.


I do not agree, although I'm a fan of Apple, too. Most of the world does not wear a watch at all or wear quartz watch for $10. It is true that iWatch is a threat to low watch sector, but in a few years many of those who do not wear watches now will be tired of yet another e-collar, and newfound habit of wearing a watch will remain.
If at least some of them will make the upgrade to higher sector, it will be tens of millions of new customers.

Therefore, in my opinion, this is great news for traditional watchmaking


----------



## Brian Underdown

headless said:


> As opposed to the days when everyone on the bus/subway had their nose buried in a newspaper or book instead of talking to others? Smartphones/watches have given people the ability to walk with the nose in a gadget -- though I have seen people walking while reading something printed on a form of paper -- but that's the main difference.
> 
> This stuff isn't really making us any more unsocial.


i like it any more unsocial so you agree then !  we live in a generation of being totally ignorant and unsociable where life evolves around smartphone/tablet and now a watch . sorry its just my view I am tired of going everywhere and peoples heads are stuck in smartphone/tablets ,just like my wife who will quite happily spend 5 hours playing candy crush whenever she can. ITS GOOD TO TALK , IT DOESNT HURT TO SAY HELLO .Perhaps I'm just old  kola gelsin ..


----------



## CFI care

looks like we will all be wearing the same different watch

don't like square but somehow I just gotta have one


----------



## BarracksSi

Happytalk said:


> Anybody know what it does? For example, I don't carry my phone when I run. I carry an iPod classic full of music. Just curious if my girlfriend can ask me to pick something up at the store while I'm out without my phone but with the watch. Otherwise it seems useless.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I don't think it'll take any calls without the phone nearby. So, you could still run with music, undisturbed by any, "Honey, can you get some milk?" calls,  and leave the old spinning hard drive at home.


----------



## Crunchy

I will probably expect a tissot/longines vs apple watch thread in the near future....


----------



## Phong Vu

*Re: iWatch*



STEVIE said:


> I think they'll be worried, very worried. There are 500 million+ iPhone users on this planet who will get one in the coming years. Shopping Malls, Gyms, Pubs, Cafes and Offices will be full of the iPhone owners wearing this watch. The presentation part which demonstrates the numerous functions it has are stunning to say the least. They said the price is going to start at US$349 which is upmarket G-Shock prices.
> 
> I have been an Apple buyer since 2007 and will be ordering one as soon as.
> 
> The naysayers should take a more in depth look at the Apple presentation, especially the features and functions of the watch.


Come on, I understand Apple Watch will threaten other quartz watches but G-shock? Most of G-shock can be get at $100 so those two are at totally different price range. Also I want to see how well Apple Watch fare when people smashing it to the wall or throwing it into the swimming pool =)).


----------



## EL_GEEk

I think I'll stick with the original prototype


----------



## will_454

So I just saw this when I got to work - its not swimmable but it does have water resistance for rain, washing hands etc.

Apple Watch Tidbits: Charging Retail Box, Water Resistance, Calls, Offline and More - Mac Rumors


----------



## BarracksSi

A fun thing to do after these tech announcements is reading what people had been guessing before the official unveiling.

MECHANICAL INTELLIGENCE | Europa Star Magazine


> Will the California-based giant be content only to address the many loyal converts it already has, all those ultra-connected acolytes who will no doubt bow to its greatness and immediately clasp one of its bruited bracelets around their wrists? Or will it also target the disciples of Haute Horlogerie - a wealthier, more cultivated audience who are more sensitive to traditional luxury?




If Ben's article on Hodinkee about his "in the metal" experience with the Apple Watch is any sign, it looks like Apple painted a big target on watch nerds.. I mean, disciples of Haute Horlogerie.

A Watch Guy's Thoughts On The Apple Watch After Seeing It In The Metal (Tons Of Live Photos)


> But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it. I love it because it's so comfortable, so different than a traditional link bracelet. I love because it's so 1950s and '60s. I actually wear a Milanese-style bracelet on my 1957 Omega Speedmaster (ref 2915-2 for you nerds) and I get more compliments on it than just about anything I own, _because_ of the bracelet. The 42 mm Apple Watch on this bracelet was the one I was determined to try on first, and here it is on my wrist. [pic] This "loop" style bracelet is just fantastic, and unlike the bracelet on my Omega, it just works. It's magnetized and you can close it at any size. It is light to wear, but substantial, and feels fantastic on the wrist. How does it compare to this nice Tissot with a similar bracelet? Switzerland, you don't want to know.


----------



## BarracksSi

EL_GEEk said:


> I think I'll stick with the original prototype


The real, _public_ prototype, IMO:


----------



## meth68

*Re: iWatch*


----------



## John MS

Crunchy said:


> 30 mins to announcement. Love it or hate it? Will it change the world? Is it the "quartz" disruption of the new millenium?
> 
> Post your comments here.


It's impact on the traditional watch making industry will be bigger than quartz was in the 1970's. Comparing the smart watch introduction to the quartz watch revolution I would say that the comparable date would be 1970. Quartz watches were just coming to market and were expensive, crude and power hungry. But change would come quickly and many traditional watch companies would not respond quickly enough.

The iWatch and comparable devices we see today will seem coarse and simple compared to the devices we will see 5, 10 or 20 years from now. It might be better to think of them as wrist borne communications devices that also tell time and drop the name wrist watch. The watch making business as we know it today will have to change and begin producing devices that are connected. That will involve partnerships and acquisitions with companies that are far removed from the traditional watch making business. At some point there won't be a market for stand-alone mechanical or electronic timekeepers.


----------



## TheWalrus

John MS said:


> At some point there won't be a market for stand-alone mechanical or electronic timekeepers.


As long as I'm alive, there will be. It might just be a very, very small market. And no one will cater to it.


----------



## Phong Vu

How can we pass our watches to our grandchildren then if mechanical watches die off? My brother didn't even want my 3-year-old iPod just because he thought it's too ancient. All digital devices will end up in the trash bin after 3-4 years.

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheWalrus

Phong Vu said:


> How can we pass our watches to our grandchildren then if mechanical watches die off? My brother didn't even want my 3-year-old iPod just because he thought it's too ancient. All digital devices will end up in the trash bin after 3-4 years.
> 
> Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


I sense a shift in the marketing department at Patek.

"Look. Just buy our damn watch for yourself. And get buried wearing it. Your kid won't want it. He'll be too busy fiddling with his latest generation iWatch to care. And do you really want to leave any inheritence to someone like that?"


----------



## tony20009

Phong Vu said:


> How can we pass our watches to our grandchildren then if mechanical watches die off? My brother didn't even want my 3-year-old iPod just because he thought it's too ancient. All digital devices will end up in the trash bin after 3-4 years.


There's nothing stopping one from passing them on, regardless of the future popularity and usage of mechanical watches. Lots of folks have antiques that they never use.

As with any antique, they will become more and more scarce -- because many folks will toss them in the trash, toss them into a box forget about them as they sit in an attic or basement, etc. -- and after declining in value, they (digital, mechanical, combo, high end, low end, whatever...) will eventually begin to escalate in value again. The escalation will most likely be relevant for one's grand or great grandchildren but that's beside the point. They can still be bequeathed to one's heirs.

All the best.

No matter how grand an item is in the present, it cannot assert itself above the priorities of human existence. Everything has its day, and eventually the sun will set on that day.
- tony20009


----------



## tony20009

TheWalrus said:


> I sense a shift in the marketing department at Patek.
> 
> "Look. Just buy our damn watch for yourself. And get buried wearing it. Your kid won't want it. He'll be too busy fiddling with his latest generation iWatch to care. And do you really want to leave any inheritence to someone like that?"


LOL


----------



## Phong Vu

Another impact I would think of iWatch is probably the birth of a new kind of communication. The feature where people can send "touches" to each other has so much potentials. It's fast and discreet as people dont even have to look to communicate. With a system similar to Morse code, it would relace SMS easily. It would be wonderful for people who want to gossip in a meeting or in classes 

Sent from my Lumia 800 using Tapatalk


----------



## anaplian

Robert Cringley (influential tech journalist) on the Apple Watch and the luxury market:

I, Cringely Fear and loathing in Rolex-ville - I, Cringely


----------



## BarracksSi

I watched the presentation at the Apple store at Tysons Corner. Just prior to it, I stopped by the higher-end watch store (Lenkersdorfer, whose range goes from TAG thru Rolex to PP) for a few minutes to browse near my price range. They got some nice stuff in there.

Then, after the Watch/iPhone announcement, I swung by again, and all the same stuff seemed _older_. Not less beautifully constructed, mind you, but definitely from another century. I went downstairs and glanced at the Watch Station (fashion watches, mostly Fossil-produced brands) and, instead of just "regular stuff", their offerings suddenly appeared archaic, junky, and possibly irrelevant.

Well-designed tech gear tends to have that effect on older objects. Wristwatches have been around since my grandparents were born; quartz technology is nearly fifty years old. Newson and Ive and their crew got the chance to try an entirely different approach, from software to case design and even the straps themselves, and you can tell that they left the past right where it should be: _in the past_. It's not the twentieth century anymore.

Oh yes, you're going to see smartwatches everywhere within five or ten years. They'll run several different platforms, and they will dispense with nightly recharging, but you won't be able to swing a dead cat without hitting one. The question every watch manufacturer should be asking themselves (and if they're not, they're idiots) is, which part of the market will be gutted? The entire sub-$1000 range needs to check their retirement accounts, so to speak.


----------



## 93EXCivic

I am in the age group that the Apple watch is supposed to be a big seller in. I am 25 and most of my friends are around that age within a year or two but only one of them has any interest in the Apple Watch and another has any interest in smart watches at all. Most of my friends are engineers and generally interested in technology but there is no interest in smart watches. The lack of ability to use the watch without a phone was a major turnoff for people I have talked to. Several of them are fitness buffs and they like the idea of the fitness apps but don't want to take a smartphone running. Many of them don't wear watches and don't have any interest in wearing one. 

