# Nice read on one journalists take on the Apple watch



## Ottski44

Don't buy the Apple Watch - buy a real watch instead - Yahoo Finance

I found this article to be a nice read.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## John MS




----------



## rgdipietro

"Use it for a down payment on an Omega Seamaster. You can get a certified pre-owned version for about $3,000. Make payments for a year or so and then own it free and clear. Forever. Because it will last ... forever, if serviced and cared for properly. It's easily the best value there is in high-end Swiss automatic watches. No, it's not a Rolex Submariner. But it's basically the same watch, and it's thousands less."

...and that's where I tuned out.


----------



## brandon\

Oh man... a two-for-one.



> [an Omega Seamaster is] easily the best value there is in high-end Swiss automatic watches. No, it's not a Rolex Submariner. But it's basically the same watch...


Omega is high-end AND basically the same thing as a Rolex. This is troll gold.


----------



## kaiserphoenix

Well yeah it's not "basically the same watch" at all but I can see what he wants to say....I mean I do agree with many of his points regarding planned redundancies concerning technological products but there is also difference in utility. The Apple watch does so much more than just show the time which is what an Omwga or Seiko will do tell the time, less accurately at that. 

I won't be replacing any of my watches for an Apple watch for sure but curious to see how it will turn out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mav

I'm less focused on what Swiss watch he recommends but whether the general premise of the entire article.


----------



## rgdipietro

mav said:


> I'm less focused on what Swiss watch he recommends but whether the general premise of the entire article.


The problem, though, is this... how can you trust the opinion of a guy who comes off like such a watch snob, but clearly has no idea what he's talking about?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Crunchy

Phew, I won't need to liquidate all my watches after all..


----------



## Memphis1

That was probably written by a WUS noob... Super lazy article.... Probably doesn't know how to use Google... OP should be banned for calling it a "nice read".

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing

"Use it for a down payment on an Omega Seamaster. You can get a certified pre-owned version for about $3,000. Make payments for a year or so and then own it free and clear. Forever. Because it will last ... forever, if serviced and cared for properly. It's easily the best value there is in high-end Swiss automatic watches. No, it's not a Rolex Submariner. But it's basically the same watch, and it's thousands less."











Anyhow, to get back to the real point of the article. Yeah, that's what I was saying all along! First generation device with problems, less useful than your i-phone and worth f--- all after a year or two. Yahoo Finance you're stealing my ideas!


----------



## Watchbreath

Now, to find a way to stop calling those things watches.


----------



## Ottski44

Memphis1 said:


> That was probably written by a WUS noob... Super lazy article.... Probably doesn't know how to use Google... OP should be banned for calling it a "nice read".
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I appreciate your opinion; I was trying to highlight that for a non Watch enthusiast or a layman (most people who will read that article) the underlying point (which has been made on this forum before) is that a better investment or use of your capital in the watch game would be on a nice timepiece that will stand the test of time, rather than a piece of technology which will be outdated and obsolete in 6 months.

I love the honesty of this forum and thank you for your opinion. Please don't ban me.... 

OP

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## wbird

I've read the reviews and they are overwhelmingly positive, by people that have actually used the watch. You know the ones that have a picture of the apple product, not a seiko and omega in their review. I love my Swiss automatic watches,I don't have to piss on g-shocks or smartphones to feel better about them.

People are confused about what it does that is different than their phone. Ask your wife, about not having to dig into her purse to check a message or pay for coffee. For me while I'm on a run or in the gym my phone can stay strapped to my bicep, play music while the watch tracks all kinds of health things. Just to name a couple a couple of features.

The math is so screwed up I wonder why it is in the finance section. In the US the aluminum watch is 350. Assuming it's value falls like other Apple products I can trade it for at least 100 every 3 years. I have to pay 250 every 3 years. Thirty years later I spent a total of 2850 dollars and have the latest technology on my wrist.

If I buy an Omega (nice but not a Rolex) used for 3000, service it every 5 years, like I should, at a bargain rate of 200 dollars, thirty years later I'm out 4200 dollars. Assuming it's your average vintage Omega you need to find a buyer to give you 1350 to break even with the Apple. Anyone that's sold your average vintage watch (except for a few rare model) knows what to expect.

Bottom line, I would think most people are like me and buy a Swiss or Japanese timepiece for a million reasons least of which is resale value. As an investment it's just bad with a few rare exceptions.

As far as a family treasure, the last thing my kids are interested in are my watches. If at some point they become interested in watches they'll want to have what they like not what I bought.


----------



## picklepossy

wbird said:


> I've read the reviews and they are overwhelmingly positive, by people that have actually used the watch. You know the ones that have a picture of the apple product, not a seiko and omega in their review. I love my Swiss automatic watches,I don't have to piss on g-shocks or smartphones to feel better about them.
> 
> People are confused about what it does that is different than their phone. Ask your wife, about not having to dig into her purse to check a message or pay for coffee. For me while I'm on a run or in the gym my phone can stay strapped to my bicep, play music while the watch tracks all kinds of health things. Just to name a couple a couple of features.
> 
> The math is so screwed up I wonder why it is in the finance section. In the US the aluminum watch is 350. Assuming it's value falls like other Apple products I can trade it for at least 100 every 3 years. I have to pay 250 every 3 years. Thirty years later I spent a total of 2850 dollars and have the latest technology on my wrist.
> 
> If I buy an Omega (nice but not a Rolex) used for 3000, service it every 5 years, like I should, at a bargain rate of 200 dollars, thirty years later I'm out 4200 dollars. Assuming it's your average vintage Omega you need to find a buyer to give you 1350 to break even with the Apple. Anyone that's sold your average vintage watch (except for a few rare model) knows what to expect.
> 
> Bottom line, I would think most people are like me and buy a Swiss or Japanese timepiece for a million reasons least of which is resale value. As an investment it's just bad with a few rare exceptions.
> 
> As far as a family treasure, the last thing my kids are interested in are my watches. If at some point they become interested in watches they'll want to have what they like not what I bought.


WELL SAID!!!


----------



## watch-newbie

wbird said:


> I've read the reviews and they are overwhelmingly positive, by people that have actually used the watch. You know the ones that have a picture of the apple product, not a seiko and omega in their review. I love my Swiss automatic watches,I don't have to piss on g-shocks or smartphones to feel better about them.
> 
> People are confused about what it does that is different than their phone. Ask your wife, about not having to dig into her purse to check a message or pay for coffee. For me while I'm on a run or in the gym my phone can stay strapped to my bicep, play music while the watch tracks all kinds of health things. Just to name a couple a couple of features.
> 
> The math is so screwed up I wonder why it is in the finance section. In the US the aluminum watch is 350. Assuming it's value falls like other Apple products I can trade it for at least 100 every 3 years. I have to pay 250 every 3 years. Thirty years later I spent a total of 2850 dollars and have the latest technology on my wrist.
> 
> If I buy an Omega (nice but not a Rolex) used for 3000, service it every 5 years, like I should, at a bargain rate of 200 dollars, thirty years later I'm out 4200 dollars. Assuming it's your average vintage Omega you need to find a buyer to give you 1350 to break even with the Apple. Anyone that's sold your average vintage watch (except for a few rare model) knows what to expect.
> 
> Bottom line, I would think most people are like me and buy a Swiss or Japanese timepiece for a million reasons least of which is resale value. As an investment it's just bad with a few rare exceptions.
> 
> As far as a family treasure, the last thing my kids are interested in are my watches. If at some point they become interested in watches they'll want to have what they like not what I bought.