Also I post in F71 about what they thought of the Apple watch and there was even less enthusiasm there in the market bracket the Apple Watch is supposed to destroy.


----------



## hantms

Poll doesn't include my option: 

4: No, but I'll get a watch-only watch in the same style as soon as Parnis get around to making one. Gold color please. 

(Which to be honest may be sooner than the actual Apple one being released.)


----------



## ManMachine

93EXCivic said:


> I am in the age group that the Apple watch is supposed to be a big seller in. I am 25 and most of my friends are around that age within a year or two but only one of them has any interest in the Apple Watch and another has any interest in smart watches at all. Most of my friends are engineers and generally interested in technology but there is no interest in smart watches. The lack of ability to use the watch without a phone was a major turnoff for people I have talked to. Several of them are fitness buffs and they like the idea of the fitness apps but don't want to take a smartphone running. Many of them don't wear watches and don't have any interest in wearing one.
> 
> Also I post in F71 about what they thought of the Apple watch and there was even less enthusiasm there in the market bracket the Apple Watch is supposed to destroy.


I'm pretty sure you can take the Apple Watch for a run and record the relevant information, or check the time, without the iPhone tagging along.

As a communication device, it'll need the phone.

Most people have not seen it in person. Reserve judgement until then.


----------



## hantms

Today's xkcd:









( xkcd: Watches )


----------



## Smaug

Lots of good thoughts here, but a lot of very narrow minds, too.


For example, lots of folks are making totally irrelevant comparisons. 


For example, saying you wouldn't buy one because battery life is unknown and it cannot be worn while charged? C'mon. You need to sleep at night anway. Battery life will be long enough to get anyone through the day. Instead of just putting it on your nightstand at night, you'll put it on its inductive charging pad/clip overnight. 


Cell phones need to be charged daily or every other day, but everyone still carries one. So saying the old style watches that we wear now are better because we don't have to worry about charging them is kind of silly.


It IS true that it is one more device to charge. Is that enough to put you over the edge? Is it SO inconvenient to charge a device, really?


****


Comparing it to a mechanical watch is interesting, but not relevant. We don't like mechanical watches because of how practical they are. A $20 quartz is where it's at for practicality in a watch. If you want a convenient device just to tell time, a sub-$100 quartz watch is hard to beat, esp. solar or one with a 10-year battery. Or for that matter, an inexpensive-but-high-quality mechanical watch, like a Shanghai, which "never needs a battery." (but needs replacement every 10 years or so)


***


Lots of nay-sayers will end up buying them, just as they ended up buying a smartphone even though they didn't need them. This is one of Apple's strengths: they make lots of us WANT things we don't NEED. Then, we get assimilated, so that we feel like we NEED those things. I was a smartphone hold-out for a while, but eventually, I could justify it because I didn't have to pay to update maps on my stand-alone GPS.


Apple was watching the smart watch market, seeing what Google, Samsung, and Pebble were doing, and made sure to trump them in every regard. They paid attention to details that matter to people who wear watches, like band and bracelet design and quality. The interface has something traditional to it, but also fully modern. Lastly, it has lots of new touches that will quickly become intuitive. Just like "pinch-to-zoom" was/is.


I'm on my second iPhone now, after a break in the middle for a Samsung Galaxy. It is night & day, how much BETTER the iPhone works than the competition. Everything is more intuitive and easier to accomplish. It's faster and less laggy. It locks up less often. It doesn't need a third-party app just to shut down processes that shouldn't be running in the first place. Sure, it's not open-source, but if it's better, who cares? Their smart watch is the same thing. Just better in every regard. Those who don't get one are doing so because they don't want to invest in Apple and want to resist the huge monopoly that Apple is becoming. Or, because they're just not interested in the technology to begin with. (yet)


Just look: 20 years ago, cell phones weren't necessary. Now, they are. Even grannies have them. 


***


Try to stay-open-minded, fellas. Every generation goes through this phase of resisting changes that are going to happen anyway. Let's use time-keeping as an example:


1) Why do we need a clock tower? We have the sun!


2) Why do we need clocks in our houses? We have the town clock tower that chimes out the time for us?


3) Why do we need pocket watches? There are clocks everywhere!


4) Why do we need a wrist watches? Pocket watches are fine and won't mess with my cuffs.


5) Why do we need quartz wrist watches? Mechanical work fine, and never need a battery. (services are few and far between and affordable)


6) Why do we need to service our watches? They're so cheap, we can just buy a new one.


7) Why do we need batteries for our watches? They're so cheap, we can just buy a new one.


8) Why do we need solar/kinetic? Batteries last long and are cheap.


9) Why do we need atomic timekeeping? Quartz is plenty accurate and cheaper too.


10) Why do we need GPS watches? Battery life is poor and the signal is not reliable under cover.


11) Why do we need wrist watches? We carry our cell phones, which always have the right time anyway.


Now, we're at the next step


12) Why do we need smart watches? We have to carry our cell phones anyway, which always have the right time.


The answer is: "Same reason we went to wrist watches, to free up our pockets, at least some of the time!"


***


Sorry for the wall of text. I hope at least one other person reads it. 


BarracksSi seems to be coming around, the more he learns about it.


----------



## BarracksSi

Smaug said:


> BarracksSi seems to be coming around, the more he learns about it.


Ha! ;p

I was a cell phone holdout until I got into my current job. I came in right when everyone here was starting to get phones, so I caved pretty quickly.

Anyway, despite my hankering for solar/kinetic recharging, (something I genuinely love about my Citizen and G-Shock) I might get a first-gen Apple Watch. Hopefully I'll charge it every night like I already do with my iPhone.

I tried to use my Garmin GPS watch every day, charging it each night. The disappointment came when I wouldn't wear it for a few days and I left it out of its charging clip. Getting ready for a run or bike ride, I grab the Garmin, and there's maybe five percent battery remaining if I'm lucky. Crap.

Maybe the real reason I don't wear it so much is because it's bulky and it's just not attractive. It's also fair-to-middling as a fitness watch, which you wouldn't really notice until you realize how many menus you have to dig through for commonly-changed settings. It also doesn't help that the touch bezel on mine is awful with sweaty fingers.

Apple's watch looks nicer, measures smaller, and seems easier to use than my Garmin. Maybe that's enough for me to _want_ to charge it nightly.


----------



## Smaug

BarracksSi said:


> I tried to use my Garmin GPS watch every day, charging it each night. The disappointment came when I wouldn't wear it for a few days and I left it out of its charging clip. Getting ready for a run or bike ride, I grab the Garmin, and there's maybe five percent battery remaining if I'm lucky. Crap.


Oh, that's a good point. Shelf charge life, esp. as the battery gets older. Also, a battery change may not be something that's doable without very specialized tools.



> Maybe the real reason I don't wear it so much is because it's bulky and it's just not attractive.


That's another point. I didn't see any thickness spec yet on the Apple Watch. Of course Apple's point of view would be that it is perfectly OK for it to hold up a shirt sleeve, because we should be SO proud to be wearing it.



> Apple's watch looks nicer, measures smaller, and seems easier to use than my Garmin. Maybe that's enough for me to _want_ to charge it nightly.


Yep, good point. Your earlier point makes me think though: when you get in the mood to wear a mechanical watch for a week or two, what's going to happen to the Apple Watch? Will it go into standby mode with some kind of grace, or will it be listening intently with its BlueTooth radio until the battery's flat?


----------



## BarracksSi

Smaug said:


> Oh, that's a good point. Shelf charge life, esp. as the battery gets older. Also, a battery change may not be something that's doable without very specialized tools.


In fairness to the Garmin, its specs say that it'll run for 8 hours in exercise mode with the GPS on, and I didn't reach that limit (I never rode my bike for more than, say, six hours at a shot anyway). It lasts for a few days with GPS off, too. But, after I got-or rather, my wife bought for me-my Citizen and G, I preferred to wear those over the Garmin, which often sits neglected now. That's the saddest part -- she had also bought me the Garmin for my birthday _before_ the other two watches.



> That's another point. I didn't see any thickness spec yet on the Apple Watch. Of course Apple's point of view would be that it is perfectly OK for it to hold up a shirt sleeve, because we should be SO proud to be wearing it.


I'll tell ya, the Garmin is thicker than any reasonable wristwatch I've handled with the possible exception of Omega's SMP chrono-GMT monstrosity.



> Yep, good point. Your earlier point makes me think though: when you get in the mood to wear a mechanical watch for a week or two, what's going to happen to the Apple Watch? Will it go into standby mode with some kind of grace, or will it be listening intently with its BlueTooth radio until the battery's flat?


Apple's tablets and phones are pretty good about managing power drain in standby mode. Their battery management keeps getting better, finding tricks to extend the useful life of the cells. I figure they'll apply that knowledge to the watch as well.

It's got one security trick that I realize now would be relevant to standby life. It's got those HR sensors on its back, right? They also sense when you've put it on your wrist, and then you enter a PIN to start it up. This is how it can be used for Apple Pay without having to also carry your iPhone. Most likely, then, the watch will sit dormant, BT radio off, until you pick it up and put it on.

(thinking more -- this is also a good explanation for why the charging puck attaches to the sensor array)


----------



## John MS

I think it's important to keep in mind that the smart watches we see are really just the beginning. They will improve a lot within a few years.


----------



## BarracksSi

Yeah, so this is going to be buried in Page 20 of this thread...

Apple Pay, the new NFC payment system that goes with the Watch and both new iPhone 6 models, looks to be the most thought-out, most secure way to buy stuff, whether in-store or via supported apps.

You scan your credit card number (or authorize the card you already use with your iTunes account), but it's not stored on the iPhone, nor is it stored on Apple's servers. Apple sends the info to your bank, who returns a Device Account Number. This is called _tokenization_.