That's pretty much it. It's an extension of an iphone that I personally can't figure out why I would necessarily need. I'm not saying that someone else might not find it handy but for this guy, it's redundant.

That said being an apple pod person I would have bought this if the ticket price wasn't so high. Were it $140 I'd be there at launch to get one just because. I'm sure in this competitive market place it's priced as low as it can be but $400 cdn is way too high for me, considering I can't for the life of me figure out why I need it.


----------



## powerband

Watchbreath said:


> Now, to find a way to stop calling those things watches.


"Wrist wart"?

Sent from my slingshot using Tapatalk


----------



## powerband

wbird said:


> I've read the reviews and they are overwhelmingly positive, by people that have actually used the watch. You know the ones that have a picture of the apple product, not a seiko and omega in their review. I love my Swiss automatic watches,I don't have to piss on g-shocks or smartphones to feel better about them.
> 
> People are confused about what it does that is different than their phone. Ask your wife, about not having to dig into her purse to check a message or pay for coffee. For me while I'm on a run or in the gym my phone can stay strapped to my bicep, play music while the watch tracks all kinds of health things. Just to name a couple a couple of features.
> 
> The math is so screwed up I wonder why it is in the finance section. In the US the aluminum watch is 350. Assuming it's value falls like other Apple products I can trade it for at least 100 every 3 years. I have to pay 250 every 3 years. Thirty years later I spent a total of 2850 dollars and have the latest technology on my wrist.
> 
> If I buy an Omega (nice but not a Rolex) used for 3000, service it every 5 years, like I should, at a bargain rate of 200 dollars, thirty years later I'm out 4200 dollars. Assuming it's your average vintage Omega you need to find a buyer to give you 1350 to break even with the Apple. Anyone that's sold your average vintage watch (except for a few rare model) knows what to expect.
> 
> Bottom line, I would think most people are like me and buy a Swiss or Japanese timepiece for a million reasons least of which is resale value. As an investment it's just bad with a few rare exceptions.
> 
> As far as a family treasure, the last thing my kids are interested in are my watches. If at some point they become interested in watches they'll want to have what they like not what I bought.


Some really great points.

Sent from my slingshot using Tapatalk


----------



## balzebub

Meh, the Apple watch will still sell well, it's an apple.. And their marketing machine is top notch. I don't think that it's going to replace a luxury watch, the product life cycle is just too short? Personally I wouldn't ever get a smart watch? Unless it can replace my smart phone? 

The "smart" watch the I wouldn't mind buying would be one of the GPS sync seiko, citizen or Casio. 

sent using a flying carpet


----------



## Badbebe

If it takes 3 days for a New York Times tech columnist to figure out how Apple Watch is suppose to be used, that's a pretty big fail, especially from Apple. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eblackmo

kaiserphoenix said:


> Well yeah it's not "basically the same watch" at all but I can see what he wants to say....I mean I do agree with many of his points regarding planned redundancies concerning technological products but there is also *difference in utility*. The Apple watch does so much more than just show the time which is what an Omwga or Seiko will do tell the time, less accurately at that.
> 
> I won't be replacing any of my watches for an Apple watch for sure but curious to see how it will turn out.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


yep. it's really subjective. Whats a watch? Is a smart watch even a watch? (philosophical right? ;-P) It varies from person to person and I guess within demographics some more than others. No doubt the apple watch will sell like hotcakes. Apple are expert at marketing and hype look at how ubiquitous it is already. OMFG apple are releasing a smart watch I had better go and live in a cardboard box outside the front of an apple store for the next 5 months so I can be the first to get it. Of course Apple aren't so bad at tech either but the same goes for samsung, LG blah blah blah.


----------



## hantms

The article makes the obvious points of rapid obsolescence. The article linked inside the Yahoo article though is an eye-opener, listing just too many things that are clearly wrong with this 1st gen offering. Apple Watch reviews are bad - Business Insider


----------



## Gilby

Seems like this journalist did about a weeks worth of research on WUS...


----------



## BarracksSi

hbueain said:


> If it takes 3 days for a New York Times tech columnist to figure out how Apple Watch is suppose to be used, that's a pretty big fail, especially from Apple.


I know, that's been bugging me since I read it:
https://www.watchuseek.com/f513/iwatch-thread-1082561-26.html#post14778178

What I think will take getting used to is that it's a new device that's purposely made to _not_ demand attention all the time.

I mean, I can sit there over breakfast with my phone, browse WUS, then hop over to Facebook, follow a couple article links that friends had posted, remember that I need to check my work email, send a flurry of texts about the day's plan, play Candy crush for ten minutes, and then my coffee is empty and I have to cross the street to start work but first use the bathroom...

What these guys (reviewers at The Verge, NY Times, Gruber at Daring Fireball, etc) are finding is that, at least once they've got it configured how they like it, the Watch almost becomes a background device, and even keeps the phone stuffed away.

Here's Farhod Manjoo again at the Times:


> Day 5. Magic happens.
> 
> There is something magical about having a computer that no one notices right there on your wrist. I first experienced this magic while at lunch with a colleague. I'm usually a wreck at such meetings, because while I try to refrain from looking at my phone, my mind is constantly jonesing for the next digital hit.
> 
> Lunch today is different. My iPhone remains hidden deep in my pocket, and to all the world I am the picture of the predigital man. It is the middle of the workday, the busiest time for digital communication. Yet with the Apple Watch on my wrist, my mind remains calm, my compulsion to check the phone suddenly at bay. After spending the last few days customizing my notification settings, my watch is a hornet's nest of activity. It buzzes every few minutes to indicate incoming email and texts, tweets or Slack messages.
> 
> The buzzes aren't annoying. They go completely unnoticed by my colleague, while to an addict like me they're little hits of methadone - just enough contact with the digital world to whet my appetite, but not nearly as immersive, and socially disruptive, as reaching for my phone and eyeing its screen. I not only register the watch's buzzes, but several times while we're chatting, I surreptitiously check its screen. I scan some incoming messages and tweets, and even flag a couple of emails for later.
> 
> At the end of the meal, I ask my colleague if she's noticed me checking my watch. She is surprised; she hasn't seen it.


I can see myself toning down Watch notifications as much as possible--my phone is already pretty quiet--and I could leave my phone off the dinner table for the first time in ages.

If it works out like that... I'll be honest here -- it would be _fantastic._


----------



## brandon\

Ottski44 said:


> I appreciate your opinion; I was trying to highlight that for a non Watch enthusiast or a layman (most people who will read that article) the underlying point (which has been made on this forum before) is that a better investment or use of your capital in the watch game would be on a nice timepiece that will stand the test of time, rather than a piece of technology which will be outdated and obsolete in 6 months.
> 
> I love the honesty of this forum and thank you for your opinion. Please don't ban me....
> 
> OP
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I vote in favor of not banning you.