It gets really interesting after that. You've gotta read the whole article.

Why Apple Pay could be the mobile-payment system you'll actually use | Macworld



MacWorld said:


> *Why Apple Pay is different
> 
> Apple Pay is far from the first mobile payment system. Google Wallet was released in 2011, a collection of mobile phone companies back Softcard, and even PayPal targets mobile payments. However, none has gained wide adoption, and Apple Pay is clearly poised to shake things, for several reasons.
> *
> First is the usual attention that Apple pays to the entire user experience. With Google Wallet, you need to enter your card numbers by hand, either online or through the app. To make a payment, you need to use the app and unlock it with a passcode. Although Google Wallet can work with NFC, the actual implementation depends on the hardware and software combination of your Android phone. Even if your phone has NFC, if it doesn't have a secure element too, you can't use it for contactless payments. And if your phone _does_ have a secure element, it may not be accessible to Google Wallet because it isn't accessible to the NFC chipset or due to carrier restrictions.
> 
> Those same mobile phone carriers are the ones backing the competing Softcard product, and they haven't seemed very supportive of Google. Also, Google stores your card on its own servers and mediates and records all transactions with the payment networks. (Wallet issues a virtual prepaid card to the device). Google protects this with its privacy policy, but the company still has full records of all of your transactions. Softcard is also an app, only works on approved phone models, and is carrier-specific. The carriers back Softcard, in part, so they can track your purchases and use that information for their own purposes.
> 
> By contrast, Apple Pay works with every new iPhone and Apple Watch. Apple doesn't track your transactions, and your privacy is protected even from the merchants.
> 
> But aside from the technical differences, Apple is in a unique position due to its business model. It doesn't want or need to track transactions. It doesn't want or need to be the payment processor. It isn't restricted by carrier agreements, since it fully controls the hardware. Google, although first to the market by a matter of years, is still hamstrung by device manufacturers and carriers. Softcard is hamstrung by the usual greed and idiocy of mobile phone providers. PayPal has no footprint on devices.


----------



## Smaug

BarracksSi said:


> Yeah, so this is going to be buried in Page 20 of this thread...


Well, we've got not much else to do until "early 2015" when it comes out.

What you posted above is one reason I like Apple products in general. The deeper I dig, the more neat little areas I find that Apple has done their homework.

***

You know what my biggest worry is about the Apple Watch? That I will get one, and it will cause me to stop wearing my other watches. Those watches will become "just watches." Just like it scares me how good the PRW-3000 is. So many more useful features than just time-telling; it becomes hard to live without it.


----------



## BarracksSi

Smaug said:


> Well, we've got not much else to do until "early 2015" when it comes out.
> 
> What you posted above is one reason I like Apple products in general. The deeper I dig, the more neat little areas I find that Apple has done their homework.


You'll like these blog posts about the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, then. Took me a while to read John Gruber's from two weeks ago, and now I'm starting to grasp the one from PaintCode.

Daring Fireball: Conjecture Regarding Larger iPhone Displays

PaintCode

Notice the ideal pixel counts that Gruber comes up with by the end of the first link, and then see what PaintCode figures out when they talk about downsampling the image size.


----------



## WrnrG

*Re: iWatch*



TimelessFan said:


> Yeah but it's made by Apple, so it's cool. Just like their gigantic phone. I hated it when other manufacturers made them but now that Apple's going big, I think it's cool!
> 
> Whom do I pay for an honor to wear this ankle bracelet?


All of Apple's "innovations" are things Samsung and Google did 3 years ago, didn't really catch on because, of course, it only matters if it has the Apple logo on it. All of a sudden the phone watch is "cool."

Btw, was in Las Vegas last weekend and besides losing all my money, I saw a lot of people wearing smart watches, the Galaxy one mostly. Guess it was trending up anyway and the Apple fanboys will make sure it keeps going up.

I do like the walkie-talkie on you wrist though, that is sweet.


----------



## Crunchy

*Re: iWatch*



WrnrG said:


> All of Apple's "innovations" are things Samsung and Google did 3 years ago, didn't really catch on because, of course, it only matters if it has the Apple logo on it. All of a sudden the phone watch is "cool."
> 
> Btw, was in Las Vegas last weekend and besides losing all my money, I saw a lot of people wearing smart watches, the Galaxy one mostly. Guess it was trending up anyway and the Apple fanboys will make sure it keeps going up.
> 
> I do like the walkie-talkie on you wrist though, that is sweet.


Um, none of the other makers feature such as:
Using the crown
Taps for communication & sending heartbeat
Induction charging
18k gold!
NFC payment and opening doors
Sweeping seconds hand
Mesh bracelets
New UI
And many more....


----------



## tony20009

Smaug said:


> ..lots of folks are making totally irrelevant comparisons.
> 
> ...
> 
> Lots of nay-sayers will end up buying them, just as *they ended up buying a smartphone even though they didn't need them.* This is one of Apple's strengths: they make lots of us WANT things we don't NEED. Then, we get assimilated, so that we feel like we NEED those things.
> 
> ...
> 
> Just look: *20 years ago, cell phones weren't necessary. Now, they are.* Even *grannies *have them.
> ...


I agree with most everything you wrote.

The one major difference I see between watches and the evolution of the cell phone analogy you provided is that cell phones didn't have to compete against the sartorial, emotional and romantic notions that people have regarding watches. For a good number of folks a watch is a fashion accessory and wearing AW, even one that has myriad face designs available, still means that one is basically wearing the same thing everyone else is, unless one can and does craft one's own face design imagery.

Mind you, I don't necessarily see the evolution of our sartorial sensibilities arrive at a place similar to that depicted in quite a few sci-fi movies, whereby everyone wears the same outfit for all intents and purposes. That sort of world would necessarily mean that folks have to abandon their object oriented notions of superiority, privilege or whatever and claim prominence based on merit and accomplishments solely.

I think that if the functionality of the AW is good enough, however, folks will see it (or competing maker's offerings) as a necessity just as you said.

Grannies:
Not that folks in that age group are part of Apple's target market, but I don't know how many really old folks will adopt an AW. My parents (88 & 96) don't own a cell phones. They are quite content to miss phone calls and live just as folks did before cell phones. I think they would use an iPhone, but they won't pay the monthly fee for one because they are required to have a data plan with an iPhone or any other smartphone and I can assure you, they would not surf the web, Instagram, Facebook, Tweet, or check email, and so on any more than they would jump off a bridge. In their minds, it's about the money, but not about the money. They don't understand, and never will, understand why they need to pay for something they absolutely will not use. And so they just won't have a smartphone, and that's that.

I gave them a regular cell phone and plaid for the plan for two years and for the majority of those two years the phone sat attached to its charger on a table in their bedroom. I know because they never answered it when I called it, they never checked the voice mail on it, and when I asked their housekeeper how often they take it with them, she said almost never.

I suspect there are folks who will resist the AW and its competitors. Whether Apple and other companies can incorporate into the device features that are so compelling that most folks cannot, or won't easily, get by without them remains to be seen. It also remains to be seen whether having an AW becomes something of a status symbol just as having an iPhone was in its early days.

All the best.


----------



## BarracksSi

*Re: iWatch*

To embellish these:



Crunchy said:


> Um, none of the other makers feature such as:


Using the crown, which lets the user scroll and zoom without blocking the tiny screen with a fingertip...

Taps for communication & sending heartbeat, making short messages easier and more personal (add sketches to this)...

Induction charging, eliminating the USB socket as a water entry point and adding security by blocking the HR sensors, which are used to unlock the watch...

18k gold!, which punches pretty far upmarket and might get sold in upscale watch boutiques...

NFC payment and opening doors, being the most secure NFC implementation seen yet, backed with the clout of a half-billion iTunes accounts...

Sweeping seconds hand, an artistic touch that others seemed to ignore...

Mesh bracelets, which are awesome...

New UI, which nobody else will be able to match (except maybe Xiaomi, who's better-and more shameless-than anyone at copying the iPhone style)...



> And many more....


----------



## BarracksSi

*Re: iWatch*

BTW, 72 votes and it's 50% no, 50% possible/yes. And that's on WUS, which seems to be the home for automatic sport watch fans.


----------



## BarracksSi

*Re: iWatch*

Apple Insider brief hands-on, including video of how quickly you could adjust the steel bracelet. (hint: you'd never have to worry about an unskilled jewelry shop minion banging at it with a hammer)

First look: Hands-on with the all-new Apple Watch


----------



## Smaug

Wow, that is BRILLIANT. (Bracelet design) Even the Apple-Bashers will have to concede that the bracelet design is an innovative game-changer. 


-Jeremy
(Sent from Tapatalk)


----------



## Cannonball




----------



## Smaug

*Re: iWatch*



WrnrG said:


> All of Apple's "innovations" are things Samsung and Google did 3 years ago, didn't really catch on because, of course, it only matters if it has the Apple logo on it. All of a sudden the phone watch is "cool."


Not ALL of the neat things in the Apple Watch were done in the earlier smart watches. Some are real innovations, and some are simply implemented better. Most of the stuff Samsung and Google did was not innovative at all, but just miniaturization.

The general public would LOVE to be able to get an Apple watch for a lower price. But: #1, the competition is not executed as well, and #2, the current offerings are useless to an iPhone user. (and there are a LOT of us)

I haven't compared all the specs, but here are some examples of where I bet the Apple watch is clearly superior:


Materials: Sapphire crystal is standard, and an upgraded material that is lighter and tougher is optional. The "upgraded glass" is another Apple innovation, or at least it is Apple that will bring it to mass market.
Bands. Everyone who tried them said they are better designed than any watch band before them. Toolless sizing of bracelets, and clasp fully integrated into the bracelet are two more examples.
Shaped to the curve of the wrist, with crystal perfectly integrated into the case/bracelet
Interface
Monitors heart rate without a chest strap; which is superior to a pedometer-style fitness sensor.
Some fashion appeal to people who are not geeks
The list goes on

****

I'm going to start selling off watches I don't wear enough to build up my account to get an AW and some bracelet/strap options when they come out.