But it is pretty cool that a relatively mainstream media outlet recommended one of our forum favorites.


----------



## brandon\

watch-newbie said:


> I can't for the life of me figure out why I need it.


Because Steve Jobs.


----------



## Ace McLoud

BarracksSi said:


> I know, that's been bugging me since I read it:
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f513/iwatch-thread-1082561-26.html#post14778178
> 
> What I think will take getting used to is that it's a new device that's purposely made to _not_ demand attention all the time.
> 
> I mean, I can sit there over breakfast with my phone, browse WUS, then hop over to Facebook, follow a couple article links that friends had posted, remember that I need to check my work email, send a flurry of texts about the day's plan, play Candy crush for ten minutes, and then my coffee is empty and I have to cross the street to start work but first use the bathroom...
> 
> What these guys (reviewers at The Verge, NY Times, Gruber at Daring Fireball, etc) are finding is that, at least once they've got it configured how they like it, the Watch almost becomes a background device, and even keeps the phone stuffed away.
> 
> Here's Farhod Manjoo again at the Times:
> 
> I can see myself toning down Watch notifications as much as possible--my phone is already pretty quiet--and I could leave my phone off the dinner table for the first time in ages.
> 
> If it works out like that... I'll be honest here -- it would be _fantastic._


I don't see the point of all this. If you NEED to check notifications (for work purposes etc.) then your dinner guest should understand. If not, put the phone to silent and enjoy the meal.

Most of the jutifications I've seen here are simply 'a tiny bit of added convenience'. For me, that isn't worth the price of admission. Other people seem to think it is.


----------



## filcord

I have a Pebble Steel that I use only in church or when in court (I am a lawyer). It's something I don't enjoy using but have to, considering the circumstances. I cannot wait to change to my regular OM or eco drive at the first opportunity. Apple watch, nah!


----------



## Watch Fan in Beijing

BarracksSi said:


> I know, that's been bugging me since I read it:
> https://www.watchuseek.com/f513/iwatch-thread-1082561-26.html#post14778178
> 
> What I think will take getting used to is that it's a new device that's purposely made to _not_ demand attention all the time.
> 
> I mean, I can sit there over breakfast with my phone, browse WUS, then hop over to Facebook, follow a couple article links that friends had posted, remember that I need to check my work email, send a flurry of texts about the day's plan, play Candy crush for ten minutes, and then my coffee is empty and I have to cross the street to start work but first use the bathroom...
> 
> What these guys (reviewers at The Verge, NY Times, Gruber at Daring Fireball, etc) are finding is that, at least once they've got it configured how they like it, the Watch almost becomes a background device, and even keeps the phone stuffed away.
> 
> Here's Farhod Manjoo again at the Times:
> 
> I can see myself toning down Watch notifications as much as possible--my phone is already pretty quiet--and I could leave my phone off the dinner table for the first time in ages.
> 
> If it works out like that... I'll be honest here -- it would be _fantastic._


Good grief, I'm not that busy... and certainly not at dinner.

I mean look how much time I waste on this forum. [pssst, dont tell my clients]


----------



## BarracksSi

Watch Fan in Beijing said:


> Good grief, I'm not that busy... and certainly not at dinner.


I wish I wasn't, either. Whatever I do at my next job, I'd like to be able to leave work at work.


----------



## rgdipietro

wbird said:


> I've read the reviews and they are overwhelmingly positive, by people that have actually used the watch. You know the ones that have a picture of the apple product, not a seiko and omega in their review. I love my Swiss automatic watches,I don't have to piss on g-shocks or smartphones to feel better about them.
> 
> People are confused about what it does that is different than their phone. Ask your wife, about not having to dig into her purse to check a message or pay for coffee. For me while I'm on a run or in the gym my phone can stay strapped to my bicep, play music while the watch tracks all kinds of health things. Just to name a couple a couple of features.
> 
> The math is so screwed up I wonder why it is in the finance section. In the US the aluminum watch is 350. Assuming it's value falls like other Apple products I can trade it for at least 100 every 3 years. I have to pay 250 every 3 years. Thirty years later I spent a total of 2850 dollars and have the latest technology on my wrist.
> 
> If I buy an Omega (nice but not a Rolex) used for 3000, service it every 5 years, like I should, at a bargain rate of 200 dollars, thirty years later I'm out 4200 dollars. Assuming it's your average vintage Omega you need to find a buyer to give you 1350 to break even with the Apple. Anyone that's sold your average vintage watch (except for a few rare model) knows what to expect.
> 
> Bottom line, I would think most people are like me and buy a Swiss or Japanese timepiece for a million reasons least of which is resale value. As an investment it's just bad with a few rare exceptions.
> 
> As far as a family treasure, the last thing my kids are interested in are my watches. If at some point they become interested in watches they'll want to have what they like not what I bought.


There's a few things you forgot about... Inflation and sales tax.

Using the Rolex Sub as a benchmark, only because it's relatively easy to find the MSRP from thirty years ago, we can determine that the MSRP has increased roughly 400% since 1985. If we use the Sub as model for a luxury good that could potentially increase in value over the next 30 years, and apply that model to the Apple watch, I think you might be surprised when you realize how much the system you're talking about could end up costing over a given period of time.

So a few numbers, real quick...
*I used 6% as the value for sales tax, that's what it is here in Florida.
*In your post, you talk about buying a new Apple watch every three years. Over thirty years, then, you would purchase ten watches..
*So if the model is the Rolex Sub, and the Sub has increased in value 400% since 1985, we can conclude that every three years, the MSRP of our luxury good (Apple watch, in this case) would appreciate at a relative 40%, per three year cycle.
*We'll follow your lead and say you could resell the older model for $100 initially, but as the value of the good increases, so will the value of the used good. So if we're talking about a $100 return on your initial investment of $350, we're talking about 28.75%, give or take. So let's say that for every sales cycle, your return will be $28.75 greater than the last sales cycle. Like this... Year one- no discount, year three- $100 return, year six- $128.75 return, year nine $158.75 return, and so on.
*Additionally, we'll add 6% sales tax to every transaction.

Now take a look at the math...










You'll see that even if the MSRP of the Apple watch increases 400% over the next thirty years, it'll still only be a paltry $1391.25 initial investment WITH 6% sales tax in 2045. Most of us spent more than that on a watch last year, no big deal, right?

...BUT...

...remember, you're talking about buying a new one every three years. So while you're making 30% back on your investment, you're still paying about 70% of the MSRP, which itself is increasing by 40% every three years.

Add up the last column. This is the adjusted price that you spent after reinvesting your dividend from the sale of the used good, and additionally, includes your sales tax...










$9,500. And you have a $1400 watch to show for it, that you won't be able to get $600 for when you go to sell it in three years.

The guy that bought the Rolex? He payed $9,000, plus a $500 service every ten years ($10,500), and (if the past thirty years is an accurate indicator) will very nearly hold that value.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Ace McLoud

wbird said:


> I've read the reviews and they are overwhelmingly positive, by people that have actually used the watch. You know the ones that have a picture of the apple product, not a seiko and omega in their review. I love my Swiss automatic watches,I don't have to piss on g-shocks or smartphones to feel better about them.
> 
> People are confused about what it does that is different than their phone. Ask your wife, about not having to dig into her purse to check a message or pay for coffee. For me while I'm on a run or in the gym my phone can stay strapped to my bicep, play music while the watch tracks all kinds of health things. Just to name a couple a couple of features.
> 
> The math is so screwed up I wonder why it is in the finance section. In the US the aluminum watch is 350. Assuming it's value falls like other Apple products I can trade it for at least 100 every 3 years. I have to pay 250 every 3 years. Thirty years later I spent a total of 2850 dollars and have the latest technology on my wrist.
> 
> If I buy an Omega (nice but not a Rolex) used for 3000, service it every 5 years, like I should, at a bargain rate of 200 dollars, thirty years later I'm out 4200 dollars. Assuming it's your average vintage Omega you need to find a buyer to give you 1350 to break even with the Apple. Anyone that's sold your average vintage watch (except for a few rare model) knows what to expect.
> 
> Bottom line, I would think most people are like me and buy a Swiss or Japanese timepiece for a million reasons least of which is resale value. As an investment it's just bad with a few rare exceptions.
> 
> As far as a family treasure, the last thing my kids are interested in are my watches. If at some point they become interested in watches they'll want to have what they like not what I bought.


I've seen reviews criticising it too. I see the postives you cite as extremely minor, and not worth the outlay for some minor conveniences (with the added hassle of keeping the battery charged).

Your maths may check out, but that isn't taking into account the resale value of the Omega, or the fact that it is _the same watch_. Your children may change their mind in 30 years time, and appreciate a watch worn every day for 30 years as opposed to some gadget you bought 12 months ago.


----------



## mpalmer

This writer seems to conveniently forget that mechanical watches need to be serviced...


----------



## Lelocle

Doesn't matter what the haters say. People will line up to buy it because it has an apple logo. They'll get the cheapest one. 

People who want a watch will go buy a watch. I doubt someone looking for an Omega Seamaster will go, oh man, screw that, I have to get me an apple watch. 

Also so the customer who's going to get an apple watch has no idea what an Omega Seamaster is. These are the customers who say, why are you paying $3,000 for an Omega? You can get a Casio for $30.


----------



## Lelocle

rgdipietro said:


> There's a few things you forgot about... Inflation and sales tax.
> 
> Using the Rolex Sub as a benchmark, only because it's relatively easy to find the MSRP from thirty years ago, we can determine that the MSRP has increased roughly 400% since 1985. If we use the Sub as model for a luxury good that could potentially increase in value over the next 30 years, and apply that model to the Apple watch, I think you might be surprised when you realize how much the system you're talking about could end up costing over a given period of time.
> 
> So a few numbers, real quick...
> *I used 6% as the value for sales tax, that's what it is here in Florida.
> *In your post, you talk about buying a new Apple watch every three years. Over thirty years, then, you would purchase ten watches..
> *So if the model is the Rolex Sub, and the Sub has increased in value 400% since 1985, we can conclude that every three years, the MSRP of our luxury good (Apple watch, in this case) would appreciate at a relative 40%, per three year cycle.
> *We'll follow your lead and say you could resell the older model for $100 initially, but as the value of the good increases, so will the value of the used good. So if we're talking about a $100 return on your initial investment of $350, we're talking about 28.75%, give or take. So let's say that for every sales cycle, your return will be $28.75 greater than the last sales cycle. Like this... Year one- no discount, year three- $100 return, year six- $128.75 return, year nine $158.75 return, and so on.
> *Additionally, we'll add 6% sales tax to every transaction.
> 
> Now take a look at the math...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll see that even if the MSRP of the Apple watch increases 400% over the next thirty years, it'll still only be a paltry $1391.25 initial investment WITH 6% sales tax in 2045. Most of us spent more than that on a watch last year, no big deal, right?
> 
> ...BUT...
> 
> ...remember, you're talking about buying a new one every three years. So while you're making 30% back on your investment, you're still paying about 70% of the MSRP, which itself is increasing by 40% every three years.
> 
> Add up the last column. This is the adjusted price that you spent after reinvesting your dividend from the sale of the used good, and additionally, includes your sales tax...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $9,500. And you have a $1400 watch to show for it, that you won't be able to get $600 for when you go to sell it in three years.
> 
> The guy that bought the Rolex? He payed $9,000, plus a $500 service every ten years ($10,500), and (if the past thirty years is an accurate indicator) will very nearly hold that value.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Thats a lot of work into that post. But you do realize the person who buys an apple watch couldn't give 3 craps about any of this.


----------



## Lelocle

Ace McLoud said:


> I don't see the point of all this. If you NEED to check notifications (for work purposes etc.) then your dinner guest should understand. If not, put the phone to silent and enjoy the meal.
> 
> Most of the jutifications I've seen here are simply 'a tiny bit of added convenience'. For me, that isn't worth the price of admission. Other people seem to think it is.


But you could make this same argument about the guy who blew $10,000 on a Rolex. You NEED to have the time on your wrist? You can't look up and look at the microwave, or the wall, or your phone, or the computer screen your staring at right now?

So you can check the time by looking at your wrist. A tiny bit of added convenience. That's worth $10,000?

the person who buys the apple watch does it because they want to. They want to have the latest from apple. They want a new toy.

Let people buy what they want. Life is short. You want to feel cool wearing a solid gold rolex? Blow $25,000? Got for it. You want to blow $400 on a stupid apple watch to send smiley faces to your friend? Go for it. It is their money.


----------



## wbird

Actually I was being conservative. First track Macs, iPod, and iPhone prices, like all technology they stay flat or go down.

Recommended service for an omega (and my breitling) is every 5 years and 200 would be a bargain. It will probably be much more(think you might need a band, crystal or crown in say 20 or 30 years). And service cost will increase with inflation and so will parts. You will pay tax on them also.

Let's not even get into time value and opportunity costs associated with the initial investment that all work against the omega, seiko and for that matter the Rolex. 

As far as resale the odds that omega or seiko appreciating are really slim. With Rolex making 700,000 new watches a year you're in a pretty competive market when you try to sell that watch also. Of course you're selling any of these watches yourself because you know what, let's say tourneu, will offer you to buy versus what they sell it for. Hopefully you can avoid auction fees and it's good economy when you choose to sell.

Predicting the future of a technology product or a luxury watch depends on a lot of assumptions and is sketchy at best. Your example assumed 400% appreciation and 3 service cycles at a fixed rate. I assumed watch service costs and new Apple purchases will be about equal, and omega/seiko depreciation.

The point I was making is there are very few if any watches that are a good investments and an apple watch is a horrible investment. But since the initial opportunity cost for the apple product is so low and recurring costs are similar to a luxury watch, and luxury watches typically depreciate; You are not going to make a killing buying that omega or seiko vs the apple like the author was suggesting.

Even more importantly why are we even comparing an apple watch to a Rolex? Does anyone actually believe somebody was going to buy a Rolex and is holding off till they see that Apple? Or that kid camping out waiting for his Apple watch is thinking about an omega or Rolex. People will buy what they want, like, can afford, and none of them are thinking resale value.


----------



## vkalia

watch-newbie said:


> considering I can't for the life of me figure out why I need it.