----------



## BarracksSi

Finally got my wife to take a break from her studying long enough to watch the full presentation.

They got to the segment about fitness tracking and she said, "I _love_ it." She likes it better than my Garmin (which she bought for me but hasn't expressed any interest in getting her own). She seemed fascinated by all the other uses, too. She's sold.

She's been in retail before, so she also understood Apple Pay and why it's going to be so different. She's impressed.


----------



## BarracksSi

Speaking of Apple Pay...

http://pando.com/2014/09/11/the-hidden-brilliance-behind-the-timing-of-apples-adoption-of-nfc/



> As of October 2015, any merchants that do not support EMV credit cards - smart cards with integrated circuits that enable point of sale authentication and help prevent fraud - will be liable for the fraudulent use of counterfeit, lost, and stolen cards. EVM cards are read at the point of sale by inserting the end of the card featuring the chip into a payment terminal, rather than swiping the familiar magnetic stripe on the back of the card. Consumers then enter a PIN to authorize the transaction. (If you've traveled internationally, you're likely familiar with this system).
> 
> These EMV cards and the resulting transactions are far more difficult to counterfeit than what Americans consider "standard" credit cards. While EMV is the norm around the world, only about 14 percent of US merchants support this technology today and very few consumers own credit cards incorporating these chips.
> 
> Why does this matter to Apple Pay? Because millions of merchants will be required to purchase and install new card-reader hardware in the next year in order to comply with this standard. And when these merchants shell out for new card-readers, something they might do at most once or twice per decade, there's a good chance they'll opt for all the "bells and whistles." Following Apple's announcement, NFC is right at the top of the list of must-support technologies. Hence we could see a dramatic spike in NFC support in this country. (Big h/t to Wealthfront CEO Adam Nash for pointing out the brilliance of this timing.)


----------



## MrDagon007

*Re: iWatch*



BarracksSi said:


> Apple Insider brief hands-on, including video of how quickly you could adjust the steel bracelet. (hint: you'd never have to worry about an unskilled jewelry shop minion banging at it with a hammer)
> 
> First look: Hands-on with the all-new Apple Watch


Indeed it is brilliant, innovative design how easily the bracelet can be resized.
Even people who don't like the Apple watch have to concede that the bracelet and straps are more interesting and innovative than what you can find amongst traditional watches.


----------



## shnjb

*Re: Apple Watch*



Smaug said:


> It's in the range of what some folks here consider affordable.
> 
> In the WRUW thread the other day, someone posted a Rolex Sea-Dweller. (> $7k)
> 
> Speedmaster Pros are routinely there (> $2500) Seamaster Pros too (> $2k)
> 
> Compared to some of those, the Apple Watch will be _quite_ affordable. Also, IMO, it is easier to justify, since it is genuinely useful.
> 
> Man, I'm stoked. Not that it will replace a mechanical watch's character, but Casio better up their game pretty quick if they're going to stay relevant.


Yup.
I have about 8 Casio G-shocks because they're cheap and they look fun.
I wear them to the gym and around the house and sometimes pack one for travel.

But with the Apple Watch, I can't imagine ever buying another G-shock again...


----------



## shnjb

Crunchy said:


> The new iphone is disrupting the ipad mini, so they needed a smaller display to do micro activities such as checking the time and seeing notifications.
> 
> Although, I wonder who will spend money on a gold apple watch only to see it obsolete in 2 years...


You are not getting the gold one????


----------



## Crunchy

shnjb said:


> You are not getting the gold one????


Nah I'm more of a diamonds guy


----------



## shnjb

Apple watch is already the only watch I would want under $2000.
I wonder if it can ever replace the watches above $5000, which serve as status symbols and fashion statements.


----------



## tony20009

shnjb said:


> Apple watch is already the only watch I would want under $2000.
> I wonder if it can ever replace the watches above $5000, which serve as status symbols and fashion statements.


I can't imagine that many folks who buy PP, VC, ALS, G&B, and other $15K+ high end watches give a damn about the status symbol aspect of a watch. Odds are nearly everything they own is a status symbol, to say nothing of the fact that they themselves are the very definitions of status in the first place, and yielding the watch as such isn't going to matter to them. "The Jones" don't care about "keeping up with 'the Jones.' "

As fashion statements, yes, the AW and other smart watches will need to offer more variety and styling options than just a variable display screen. That said, if the utility is sufficient, many folks will overlook the fashion factors, or lack thereof, concerning the device. In its early days, an iPhone was fashionable to use/have, but now, I doubt anyone receives "fashion points" for using an iPhone, or any other smart phone for that matter.

I noticed that gaming computer makers tried to make the styling of their wares part of the allure. If my youngest son's preferences are any indicator, however, the looks of a gaming pc don't play much, if at all, into which one he wants me to buy for him. The past few times I've bought him one, Fragboxes by Falcon NW, they seem to look nice enough, but he's never asked for the custom paint jobs the maker offer. That's why I don't think the appearance matters. Like computers, phones and other technology devices, I think functionality and utility will be the major factors driving folks to chose this or that smart watch over the alternatives.

All the best.


----------



## Smaug

tony20009 said:


> As fashion statements, yes, the AW and other smart watches will need to offer more variety and styling options than just a variable display screen.


They already plan to. Two different bracelets, and different color rubber and leather straps. Not to mention at least 5 different case materials, combined with a variable/programmable display means the only thing that doesn't change is the shape and interface of the watch. It's the best anyone has ever done, as far as making a single watch changeable. I can't imagine what else you're wishing for. Maybe a round one? I bet they'll make a round one soon enough. They'll give it a catchy name like: "Apple Watch 2R."


----------



## tony20009

Smaug said:


> They already plan to. Two different bracelets, and different color rubber and leather straps. Not to mention at least 5 different case materials, combined with a variable/programmable display means the only thing that doesn't change is the shape and interface of the watch. It's the best anyone has ever done, as far as making a single watch changeable. *I can't imagine what else you're wishing for.* Maybe a round one? I bet they'll make a round one soon enough. They'll give it a catchy name like: "Apple Watch 2R."


The things you mentioned are a good start. Practically speaking, I'm not wishing for too more because I know better than to expect something like silver guilloche on what is essentially a computer screen. Assuming the tank style does well, I'm sure Apple (maybe others) will offer round and tonneau shapes, as well an assortment of hand styles, dial colors and likenesses on their digitally effected clock faces. Some may even be offered with porthole like bezels as are Royal Oaks and Hublot watches. I do agree with the makers that right now is too soon to bother with introducing those things and there's not much cause to expect them at this point in the AW's life cycle.

All the best.


----------



## BarracksSi

More about Apple Pay -- some of which was actually written in the article to which I linked several posts back:
Why Apple Pay might succeed where Google, PayPal, and Visa have failed | VentureBeat | Mobile | by Ruth Reader



> But others have attempted this same feat before with little success. You know the players: PayPal, Google Wallet, and the unfortunately named Isis (now, in the wake of events in the Middle East, renamed Softcard - also not a great name).Google Wallet had issues with major carriers, who said that the application was harmful to their networks because it required integration with a proprietary piece of hardware called the "secure element."
> 
> Meanwhile, AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, and T-mobile were all collaborating on their own NFC mobile payment solution called Isis, which also required the secure element. The mobile payment tug-of-war has resulted in a stalemate.
> 
> PayPal's mobile app has shown the most promise. According to an IDC mobile payments report in April, 58 percent of respondents who use mobile payments said they used PayPal. Still, that's small consolation for PayPal, because only 37 percent of respondents said they use mobile payments at all.
> 
> But this hasn't deterred Apple - it actually seems to have inspired the company. And the notion that Apple is somehow late to the party, because it's only now developing a digital payment method several years after early innovators, is wrong. In fact, I'm pretty sure that Apple is the one throwing the party.


----------



## Mecano

Fun read! http://www.slate.com/articles/life/..._a_gentleman_while_wearing_a_smart_watch.html


----------



## BarracksSi

The Kickstarter-funded Neptune Pine does more than an Apple Watch already. It's got two cameras, an on-screen keyboard, can play Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja, 32GB of storage plus a MicroSD slot, 3G, and GPS, among other features. It's even running Android Jelly Bean (just one version back from the current KitKat).

Cool, right? Read on:

The Joy and Misery of Life With a Grotesquely Large "Smartwatch"


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> The Kickstarter-funded Neptune Pine does more than an Apple Watch already. It's got two cameras, an on-screen keyboard, can play Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja, 32GB of storage plus a MicroSD slot, 3G, and GPS, among other features. It's even running Android Jelly Bean (just one version back from the current KitKat).
> 
> Cool, right? Read on:
> 
> The Joy and Misery of Life With a Grotesquely Large "Smartwatch"


Not cool at all.


----------



## tony20009

BarracksSi said:


> The Kickstarter-funded Neptune Pine does more than an Apple Watch already. It's got two cameras, an on-screen keyboard, can play Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja, 32GB of storage plus a MicroSD slot, 3G, and GPS, among other features. * It's even running Android Jelly Bean* (just one version back from the current KitKat).
> 
> Cool, right? Read on:
> 
> The Joy and Misery of Life With a Grotesquely Large "Smartwatch"


First, I should state that I didn't read the whole article....largely because I'm not "into:" smart watches and doubt I ever will be. Nonetheless, I'm interested in them because I recognize their potential and it's not beyond me to see that I may one day find their utility compelling enough to wear one instead of a traditional, mechanical watch. I also didn't read it because despite the features it offers, it hasn't, IMO, sufficient "hype" right now to be "the" smart watch that kickstarts the "revolution."

The feature set seems reasonable enough. Lord knows why they think the thing is enhanced by having a second camera. Ergonomically, I have my doubts about using a camera or on-screen keyboard on a device that small, even though it's huge among its peers.

Lastly, and unrelated directly to the watch's merits, what is it about small computers -- phones and apparently smart watches -- that makes them be stuck to the the OS with which they were purchased? It makes no sense to me that a new device would come out with an old OS.

All the best.

The world is moving so fast these days that the man who says it can't be done is generally interrupted by someone doing it.
― Elbert Hubbard


----------



## BarracksSi

tony20009 said:


> The feature set seems reasonable enough. Lord knows why they think the thing is enhanced by having a second camera. Ergonomically, I have my doubts about using a camera or on-screen keyboard on a device that small, even though it's huge among its peers.


Right, and it's the biggest smartwatch out there so far. What's interesting is that, in spite of its big-for-a-smartwatch size, it's just too small to do everything that it hopes to do. The cameras aren't much good because they're old and small, so they have small apertures and small sensors (and they take up space that could be used for, say, more battery capacity). The virtual keyboard almost forces the size to be big; if they can ditch it and go with voice dictation or quick replies, they won't need a big screen.

Doing things this small is hard. WISes know this. The priorities are saving power and space. Every cubic millimeter, and every cycle of the CPU, counts. You've got to decide what to leave out. If it can't be done well, like typing or taking a picture, then maybe it shouldn't be included at all.



> Lastly, and unrelated directly to the watch's merits, what is it about small computers -- phones and apparently smart watches -- that makes them be stuck to the the OS with which they were purchased? It makes no sense to me that a new device would come out with an old OS.


To put it simply, there's too many hands in the pot.

For Android, Google builds the base OS. Device manufacturers then take that and adapt it to their devices -- add their own UI, code it for the hardware (which includes things like cameras, motion sensors, NFC chips, custom bits like fingerprint scanners, whatever) -- then send the OS to phone carriers. Then it's up to the carriers to push the new OS out to customers, but only after testing it and adding more software of their own. All of this takes about six months or more. By then, Google is probably working on the next security update, which has to go through the whole process again -- while device manufacturers are readying even newer hardware.

It's a lot simpler when one company manages the hardware, software, and distribution all themselves (*cough*Apple*cough). My old iPhone 4 started shipping in 2010 with iOS 4, and it received three major OS versions after that (up to 7.1.2).

Maybe the Apple Watch's OS will have major releases, or maybe-because it's relatively simple-it would need only minor OS updates to line up with iPhone revisions.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> The Kickstarter-funded Neptune Pine does more than an Apple Watch already. It's got two cameras, an on-screen keyboard, can play Angry Birds and Fruit Ninja, 32GB of storage plus a MicroSD slot, 3G, and GPS, among other features. It's even running Android Jelly Bean (just one version back from the current KitKat).
> 
> Cool, right? Read on:
> 
> The Joy and Misery of Life With a Grotesquely Large "Smartwatch"


We have a thread about the Neptune Pine. --> Neptune 

The Neptune Pine is a wrist phone.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> We have a thread about the Neptune Pine. --> Neptune
> 
> The Neptune Pine is a wrist phone.
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


I forgot that it has a headphone jack, too. Could get rid of that and use Bluetooth for audio instead.

Why is NFC only on the 8gb model (according to the description in that thread)?


----------



## tony20009

BarracksSi said:


> Right, and it's the biggest smartwatch out there so far. What's interesting is that, in spite of its big-for-a-smartwatch size, *it's just too small to do everything that it hopes to do. The cameras aren't much good because they're old and small*, so they have small apertures and small sensors (and they take up space that could be used for, say, more battery capacity). The virtual keyboard almost forces the size to be big; if they can ditch it and go with *voice dictation* or quick replies, they won't need a big screen.
> 
> Doing things this small is hard. WISes know this. The priorities are saving power and space. Every cubic millimeter, and every cycle of the CPU, counts. You've got to decide what to leave out. If it can't be done well, like typing or taking a picture, then maybe it shouldn't be included at all.
> 
> ...


Red:
That was my thinking about it as well. To my way of doing things, I'd omit a camera before I implemented the device with a lame camera. Other folks might, however, prefer to have some sort of camera over no camera. To each his own, I suppose...

Blue:
I already use voice commands for most of what I do with my phone and that requires writing. I'll edit with the keypad, but the first "cut" is nearly always voice instruction. I think all smart watches should opt for voice commands over keyboards.

All the best.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Right, and it's the biggest smartwatch out there so far. What's interesting is that, in spite of its big-for-a-smartwatch size, it's just too small to do everything that it hopes to do. The cameras aren't much good because they're old and small, so they have small apertures and small sensors (and they take up space that could be used for, say, more battery capacity). The virtual keyboard almost forces the size to be big; if they can ditch it and go with voice dictation or quick replies, they won't need a big screen.
> 
> Doing things this small is hard. WISes know this. The priorities are saving power and space. Every cubic millimeter, and every cycle of the CPU, counts. You've got to decide what to leave out. If it can't be done well, like typing or taking a picture, then maybe it shouldn't be included at all.
> 
> To put it simply, there's too many hands in the pot.
> 
> For Android, Google builds the base OS. Device manufacturers then take that and adapt it to their devices -- add their own UI, code it for the hardware (which includes things like cameras, motion sensors, NFC chips, custom bits like fingerprint scanners, whatever) -- then send the OS to phone carriers. Then it's up to the carriers to push the new OS out to customers, but only after testing it and adding more software of their own. All of this takes about six months or more. By then, Google is probably working on the next security update, which has to go through the whole process again -- while device manufacturers are readying even newer hardware.
> 
> It's a lot simpler when one company manages the hardware, software, and distribution all themselves (*cough*Apple*cough). My old iPhone 4 started shipping in 2010 with iOS 4, and it received three major OS versions after that (up to 7.1.2).
> 
> Maybe the Apple Watch's OS will have major releases, or maybe-because it's relatively simple-it would need only minor OS updates to line up with iPhone revisions.


Great post. Totally agree.
Devices like Neptune totally miss the point of having a wrist wearable (I.e. Watch).


----------



## BarracksSi

Ariel Adams's extended piece on the Watch:

Apple Watch Hands-On: The Wristwatch Just Caught Up To The 21st Century | aBlogtoWatch


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Ariel Adams's extended piece on the Watch:
> 
> Apple Watch Hands-On: The Wristwatch Just Caught Up To The 21st Century | aBlogtoWatch


That was a good read but did Adams get to take apple watch home for review or something?
I was confused about that.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> That was a good read but did Adams get to take apple watch home for review or something?
> I was confused about that.


I'm not sure, because none of the pictures look like they were taken in the all-white temporary side building on launch day.

I also don't think he got any special privileges to a fully-operating OS, either. He says, "In the future, when I further test the Apple Watch, I'll be in a better position to comment on the ease of using the interface," which means to me that he's only seen the same demo loop that the rest of the press has seen.

I'll make a point about that: The OS isn't "unfinished", as it was demoed on stage during the presentation with dictation, tap messaging, and so on. It does, however, need to be paired with a phone. I doubt that Apple was going to let a crowd of several hundred reporters try to pair their phones with all those watches at the same time, and re-pair with different reporters' phones as the session continued. Better to have it display a demo than have reporters and bloggers complaining that they can't send their heartbeats.


----------



## CFI care

I wonder if we are going to witness a resurgence in morse code with the youngsters tapping away under the desk?


----------



## Smaug

*Re: iWatch*

Well, I'm out. To me, it's not compelling enough without the chrest strap-less health monitoring features.

It would never have gone down like this on Jobs' "watch." Firstly, he wouldn't have announced it until it was ready for sale, with millions in warehouses.

Secondly, he wouldn't allow them to poop out on one of the biggest features of the watch.

Time to re-consider Pebble. 

Apple ditches health-monitoring features from watch • The Register


----------



## BarracksSi

I don't recall Apple ever announcing that it would monitor blood pressure and oxygen levels. And besides, according to that rumor, it's retaining a heart rate feature, which Apple already said it would have.

I'm a partial fan of chest straps for HR. They're supposed to be EKG-quick, and my Garmin's is pretty good with speed. But, mine runs on ANT+, which uses the same 2.4 GHz band as many wifi networks, and it suffers interference in some places. If I can get similar results without a strap, I'm all for it (and so's my wife, since she hates the idea of having to wear a chest strap).

And to your point about the early announcement -- the Watch still needed regulatory approval, similar to what the first iPhone needed to get six months before its launch. These applications become public pretty quickly. Better for Apple to announce it than for it to filter out, get copied by unscrupulous factories, and have those crappy copies plop into the market within a couple weeks.


----------



## BarracksSi

Developers have been putting up previews of their Apple Watch apps, and this blog is keeping track of them as they appear on Twitter. 
http://watchaware.com/watch-apps

They look near life-size on my iPhone 5S, and they have Glances and Notifications where applicable.

What's interesting to me is that the selection seems underwhelming compared to what gets shown on phones and tablets. No movie editors, no racing games, nothing to show off a million hardware-accelerated 3D polygons. But, many of these Watch apps have corollaries in phone apps, and present most of the same basic information.

And yes, there's a fart app.


----------



## BarracksSi

In case you guys heard about the Edition model's 18k alloy having less gold than usual, here's an explanation:
Apple gold - All this



> How can this be? It's because Apple's gold is a metal matrix composite, not a standard alloy. Instead of mixing the gold with silver, copper, or other metals to make it harder, Apple is mixing it with low-density ceramic particles. The ceramic makes Apple's gold harder and more scratch-resistant-which Tim Cook touted during the September announcement-and it also makes it less dense overall.
> 
> The _karat_ measure of gold is based on the mass fraction. One hundred grams of 18k gold has 75 grams of gold and 25 grams of other material. If that "other material" is a low-density ceramic, it takes up a bigger volume than if it's a high-density metal. Because the casing of a watch is made to a particular size (i.e. volume), not to a particular weight, the Watch will have less gold in it than an 18k case made of a conventional alloy.