That's what people also said about the iPad. I think the convenience factor of this is going to very high, especially given that most people arent wedded to nice watches and do have an "open slot" on their wrist.


----------



## vkalia

Lelocle said:


> But you could make this same argument about the guy who blew $10,000 on a Rolex. You NEED to have the time on your wrist? You can't look up and look at the microwave, or the wall, or your phone, or the computer screen your staring at right now?
> 
> So you can check the time by looking at your wrist. A tiny bit of added convenience. That's worth $10,000?


That's an excellent point, very succinctly stated.

I find it very strange when hobbyists moan about other people not understanding their passions, and then proceed to do the same about other people and THEIR interests.


----------



## Ace McLoud

Lelocle said:


> Ace McLoud said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the point of all this. If you NEED to check notifications (for work purposes etc.) then your dinner guest should understand. If not, put the phone to silent and enjoy the meal.
> 
> Most of the jutifications I've seen here are simply 'a tiny bit of added convenience'. For me, that isn't worth the price of admission. Other people seem to think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> But you could make this same argument about the guy who blew $10,000 on a Rolex. You NEED to have the time on your wrist? You can't look up and look at the microwave, or the wall, or your phone, or the computer screen your staring at right now?
> 
> So you can check the time by looking at your wrist. A tiny bit of added convenience. That's worth $10,000?
> 
> the person who buys the apple watch does it because they want to. They want to have the latest from apple. They want a new toy.
> 
> Let people buy what they want. Life is short. You want to feel cool wearing a solid gold rolex? Blow $25,000? Got for it. You want to blow $400 on a stupid apple watch to send smiley faces to your friend? Go for it. It is their money.
Click to expand...

That's not the point I'm making. You don't buy a watch solely to tell the time anymore. Especially not a $10,000 watch. We know they don't tell the time any better.

Nobody is saying that Apple fans won't buy one, or telling anyone how to spend their money. We're saying they are a poor investment, even by watch standards. It also doesn't seem to offer the functionality that Apple is depending on to attract the majority of buyers who will be on the fence.


----------



## Ace McLoud

vkalia said:


> Lelocle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you could make this same argument about the guy who blew $10,000 on a Rolex. You NEED to have the time on your wrist? You can't look up and look at the microwave, or the wall, or your phone, or the computer screen your staring at right now?
> 
> So you can check the time by looking at your wrist. A tiny bit of added convenience. That's worth $10,000?
> 
> 
> 
> That's an excellent point, very succinctly stated.
> 
> I find it very strange when hobbyists moan about other people not understanding their passions, and then proceed to do the same about other people and THEIR interests.
Click to expand...

It's not the hobbyists that we're moaning about, its the majority of 'normal' people who use their phone as a phone, not as a religious icon. It's not certain that they will be won over by any means. Most gave up wearing a watch years ago.


----------



## BarracksSi

Should we keep using this thread for posting journalist/blogger reviews?

http://www.theverge.com/a/apple-watch-review



Nilay Patel said:


> There's no question that the Apple Watch is the most capable smartwatch available today. It is one of the most ambitious products I've ever seen; it wants to do and change so much about how we interact with technology. But that ambition robs it of focus: it can do tiny bits of everything, instead of a few things extraordinarily well. For all of its technological marvel, the Apple Watch is still a smartwatch, and it's not clear that anyone's yet figured out what smartwatches are actually for.


It's still clearly a Gen 1 device, and his main annoyances (app load times in particular, and mixed support from current third-party apps) reflect as much.

He does remark that it feels "surprisingly heavy", more than his plastic Nixon but just past half the weight of his Baume & Mercier. He also prefers the leather band to the Milanese mesh loop, which is opposite of the NY Times writer's preference -- which also attests to the personalization that the Watch can manage.

I waited for the second-gen iPhone, but I couldn't resist the first-gen iPad. I think I'll do what I can to get myself an Apple Watch.


----------



## vkalia

Ace McLoud said:


> That's not the point I'm making. You don't buy a watch solely to tell the time anymore. Especially not a $10,000 watch. We know they don't tell the time any better.
> 
> Nobody is saying that Apple fans won't buy one, or telling anyone how to spend their money. *We're saying they are a poor investment, even by watch standards.* It also doesn't seem to offer the functionality that Apple is depending on to attract the majority of buyers who will be on the fence.


It's $350, for crying out loud. Hardly a significant sum of money, all things considered. It is by far a less painful investment than spending $5000/10,000 on a watch that "lasts forever", provided you spend $500-1000 every 5 years servicing it. And until parts run out. Or a laptop. Or a phone. Or a dinner at a Michelin starred restaurant. Or many, many other things.

If you are talking about the $10k watch, that may make sense but that is likely targetng a different sort of collector.


----------



## vkalia

Ace McLoud said:


> It's not the hobbyists that we're moaning about, its the majority of 'normal' people who use their phone as a phone, not as a religious icon. It's not certain that they will be won over by any means. Most gave up wearing a watch years ago.


I think my point was that we, as hobbyists, are "surprised" that other people would go for a product that we consider irrelevant, when we should be used to the shoe being on the other foot.

Until the iPad came out, hardly anyone used a tablet. And look at the ubiquity now. I think the issue is that people are assuming that this is going to be a watch, or an extension of the phone, or whatever, and projecting from there.

It is not. It is going to be somewhat unique device that creates its own unique use case. Smart watches as a technology have been around for a while - as have touchscreen phones (I used to use HTCs way before they were sold as HTCs and before iPhones) or even digital media players. What Apple brings to the table is functionality - they arent selling "features of the device", they are selling "look at all the things you can do with this".

Among other things, as the phone evolves from being a device for voice communication to a general information-acquisition device, the old form factor (a block that you have to hold in one hand) is going to evolve. This is a step in that direction.

Speaking in general (not referring to you, Ace): I dont really know why people are so up in arms about the Apple Watch. Ok, so it isnt something you want. Fine. There are PLENTY of products coming out every day that I dont find useful but which other people do. What's the point of pooh-poohing the product just b/c you dont see the point? Plenty of other people do.


----------



## filcord

Actually when I buy a watch, resale is never an option, my old watches are given away. But then, I'm not in the Rolex league. What I don't understand is the apple attraction. Steve Jobs was the savviest pusher in town, notwithstanding his other qualities. Enough has been said about the way Apple products are put together, their non-serviceability, etc. 
Apple watch, Casio, pebble, they will all fight for that limited space.


----------



## MrDagon007

Just had a closer look here in Hong Kong where it has launched today. It does look and feel more premium in reality than on pictures, especially the stainless one feels really quite luxurious. Display is very crisp. The bracelet is truly a marvel of engineering. I played a bit with the watch user interface and was eerily tempted.


----------



## JKNorth

I've put a lot of thought into this, and since I seem to be the mythical unicorn some people have mentioned in this thread, I'll share my thinking. 

First off though, yes, this is my first post under this ID. I was certain I had an old ID for WUS because I've come and gone from here over the years, but I couldn't find it. So some will immediately discredit my point of view because of that. That's okay. I'm not here to be right, just to share my thoughts because some might find them interesting.