So, it's still 18k, but might cost less than a different alloy in the same size and volume. Still a bundle, though, I'm sure (I'm betting $5k).


----------



## Blancpain

$10k for the Semi-gold Apple watch? No thanks


----------



## LeopardBear

Blancpain said:


> $10k for the Semi-gold Apple watch? No thanks


10k _with a rubber strap. _15-17k with leather and it's not even a bracelet yet!


----------



## Blancpain

LeopardBear said:


> 10k _with a rubber strap. _15-17k with leather and it's not even a bracelet yet!


Oh that's different! $5k for leather? I'm in!


----------



## BarracksSi

That's a hell of a lot of cash, but not out of line from traditional watch brands using gold on leather.

I'm a little disappointed that the 38mm and 42mm sizes are priced differently, such as $349 versus $399 for the Sport models.


----------



## ManMachine

time to move on from this outdated "iwatch" thing.


----------



## calumr

*Re: iWatch*



Smaug said:


> It would never have gone down like this on Jobs' "watch." Firstly, he wouldn't have announced it until it was ready for sale, with millions in warehouses.


iPhone: announced January 9, 2007 & released June 29, 2007 (iPhone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
iPad: announced January 27, 2010 & released April 3, 2010 (iPad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Announcing a few months before release is exactly what Jobs did.


----------



## Smaug

I stand corrected.


----------



## BarracksSi

Figure this'll go in this thread:





Hands-on the Apple Watch with a couple young women who don't appear to be WISes.


----------



## Crunchy

BarracksSi said:


> Figure this'll go in this thread:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hands-on the Apple Watch with a couple young women who don't appear to be WISes.


Yea it will get sold out fast.


----------



## Blancpain

Yeah it's gonna be sold out fast alright.
And I think that's a good thing for the watch industry as a whole. Wrist wearables are back in the spotlight because of this aWatch. But this only works with iPhones...what about the large majority of smartphone users (over 80%) who are on Android?
Android wear or Pebble is now poised to take off...thanks to the hype from Apple.

And for the WISers? Now that people are going to be checking out wrists and what you are wearing...be prepared to show off your next beautifully crafted mech timepiece. It's retro hip now! LOL

I'm sure many a counter culture hipster will rock a mech watch just to stand out from all the iSheep.

It's all good for the watch world...no?


----------



## Henraa

I love Apple products I have to say. I own an iPhone 6, iPad Air, iPod Touch, and 2 MacBook Retina Pro's 2014 edition.... But I really don't get the iWatch at all. I think it is over priced for what it is and the prices they are charging for straps is cheeky in the extreme. I will stick to my gorgeous old fashioned mechanical watches and happily reach into my pocket and use the phone I have already paid good money for lol. No thanks Apple on this occasion.


----------



## Henraa

Blancpain said:


> Yeah it's gonna be sold out fast alright.
> And I think that's a good thing for the watch industry as a whole. Wrist wearables are back in the spotlight because of this aWatch. But this only works with iPhones...what about the large majority of smartphone users (over 80%) who are on Android?


The problem with the phone industry is the market share figures in their basic form don't tell the full story. Android does indeed have around 80% of the global market but it's only around 35% of their sector where the consumers own high end Android smartphones. The OS supplies manufacturers and devices across a wide range of price points and there are still more users on Gingerbread than the last two latest software releases. This suggests to me the market share is boosted by the budget market and perhaps in countries where the demand for older devices is higher due to cost.

The iPhone is the biggest selling high end smartphone in western markets and I doubt Apple are interested in consumers who for one are not buying their phones and two, would not be willing to pay a premium for it based on their smartphone budget. I don't support Apple in this plan but have bought their products for long enough to know they go for a certain target audience. There are also plenty of Android enabled wearables flooding the market and it's a sector Apple don't need to compete in, but attempt to tempt people away from if that makes sense?


----------



## Blancpain

Henraa said:


> The problem with the phone industry is the market share figures in their basic form don't tell the full story. Android does indeed have around 80% of the global market but it's only around 35% of their sector where the consumers own high end Android smartphones. The OS supplies manufacturers and devices across a wide range of price points and there are still more users on Gingerbread than the last two latest software releases. This suggests to me the market share is boosted by the budget market and perhaps in countries where the demand for older devices is higher due to cost.
> 
> The iPhone is the biggest selling high end smartphone in western markets and I doubt Apple are interested in consumers who for one are not buying their phones and two, would not be willing to pay a premium for it based on their smartphone budget. I don't support Apple in this plan but have bought their products for long enough to know they go for a certain target audience. There are also plenty of Android enabled wearables flooding the market and it's a sector Apple don't need to compete in, but attempt to tempt people away from if that makes sense?


You kinda just made my point. Apple is going for a different audience....a limited one. I'm as gung ho for Apple as the next guy...having owned Apple products since the Apple IIe (remember those?) And several versions of the iphone, but the majority of people still use non-fruit platforms.

So Apple makes more money than Google... That wasn't my point. Because Apple watch is considered a 'premium' watch, people will want it...but not necessarily afford it. That leaves the market open for cheaper smartwatches and regular watches.

As for the high end...Rolex, Patek, AP etc. are still going to be status symbols...more so than Apple can hope to be. The $10k watch will just be added to the collection of those who can afford those watches. It won't be one or the other... more like both.

I have no doubt Apple will sell a bazillion of their watches.. but all boats will be lifted by the rising waters.


----------



## Fer Guzman

Henraa said:


> I love Apple products I have to say. I own an iPhone 6, iPad Air, iPod Touch, and 2 MacBook Retina Pro's 2014 edition.... But I really don't get the iWatch at all. I think it is over priced for what it is and the prices they are charging for straps is cheeky in the extreme. I will stick to my gorgeous old fashioned mechanical watches and happily reach into my pocket and use the phone I have already paid good money for lol. No thanks Apple on this occasion.


I think prices are inline with what watchmakers charge today. I just bought a leather strap with deployant for a high end citizen it was 289 shipped from Japan, price in the USA was 400+ and it's no where near as as cool as the deployant or leather loop apple has. The apple bracelet requires no tools not even to take links out, to my knowledge no other watchmaker offers that.


----------



## Henraa

Blancpain said:


> You kinda just made my point. Apple is going for a different audience....a limited one. I'm as gung ho for Apple as the next guy...having owned Apple products since the Apple IIe (remember those?) And several versions of the iphone, but the majority of people still use non-fruit platforms.
> 
> So Apple makes more money than Google... That wasn't my point. Because Apple watch is considered a 'premium' watch, people will want it...but not necessarily afford it. That leaves the market open for cheaper smartwatches and regular watches.
> 
> As for the high end...Rolex, Patek, AP etc. are still going to be status symbols...more so than Apple can hope to be. The $10k watch will just be added to the collection of those who can afford those watches. It won't be one or the other... more like both.
> 
> I have no doubt Apple will sell a bazillion of their watches.. but all boats will be lifted by the rising waters.


I think Apple are going after the consumers already in the iphone sector and that is the biggest sector within the mobile industry at the high end. They were never going to make a budget watch that was cross platform so I think it makes sense to aim for the consumers who have already contributed to their vast profit. It's a big market, but I am yet to speak to an iPhone user who is even contemplating the iWatch in my small world. I don't think they are expecting to sell as many watches as they do iPhones but they will wish to appeal to more users than other manufacturers have managed to tempt. Personally I don't think the watch offers enough to even make me consider it. In a years time they will release the iWatch 2 and that will probably have a FaceTime camera, a bigger battery etc etc. it will sell well but how long the appeal will last will be interesting to see.

I agree I don't think the luxury watch industry has too much to worry about just yet.


----------



## Henraa

Fer Guzman said:


> I think prices are inline with what watchmakers charge today. I just bought a leather strap with deployant for a high end citizen it was 289 shipped from Japan, price in the USA was 400+ and it's no where near as as cool as the deployant or leather loop apple has. The apple bracelet requires no tools not even to take links out, to my knowledge no other watchmaker offers that.


That's true but I would probably spend that sort of money on a watch that would give me years, even decades of pleasure. Not sure I would spend it on a gadget that could be out of date or out of fashion in a few years time. Everybody is different though


----------



## DustinC

Blancpain said:


> Oh that's different! $5k for leather? I'm in!


The leather one has a solid 18k gold buckle. I guess that's where the price difference is coming from. Way overpriced still though.


----------



## BarracksSi

Apple is being unusually open about development of their Watch now that it's on its way.

http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-used-masks-and-climate-chambers-to-test-apple-watch-2015-3

Here's an excerpt:



> It turns out that Apple used Apple engineers, developers, and managers as test subjects to fine-tune the Apple Watch, and it all took place in a top secret lab where volunteers were hooked up to breathing masks as they exercised.
> 
> "[The employees] knew they were testing something, but they didn't know it was for the Apple Watch," Jeff Williams, Apple's senior vice president of operations, told ABC News. "We hooked them up with all the masks and so forth, but we would put on an Apple Watch covered up."


This is important because the calorie expenditure estimated by current HR-tracking devices-such as watches, bike computers, treadmills, and such-varies quite a bit, sometimes overestimating the user's effort by as much as 40%. The cycling forum I used to frequent often dismissed calorie counts as merely vague assumptions.

My own Garmin 410 used to get questions on web forums because its caloric expenditure numbers were much lower than what users had been seeing from earlier models. The answer was that the 410 was using a newer mathematic formula to make its estimates.

When you've got people who are trying to get fit by working out a certain amount, then counting their food intake to match, these discrepancies make enough of a difference to negate all their hard work.

The best way to figure out one's caloric expenditure is to go to a sports lab and don a mask and equipment that measures heart rate, oxygen intake, CO2 output, and other parameters. My bet is that Apple wanted to develop its own formula.


----------



## Smaug

Great post, Barracks. 

I noticed the prices on Apple.com, and they seem to start at $500, not something like $350, like it was originally going to. I had just about talked myself into a Pebble Time, as it will be priced at less than $200 for the base model, and does quite a lot. (though it won't directly measure heart rate, like Apple will. 

I wonder if they studied fat people at all. Or skinny people, or smokers vs. non-smokers. I'm skeptical that there is a wide enough sampling at Apple to represent the masses. The bending iPhone 6 is one example where wider testing could've been done. 

Are you guys seeing the ads for Pebble Time? Take a look at it. They have some good things going on, besides price: standard 22mm strap lugs, big array of sensors, (including GPS) nice interface, compatibility with iOS8 or Android, open source, etc.


----------



## BarracksSi

Smaug said:


> I noticed the prices on Apple.com, and they seem to start at $500, not something like $350, like it was originally going to. I had just about talked myself into a Pebble Time, as it will be priced at less than $200 for the base model, and does quite a lot. (though it won't directly measure heart rate, like Apple will.)


$500 is where the steel-cased model starts, but the aluminum 38mm is at $350 and the 42mm is $400. I'll probably end up with the aluminum unless I can talk my CFO into letting me spring for the steel and a couple straps (say, the sport band and either the mesh or a leather strap).


----------



## BarracksSi

Insider story on the creation of the Apple Watch. The interview is with Kevin Lynch, formerly a higher-up at Adobe, hired by Apple in 2013 to work on the still-secret Watch:

http://www.wired.com/2015/04/the-apple-watch/



> The business implications are important to Apple, of course, but the problem the Watch aims to solve is legitimately important outside of Cupertino. If the Watch is successful, it could impact our relationship with our devices. Technology distracts us from the things we should pay the most attention to-our friends, moments of awe, a smile from across the room. But maybe a technology can give those moments back. Whether Apple is the company to make that technology is the three-quarters-of-a-trillion-dollar-market-cap question.
> 
> Lynch is leaning forward in his chair, telling me about his kids: about how grateful he is to be able to simply glance at his Watch, realize that the latest text message isn't immediately important, and then go right back to family time; about how that doesn't feel disruptive to him-or them.
> 
> A moment later, he stands up. He has to leave; he owes Dye and Ive an update on something important. In all the time we've been talking, he's never once looked at his phone.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> Apple is being unusually open about development of their Watch now that it's on its way.
> 
> Apple used masks and climate chambers to test Apple Watch - Business Insider
> 
> Here's an excerpt:
> 
> This is important because the calorie expenditure estimated by current HR-tracking devices-such as watches, bike computers, treadmills, and such-varies quite a bit, sometimes overestimating the user's effort by as much as 40%. The cycling forum I used to frequent often dismissed calorie counts as merely vague assumptions.
> 
> My own Garmin 410 used to get questions on web forums because its caloric expenditure numbers were much lower than what users had been seeing from earlier models. The answer was that the 410 was using a newer mathematic formula to make its estimates.
> 
> When you've got people who are trying to get fit by working out a certain amount, then counting their food intake to match, these discrepancies make enough of a difference to negate all their hard work.
> 
> The best way to figure out one's caloric expenditure is to go to a sports lab and don a mask and equipment that measures heart rate, oxygen intake, CO2 output, and other parameters. My bet is that Apple wanted to develop its own formula.


That is interesting. You know they won't be measuring oxygen intake
and CO2 output with a wrist mounted device. I suppose it helps to 
take all the data, but I wonder if it wouldn't be easiest to calibrate
by measuring the power output with a strain gauge on the test platform.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> That is interesting. You know they won't be measuring oxygen intake and CO2 output with a wrist mounted device. I suppose it helps to take all the data, but I wonder if it wouldn't be easiest to calibrate by measuring the power output with a strain gauge on the test platform.


I think the idea was to see how heart rate levels, along with age, gender, and body mass, equate with actual calorie output. I would expect that they would have used strain gauges and power meters when applicable, too.

The cycling community has much more respect for power meters, especially among competitive riders and geeky hobbyists. You'd hear riders talk about how many watts they can put out for a given span of time, like during a 30-second sprint, for example. Such bike-mounted meters are pretty comparable to laboratory analysis masks for estimating calorie output, too.


----------



## BarracksSi

http://nyti.ms/1aJE5qZ

A pretty fair assessment, including wishing for more granular control of notifications, and some annoyances with the UI. Here's his conclusion:



Farhad Manjoo at the NY Times said:


> But after a few days with the Apple Watch, I get a sense that they do more good than harm. It's not just that interactions on the watch are speedier and less socially intrusive than those on the phone. The Apple Watch also has another, hidden benefit: It is far less immersive than a phone. There just isn't that much to do on such a tiny screen, so you rarely feel yourself getting sucked in and lost.
> 
> Consider this: The Apple Watch has no web browser. If you come upon a web link in an email message, a tweet or some other app, tapping it does nothing. This absence eliminates whole avenues of procrastination - there's no Google, Wikipedia or BuzzFeed.
> 
> While there are some news and entertainment apps for the watch, they consume precious little time.
> 
> And that, to me, is the biggest difference between this device and a phone. The watch, for now, is all business, aimed solely at improving your productivity. For some users, that alone might be worth several hundred dollars.


----------



## BarracksSi

The embargo on Apple Watch reviews has indeed been lifted. Here's John Gruber's take.

http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch



> In short, I think Apple Watch might be a tougher sell to current watch wearers than non-watch wearers. Non-watch wearers have an open wrist, and if they cared about the glance-able convenience of an always-visible watch dial, they would be wearing a traditional watch already. Watch wearers, on the other hand, already have something on their wrist that Apple Watch needs to replace,3 and the reason they already have a watch on their wrist is that they care about telling time at a glance - something Apple Watch is (and only ever will be, I suspect) merely OK at, not great at.





> To me, the breakthrough in Apple Watch is the Taptic Engine and force touch. Technically, they're two separate things. The Taptic Engine allows Apple Watch to tap you; force touch allows Apple Watch to recognize a stronger press from your finger. But they seem to go together. The new MacBook trackpad has both haptic feedback and recognition of force touches, and Apple Watch has both, too. I don't think Apple will ever release a device that has one but not the other.
> 
> This is the introduction of a new dimension in input and output, and for me, it's central to the appeal of Apple Watch. By default, Apple Watch has sounds turned on for incoming notifications. I can see why this is the default, but in practice, I keep sounds turned off all the time,5 not just in contexts where I typically silence my phone. Taps are all I need for notifications. They're strong enough that you notice them, but subtle enough that they don't feel like an interruption. When my phone vibrates, it feels like it's telling me, Hey, I need you now. When the Apple Watch taps me, it feels like it's telling me, Hey, when you get the chance, I've got something for you.


There's a lot more to read in his blog post.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> I think the idea was to see how heart rate levels, along with age, gender, and body mass, equate with actual calorie output. I would expect that they would have used strain gauges and power meters when applicable, too.


Perhaps there is more to the story. It appears Apple is trying to build a
pulse oximeter. For some reason they have decided to limit the functionality
at first release to only monitoring heart rate.

source: <http://www.apple.com/watch/technology/>


















BarracksSi said:


> The cycling community has much more respect for power meters, especially among competitive riders and geeky hobbyists. You'd hear riders talk about how many watts they can put out for a given span of time, like during a 30-second sprint, for example. Such bike-mounted meters are pretty comparable to laboratory analysis masks for estimating calorie output, too.


I read that as there is a market. Some people want to know.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

An oximeter might be doable, but even a smartphone app is able to read heart rate by using the camera and its LED flash. Does a regular oximeter work in the same way, or does it need to read through the skin?


----------



## Chibatastic

*Excited!!!
*
Getting the apple watch. Have been waiting for this since before they announced it and them some..

Chibatastic


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> An oximeter might be doable, but even a smartphone app is able to read heart rate by using the camera and its LED flash. Does a regular oximeter work in the same way, or does it need to read through the skin?


I am no oximeter expert, but yes it needs to read through the skin.

The measurement technique depends on the absorption difference
between oxygenated hemoglobin and non oxygenated hemoglobin.
Non-oxygenated absorbs more red light, while oxygenated absorbs
more infrared light. I think most oximeters shine light through the
blood. So, the light sources point at the detectors. It seems the
Apple Watch uses reflected light. I guess that makes measurement
and analysis more difficult, but apparently Apple is able to extract
the heart rate from the signal.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## tcpx

I'm still siding on the "no" side when it comes to the apple watch. Much like others, I still can't quite justify it for the price, just to become obsolete in 18-24 months. Plus, that left wrist is reserved for the Omega and Tudor.


----------



## BarracksSi

Just in case you see yet another post complaining that the Apple Watch can't get wet, refer them to this post.

Apple publishes that their Watch meets IPX7 spec:
Footnote 2 near the bottom:
Apple - Apple Watch - Stainless Steel Case with Black Sport Band


> 2. Apple Watch is splash and water resistant but not waterproof. You can, for example, wear and use Apple Watch during exercise, in the rain, and while washing your hands, but submerging Apple Watch is not recommended. Apple Watch has a water resistance rating of IPX7 under IEC standard 60529. The leather bands are not water resistant.