So why am I a unicorn? Because I have bought luxury swiss watches in the past, and I was considering buying another one until the Apple Watch came along. I bought my wife a gorgeous vintage Rolex a few years ago. I've had entry level fun with Seiko's, and a little flash with a Tag. My wife bought me a Hamilton for Christmas. I've been planning on buying myself a Rolex for a while now and it may or may not happen, yes because of the Apple Watch.

Now, the Apple Watch isn't for everyone. You need to have an iPhone 5 or newer. So 50% of NA on Android is out. 75% of the rest of the world's smartphone users are out. Apple is selling to their installed base, and hoping to use the watch to encourage switching to the iPhone and the Apple ecosystem. Even if the Apple Watch is a runaway hit, it could only ever represent a small fraction of the iPhone revenue stream.

I'm an Apple guy. I've been a fan since the mid-2000's when I started to switch over from Windows. I like the way their products work, and the way they look. Are there products that do the same without the premium attached to Apple products? In many cases yes. So I'm paying a premium for design, much like the buyer of a luxury swiss watch pays a premium for an object whose function can be accomplished for far less.

The Hamilton I got for Christmas was destined to remain a wedding watch. Something I wear at formal occasions when it would seem less appropriate to wear a computer on my wrist. It's a Pan Europ, it came with two bands. The face is clean and elegant. It's a lovely watch. The Rolex purchase is planned for accomplishing a personal milestone, a lasting testament to an important achievement.

But now I'm not so sure.

I pre-ordered the Apple Watch yesterday because why not check out the latest gadget from my favourite gadget maker? Then I went into the store to try them on in person. I have to say I was very impressed. The Stainless Steel model in particular feels much more upscale in person than in pictures. The Sport less so. The gold is actually quite striking.

Then there's the functionality. Tailored notifications mean I have to dig my phone out less. Short, quick communication is simpler. NFC enables Apple Pay and opening hotel rooms. Airline apps mean you don't need to dig out your phone for your boarding pass. The health tracking facilitates workout routines. There's no one killer app for the device because there's no one over-riding use case for a wrist computer. I don't like to even call it a watch as a matter of fact. Wrist computer will suffice.

So the thing looks quite nice. It feels nice on the wrist (some straps more than others). It's useful, at least to me, with the apps and functions it offers. Is it a Rolex? A Patek? No. Is it a work of mechanical art? No. But it's not meant to be. It's meant to be a computer you wear on your wrist that can do useful things for you. (And that list of useful things will only ever expand once developers get at it.)

But what it does do that's relevant to my Rolex decision is take up the real-estate on my wrist. Once I grow accustomed to having it on my wrist for the useful things it does, I'm sure I will feel awkward without it. So the days I would wear my Rolex I would miss being able to do...pick any function... on my wrist. So then the question is: is it worth spending $10K+ on a luxury Swiss watch when I will miss my Apple Watch's functions while I wear that Swiss watch? Does it diminish the value of the Rolex in any way? No. The Rolex (or Patek or whatever) is still just as lovely and represents the same things. But I'm afraid I'll still miss my Apple Watch.

That's the real competitive threat to the Swiss watch industry. The space on my wrist is no longer available to be filled with their product. This I suspect will prove terribly disruptive to Swatch and all the 'every day' value brands of watch (Movado, Esquire, Tissot, Fossil, etc.). Keeping in mind of course the naturally constrained total addressable market due to the necessity of having an iPhone 5+ (though eventually Apple's competitors will copy much of the Apple Watch and thus expand that TAM). For the higher brands I think the impact will be muted. For those that can afford luxury Swiss watches, they can likely afford to buy the Apple watch.

And there's the crux of it: the two can co-exist. Buying a Rolex (or Patek or whatever) doesn't mean you can't buy an Apple Watch or vice-versa. But the risk is that if the Apple Watch becomes truly indispensable in the future because of the functions it offers, consumers such as myself may slow down or stop buying the luxury watches because it seems kind of pointless if I won't wear them very often. 

And remember, the success or popularity of the Apple Watch doesn't reduce what's so special about luxury Swiss watches. They remain mechanical works of art. They just may not find as many new devotees in the future because people's wrists will be already occupied by smartwatches.


----------



## BarracksSi

vkalia said:


> Speaking in general (not referring to you, Ace): I dont really know why people are so up in arms about the Apple Watch. Ok, so it isnt something you want. Fine. There are PLENTY of products coming out every day that I dont find useful but which other people do. What's the point of pooh-poohing the product just b/c you dont see the point? Plenty of other people do.


It's a couple reasons:

- Smartwatches are perceived as a threat, as if they're going to extinguish the mechanical watch. Like you noted, though, smartwatches have been around a while, but I saw them as too "gadget-ey" to appeal beyond heavy smartphone users. Apple's version is the first to bring such a wide range of customizability, making it as personally appealing as any other watch lineup this side of Swatch.

- Current watch enthusiasts, especially on forums like WUS, are a unique bunch. We end up here because we're looking for more information than fashion watch shops and mall jewelers will dole out to us. Look at the prevailing enthusiasm for mechanical watches-which even we admit are out of date, speaking in terms of performance, as timepieces-and it's easy to see that we enjoy charming, yet obsolescent, technology. Like fans of horses and steam locomotives, there are watch owners who will never warm up to technological advancements even if they provide better performance or additional functionality.

What some of us seem to forget, or refuse to acknowledge, is that we do not represent the general public. Hardly at all. We're very happy with +/- 5 sec/day accuracy; nobody else would be satisfied with a watch that they'd have to reset every week just to keep it coordinated with a phone.*1 We think we're "better", maybe because we know more facts about watches, or because we're defending our spending habits, but really, we're just crazy. We don't like to be reminded that we're crazy.

*1 - A case to make my point, posted here on WUS by someone new to pricey mechanical watches:
https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=1754922


----------



## BarracksSi

A brief rundown of several review articles:
Apple Watch: review of the reviews - Telegraph



> "If you're tempted by a smartwatch, Apple's is easily the best, with the most enjoyable interface, the most intriguing range of apps, immaculate build quality and a highly attractive design," wrote David Phelan for the Independent.
> 
> "Plenty of people who have chosen Apple because they want a great smartphone, elegant tablet or simple-to-use music player may nonetheless feel that their Swiss made timepiece does its job so sublimely that there's no need to put digital tech on their wrist in its place.
> 
> "But using the Apple Watch makes its case compellingly. Its versatility is enormous - the range of apps available will doubtless be very wide, very quickly. This means that though nobody will want to use all of them, *there will be a particular set of features which appeal to each user.*"


That last phrase is really interesting to me. Think of the massively wide range of wristwatches you can wear. Chronograph, single-hander, slim dress manual, chunky diver, altimeter-barometer-thermometer-GPS, --- you can go on and on. Gold, steel, plastic, titanium, even injection-molded carbon fiber. You can say that they all are different fashion accessories (let's face it: if you wear a certain watch with a certain outfit, it's a fashion accessory), but if you have even a small collection of three or four, you have a set of watches that represent different sets of features.