More detail here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code#Liquid_ingress_protection


> 7	Immersion up to 1 m	Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion).	Test duration: 30 minutes
> The lowest point of enclosures with a height less than 850 mm is located 1000 mm below the surface of the water, the highest point of enclosures with a height equal to or greater than 850 mm is located 150 mm below the surface of the water[/quote
> 
> Garmin's note about their devices and IPX7 and IPX8 specs:
> IPX Ratings
> 
> Apple CEO Tim Cook says he wears his in the shower:
> Tim Cook Takes Showers With His Apple Watch - WatchAware
> Tim Cook apparently showers with his Apple Watch | TechnoBuffalo
> Tim Cook: I Wear My Apple Watch In The Shower, Charge It Every Night | Redmond Pie


----------



## ilikefishes

rationaltime said:


> I am no oximeter expert, but yes it needs to read through the skin.
> 
> The measurement technique depends on the absorption difference
> between oxygenated hemoglobin and non oxygenated hemoglobin.
> Non-oxygenated absorbs more red light, while oxygenated absorbs
> more infrared light. I think most oximeters shine light through the
> blood. So, the light sources point at the detectors. It seems the
> Apple Watch uses reflected light. I guess that makes measurement
> and analysis more difficult, but apparently Apple is able to extract
> the heart rate from the signal.
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


I think you are more of am expert than you think you are. Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## BarracksSi

What the Apple Watch can do without a phone:

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/Apple+Watch/Apple+Watch/feature.asp

Tl;dr --

According to this writer, it can keep time, play onboard music via Bluetooth, Passbook items, Apple Pay, movement tracking, and Internet tasks for native apps like Siri if it's on a wifi network.

Can't do: third-party apps (not until Apple rolls out native app abilities later this year or early next year), make phone calls.

----- I'm not so sure how accurate this article is. I had understood that Apple Pay needed a phone, [edit - corrected by Fer Guzman below] and that it could manage VOIP for phone calls (like what FaceTime Audio can do). Keep an eye open for later clarification.

*edit* About third-party apps, the writer says it "might change in future versions of the WatchKit SDK or later revisions of the Apple Watch itself." This should not be mere speculation, as Apple has told its developers that while the Watch will be restricted to loading data from phone apps at first, the ability to load native apps will come later. This rollout is similar to how the original iPhone was only allowed to run web apps for a while.


----------



## Fer Guzman

^the watch has its own nfc chip, when you set up apple pay on the watch it's separate than the apple pay on the phone.


----------



## BarracksSi

Fer Guzman said:


> ^the watch has its own nfc chip, when you set up apple pay on the watch it's separate than the apple pay on the phone.


It can't be set up separately on the watch, it can only be set up on an iPhone (5 or newer) or a newer iPad.

But, you're right, you don't need to have your iPhone on you. I've been misreading "when paired with an iPhone" as meaning "connected at that moment". I may have read that months ago but forgot.


----------



## Fer Guzman

What I meant was the phone and apple watch will have different apple pays set up. In other words if you currently have an iPhone 6 with X credit card, you will have to add that same card to the watch. I'm assuming the set up process is done through the apple watch app though. The watch will be able to tell when you take it off and on so if you take it off and someone tries to use apple pay with it they won't because the watch will ask for an unlocking code once it's put back on.


----------



## BarracksSi

C|Net video from Australia about how you can try on an Apple Watch:


----------



## ahmedsaad123

*Re: iWatch*

The Apple Watch actually looks pretty ver very good


----------



## BarracksSi

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...ort-resound-debuts-watch-app-for-hearing-aids

If you've never been annoyed that you always have to drag your iPhone out of your pocket to adjust your hearing aid, the second item in this article wouldn't interest you.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> Yahoo outs plans for Apple Watch support, ReSound debuts Watch app for hearing aids
> 
> If you've never been annoyed that you always have to drag your iPhone out of your pocket to adjust your hearing aid, the second item in this article wouldn't interest you.


That's interesting. 
What advantage is there to having a hearing aid be controlled by a phone?
Does the phone provide some signal processing that would not fit in a hearing aid?
Where would the adjustment be on a hearing aid not controlled by a phone?
Would a hearing aid have gating and agc?

I may need to do a little search.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

One of my coworkers has that brand of hearing aid (a few too many explosions during deployments), but I'm not sure if he can adjust them or if he even knows about the app. I showed him the article in passing, though, and he said, "Cool!"

These are priced in the thousands, if I remember correctly.


----------



## BarracksSi

Apple Watch and heart rate, including how the watch reads it:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> Apple Watch and heart rate, including how the watch reads it:
> 
> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204666


That's interesting. If they don't get enough signal with the
infrared LED they turn on the green LEDs. Thanks for the link.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> Yahoo outs plans for Apple Watch support, ReSound debuts Watch app for hearing aids
> 
> If you've never been annoyed that you always have to drag your iPhone out of your pocket to adjust your hearing aid, the second item in this article wouldn't interest you.


Washington University posted some good information about hearing
aid technology. --> Hearing Aid Technology
As you might guess it turns out current model hearing aids use
digital signal processing.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

Totally unofficial Apple Watch screen abuse tests (supposedly):

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...screen-passes-scratch-test-with-flying-colors

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...x-glass-put-through-scratch-test-in-new-video


----------



## BarracksSi

Finally, the teardown at iFixit.com --

https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple+Watch+Teardown/40655

rationaltime, they mention the heart rate monitor and how it's actually a plethysmograph, which could run it as an oximeter -- but the reason why it's just doing HR is because of FDA regulations.


----------



## BarracksSi

Mobile version:
http://m.imore.com/28-apple-watch-tips-and-tricks-you-should-know

Desktop version:
http://www.imore.com/28-apple-watch-tips-and-tricks-you-should-know

A whole lot of things to try, a number of which use Force Touch to activate.


----------



## Cannonball

Pretty disappointment I won't be able to use it as a whoopie cushion.

Apple Bans Fart Watch From Apple Watch App Store


----------



## BarracksSi

Secret Apple Watch options: 14 Force Touch tips for your wrist | iMore


----------



## arogle1stus

*Re: iWatch*

86% will not buy!!!!
Kinda a resolved issue among WUSers isn't it?
Apple (Billy Gates i.e.) is averaging $75 billion every 3 months (per WSJ)
And I'm gonna help him make it $75 billion plus my purchase price? NOT!!!!
Call me a Purist nut, but I prefer REAL WATCHES. Those kinds with balance
wheels, pallet forks, escapements nuther words. Pox on thee Gates!!!!
Will John Q Public buy em (at first yeah) Whatta bout when the new wears off?
Kinda/sorta like Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose"?

X traindriver Art


----------



## zetaplus93

*Re: iWatch*



arogle1stus said:


> Apple (Billy Gates i.e.) is averaging $75 billion every 3 months (per WSJ)


? Apple and Bill Gates (ie Microsoft) are not affiliated...


----------



## Chris Hughes

*Re: iWatch*



Arthur M said:


> Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. When the iPhone first came out, the majority of "those in the know" were quite disparaging towards it. In the end, it dominated. The apple watch isn't for us watch enthusiasts. It's for normal people who go buy a swatch, or a fossil and leave the store thinking they have a high quality watch. Considering all the hype on all the sites I follow (even wus), the apple watch will dominate its own genre, assimilate many who go after swatch/fossil and the sub $400 watch crowd (with the possible exception of the Seiko and Citizen purchaser; they tend to be looking for a mechanical watch rather than a useful accessory) and bleed into the ranks of the "WIS". The question is: will the apple watch be enough to compel the many who have jumped ship to come back from android. For me, yes; then again, that might be because I'm with blackberry&#8230;


Exactly this (and sorry for the late reply. Just catching up.) As much as Apple would love you to believe, slapping a solid gold case on the exact same hardware as the bottom end aluminum option doesn't magically make it a premium watch. It just makes it an object of conspicuous consumption. A fashion piece. A fine chronometer on the other hand is a genuinely crafted object, even if the price is similarly inflated and the cases over emphasized. In that respect mechanical watches will always have a market with people like us who appreciate technology from a different age and who can't spare valuable wrist space for what (at the moment) amounts to little more than a gimmick.

Personally, I'd like to see Apple develop some other kind of remote sensing hardware so that people like us could take advantage of the watch's features without having to surrender our wrists to it.


----------



## Chris Hughes

*Re: iWatch*



arogle1stus said:


> 86% will not buy!!!!
> Kinda a resolved issue among WUSers isn't it?
> Apple (Billy Gates i.e.) is averaging $75 billion every 3 months (per WSJ)
> And I'm gonna help him make it $75 billion plus my purchase price? NOT!!!!
> Call me a Purist nut, but I prefer REAL WATCHES. Those kinds with balance
> wheels, pallet forks, escapements nuther words. Pox on thee Gates!!!!
> Will John Q Public buy em (at first yeah) Whatta bout when the new wears off?
> Kinda/sorta like Howard Hughes "Spruce Goose"?
> 
> X traindriver Art


It's Tim Cook, and I'd be very careful about drawing too many conclusions from the poll. Again, we're looking at the launch hardware. The watch will evolve significantly from here. The fact that few of us are interested in early adopting it is to be expected. It's going to have to offer a lot more to unseat traditional watches in most of our wardrobes. But evolve it will and converts it will undoubtedly gain in the process.


----------



## shnjb

*Re: iWatch*



Chris Hughes said:


> Exactly this (and sorry for the late reply. Just catching up.) As much as Apple would love you to believe, slapping a solid gold case on the exact same hardware as the bottom end aluminum option doesn't magically make it a premium watch. It just makes it an object of conspicuous consumption. A fashion piece. A fine chronometer on the other hand is a genuinely crafted object, even if the price is similarly inflated and the cases over emphasized. In that respect mechanical watches will always have a market with people like us who appreciate technology from a different age and who can't spare valuable wrist space for what (at the moment) amounts to little more than a gimmick.
> 
> Personally, I'd like to see Apple develop some other kind of remote sensing hardware so that people like us could take advantage of the watch's features without having to surrender our wrists to it.


People buying the gold edition Apple watch are clearly a different group from people who buy a couple of 10000-20000 watches; they're the types who buy a few 20k watches, a few 50k watches and a few 300k+ watches for a really special occasion, etc. So far the only people who have been seen with those are celebs and billionaires' heirs.
Of course there are probably many who aren't famous buying the thing too but it is clearly not the usual people posting on watch forums or even Instagram.


----------