What a smartwatch will do is have several features combined into one object. The traditional watch roles of being dressy, casual, or sporty are all handled well enough, especially with easily swappable bands like the Apple Watch has available. My idea of getting one Watch with the mesh loop, leather strap, and sport band gives it three distinct personalities. Add all the apps, and you've got one object that can do a whole lot of stuff that none of your traditional watches can hope to do while still matching all your clothes (apart from your scuba suit, anyway).


----------



## zetaplus93

JKNorth said:


> I've put a lot of thought into this, and since I seem to be the mythical unicorn some people have mentioned in this thread, I'll share my thinking.


Nice, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I'm somewhat similar to your position in that I'm an "entry-level" watch guy who's mostly into mechanical Seikos and an Apple guy.

I also think the "there's only one wrist slot" is the perceived threat (unless two-wrist-wrist-watch becomes a thing as Bani McSpedden and a few other watch guys demonstrates).

But then again, perhaps most watch guys will continue with luxury watches because of different jobs-to-be-done. The AW won't be the ideal candidate as heirlooms, which seems to be a common reason (or one of the reasons) for purchasing a watch. Also, our collective adoration of mechanical marvels is yet another reason for watch guys to continue their hobbies.

In the end, there's likely more than enough room for both smart watches and luxury watches to stick around (although, perhaps as is now happening, the word "watch" will be repurposed by the mass population to mean what we call smartwatches today. I.E. When we say phone in this day and age, we're thinking smartphones)! Just don't be annoyed (in a few years, assuming smartwatches become half as popular as iPhones are today) to be misunderstood when you say you're a watch guy, and they think you're talking about smartwatches!


----------



## BarracksSi

AppleInsider get some time with the Apple Watch in a store this past Friday. Check out the wrist shot with an Explorer I.

http://iphone.appleinsider.com/arti...with-the-apple-watch-at-an-apple-retail-store


----------



## BarracksSi

Another writeup specifically about other reviews, taking some to task for being sensationalist clickbait:

http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/04/12/an-apple-watch-meta-review-reimagined/



> These initial reviews say more about the Product Review genre than they do about the Apple Watch. As the word genre implies, there are rules. One is that you have to provide quotable fragments that support your view - think of how movie posters and trailers quote reviews. Second, write what you want but remember you still need to eat in this town. In the case of tech reviewers, "lunch" is being among the select few invited to do the next "under embargo" product review - you don't want to go hungry. Third, you have to be "fair and balanced": You must provide at least a hint of negativity, no matter what, so you won't be perceived as having "sold out". Lastly, you have to write quickly, steamroll annoying counter-narrative trifles, and use strong words.
> 
> As an experiment, I cherry-picked quotes from the same sources as the "(quietly) brutal" Business Insider meta-review to see if I could come up with a different result. Much like the BI review, I decided what I wanted to say and then found the quotes that supported my thesis.
> 
> Here goes&#8230;


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> AppleInsider get some time with the Apple Watch in a store this past Friday. Check out the wrist shot with an Explorer I.
> 
> First look: Going hands-on with the Apple Watch at an Apple retail store


"The Apple Watch will become available on April 24, though initial orders are already sold out."

Interesting. That was posted on Friday, April 10, 2015, the day after
orders opened. Have you seen that posted on other sites? I wonder
if the first batch of "Edition" models is sold out.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## Tomatoes11

BarracksSi said:


> Should we keep using this thread for posting journalist/blogger reviews?
> 
> Apple Watch: the definitive review
> 
> It's still clearly a Gen 1 device, and his main annoyances (app load times in particular, and mixed support from current third-party apps) reflect as much.
> 
> He does remark that it feels "surprisingly heavy", more than his plastic Nixon but just past half the weight of his Baume & Mercier. He also prefers the leather band to the Milanese mesh loop, which is opposite of the NY Times writer's preference -- which also attests to the personalization that the Watch can manage.
> 
> I waited for the second-gen iPhone, but I couldn't resist the first-gen iPad. I think I'll do what I can to get myself an Apple Watch.


The Verge are the biggest Apple homers around. If they gave it a 7 only, that means it is a 4/10 at best when you factor in the Apple homerism. That is pretty bad.


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> "The Apple Watch will become available on April 24, though initial orders are already sold out."
> 
> Interesting. That was posted on Friday, April 10, 2015, the day after
> orders opened. Have you seen that posted on other sites? I wonder
> if the first batch of "Edition" models is sold out.
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


They all sold out within six hours, Edition included, and shipping times for many people are going into June and beyond. The first people to get their orders in will start receiving them on April 24th.

Starting last Friday, anyone can set up an appointment to try on as many variants as they want in-store. My wife and I stopped by the Pentagon City store and, without asking, were offered a time slot half an hour later. We were on our way to a movie and didn't take advantage of the time, but I'll try some on later anyway.

Further, during the initial launch, the only way to buy one will be online. You can set up an in-store orientation to help set it up, but nobody will have any reason to camp out at the stores like before. Apple retail SVP Angela Ahrendts (formerly Burberry CEO) is putting a stop to that kind of slumming around, entertaining as it was.


----------



## BarracksSi

Tomatoes11 said:


> The Verge are the biggest Apple homers around. If they gave it a 7 only, that means it is a 4/10 at best when you factor in the Apple homerism. That is pretty bad.


Yeah, I'm a little bothered by that. I'm really the most interested in the UI. I've never heard the word "confusing" so often in articles about Apple devices. Apple is held to a pretty high standard by fans and detractors alike. I wonder if Cook or Ive has the attitude to let them say, "WFT is this?" to their UI teams behind closed doors.

At the bottom of Gruber's review, in footnote 5, he says that he's got enough to say about the Watch's UI that he'll address it in a later post. I figure he'll post it in a couple days.
Daring Fireball: The Apple Watch


----------



## mav

About $30K in steel and gold but just one is the Moonwatch. b-)

I checked it out the Apple Watch at the Apple Store in LA over the weekend. I agree with some of the reviews in that the UI is confusing and I found it difficult to use. The main issue is that you have a tiny screen to interact with, swipe, pinch, etc.


----------



## BarracksSi

Bloomberg writer's review:


----------



## BarracksSi

The guy from The Verge again, who has a heck of a fashion accessory on his other wrist:


----------



## shnjb

I want to see a Hodinkee review


----------



## shnjb

mav said:


> About $30K in steel and gold but just one is the Moonwatch. b-)
> 
> I checked it out the Apple Watch at the Apple Store in LA over the weekend. I agree with some of the reviews in that the UI is confusing and I found it difficult to use. The main issue is that you have a tiny screen to interact with, swipe, pinch, etc.


Pinch?
I thought u don't pinch on the apple watch?


----------



## zetaplus93

mav said:


> About $30K in steel and gold but just one is the Moonwatch.


Nice moonwatch!

Wonder if we'll see an Apple Watch (or other smartwatch) in space in the next year or two, as a personal device that astronauts take up with them. Though they probably wouldn't get phone coverage up there!


----------



## BarracksSi

Two quite different views on the Apple Watch, including very different impressions of the bands:

https://medium.com/@flyosity/inconvenient-truths-about-the-apple-watch-11bafa44551b

http://om.co/2015/04/13/should-must-apple-little-details/

It's really kinda funny to read both back-to-back. Each writer brings their own general design preferences, like how the first, Mike Rundle, owns a Panerai and complains that the 42mm AW is way too small.


----------



## BarracksSi

More of a concept-driven review here:

The Watch | Asymco



Horace Dediu said:


> Before its launch, I said that the Apple Watch would be as much a watch as the iPhone is a phone. Recall that when the iPhone was launched it was anchored on three tentpoles, one of which was being a phone and that when the Apple Watch was launched it was also anchored on three tentpoles, one of which was being a watch.
> 
> Realizing that on the iPhone the "phone" is but an app - one which I find populated with FaceTime calls rather than cellular calls and whose messaging history is filled with iMessage threads rather than SMS - I consider it safe to say what the iPhone is today not as much a phone as a very personal computer. And so the question is whether the Watch will quickly leave behind its timekeeping anchor and move into being something completely different.


----------



## BarracksSi

ABTW:

All About The 18k Gold Apple Watch Edition | aBlogtoWatch



Ariel Adams said:


> I've been asked dozens of times what I think about the Apple Watch Edition, and I have yet to say anything negative about it. Perhaps my time in the luxury space has softened my senses when it comes to the shock of prices and decadence, but I am familiar with why people want luxury and what they are looking for. *Why does the Apple Watch Edition exist? I will tell you in one simple statement: so that people who are currently wearing a gold watch do not need "downgrade."* Apple is saying to consumers at the high end "we know you like luxury products, and we know you like Apple products. So rather than ask you to give up your preference for precious materials in order to wear our new wristwatch device, you can still have both." It is just that simple, and if the Apple Watch Edition does not appeal to you, then you are literally losing nothing by purchasing an Apple Watch Sport in aluminum or an Apple Watch in steel.


Some of us have said the same thing here on WUS.


----------



## Ace McLoud

vkalia said:


> It's $350, for crying out loud. Hardly a significant sum of money, all things considered. It is by far a less painful investment than spending $5000/10,000 on a watch that "lasts forever", provided you spend $500-1000 every 5 years servicing it. And until parts run out. Or a laptop. Or a phone. Or a dinner at a Michelin starred restaurant. Or many, many other things.
> 
> If you are talking about the $10k watch, that may make sense but that is likely targetng a different sort of collector.


I missed this getting moved. Let me respond:

Personally, $350USD is not insgnifiant to me at the moment. I would judge almost everything you mentioned as more worthy of my money than an Apple watch. Like I said, for me it would be $500AUD for a tool of dubious value. I could have a weekend break with the wife for not much more. Personal priorities.



vkalia said:


> I think my point was that we, as hobbyists, are "surprised" that other people would go for a product that we consider irrelevant, when we should be used to the shoe being on the other foot.
> 
> Until the iPad came out, hardly anyone used a tablet. And look at the ubiquity now. I think the issue is that people are assuming that this is going to be a watch, or an extension of the phone, or whatever, and projecting from there.
> 
> It is not. It is going to be somewhat unique device that creates its own unique use case. Smart watches as a technology have been around for a while - as have touchscreen phones (I used to use HTCs way before they were sold as HTCs and before iPhones) or even digital media players. What Apple brings to the table is functionality - they arent selling "features of the device", they are selling "look at all the things you can do with this".
> 
> Among other things, as the phone evolves from being a device for voice communication to a general information-acquisition device, the old form factor (a block that you have to hold in one hand) is going to evolve. This is a step in that direction.
> 
> Speaking in general (not referring to you, Ace): I dont really know why people are so up in arms about the Apple Watch. Ok, so it isnt something you want. Fine. There are PLENTY of products coming out every day that I dont find useful but which other people do. What's the point of pooh-poohing the product just b/c you dont see the point? Plenty of other people do.


I don't believe the phone will evolve much beyond it's current form. There is a physical limit to what can be achieved with a finite screen size.

I know the last part wasn't directed at me, but I am not up in arms. As a vintage watch collector there is a possibility that the market could become flooded. I believe the chances of this are slim though.


----------



## BarracksSi

Joanna Stern at the WSJ:






Some nifty things, some not.

What you've got to remember is that the notifications are configurable just like they are for the phone. If you have every little thing popping up all the time on your phone now, the watch will do the same until you go through its companion app and turn them off.


----------



## BarracksSi

ZDNet's Matthew Miller:
http://www.zdnet.com/article/spent-...t-apple-store-and-ordered-a-garmin-vivoactive



> The Apple Watch is an impressive piece of technology, but I cannot justify the extremely high cost of entry and outrageous price of the bands. The Garmin Vivoactive is only $250 and looks to meet my desire for a GPS sport watch, daily activity tracker, and basic smartwatch. We could see many more apps come to it through the Connect IQ store as well.


He's right in the sense that, by itself, an AW won't replace a GPS watch. It won't fully replace my Garmin 410, either, especially when/if I start riding my bike again and using its cadence/speed sensor. I suppose I could add an ANT+ adapter to my phone, but I don't need to spend the money when everything can already sync to Garmin.com at home.

So, we can speculate why the AW doesn't have onboard GPS. It's got a metal case, it's smaller and doesn't have room (the antenna on my 410 might be half the size of an entire AW), a GPS module would eat the battery quicker, it's not needed all the time, it could raise privacy concerns, it won't work as well as the iPhone's Location Services combination of wifi, cell tower triangulation, and GPS,&#8230; maybe some other factors, too.

Now, the Vivofit looks a heck of a lot smaller than my 410, and it looks like it gets much better battery life, too. I wonder how much of it could be squeezed into a 38mm Apple Watch.

Someone will ask, "Why not add GPS to the bigger 42mm model and leave it out of the 38mm?" Because 1) app developers will have to choose whether to support GPS or not, and no matter which they pick, they'd lose half their market; 2) 42mm might still be too clunky for potential owners, and they wouldn't want to settle for losing a key feature in a smaller watch. The consistent hardware specs help everyone from the manufacturing chain to the end user.


----------



## Norms76

Watchbreath said:


> Now, to find a way to stop calling those things watches.


Agree 100% the words "novelty piece" comes to mind.


----------



## Memphis1

i know the actual appliance/tool in star trek did different things, but maybe we should refer to it as the "replicator"... LOL!!!!


----------



## BarracksSi

http://www.zdnet.com/article/apple-watch-why-its-time-has-come-at-last/



> Second, will the Apple Watch prove to us that smartwatches really are the next generation of personal computing?
> 
> I think the answer is almost certainly yes. And I'm certainly not convinced by the people who scoff and insist they have no need for an Apple Watch, or any smartwatch at all.
> 
> They're the same people that five years ago were insisting to me that they would never buy a smartphone. These are the spiritual descendants of the people who thought the world would only ever need five computers.


Also check out the slideshow beneath the article body showing a whole bunch of other smartwatches, whether they've died, succeeded, or only have been announced.


----------



## BarracksSi

ABTW's Ariel Adams gets his Apple Watch and writes a Part 1:

http://www.ablogtowatch.com/apple-watch-review-chapter-1-setup-first-day-experience/



> I want to say right now that everything the Apple Watch currently does, it does well. That isn't to say that it does everything. No one expected the Apple Watch to be released and to be able and do everything it will eventually do. Either via OS updates or by eventually allowing developers to offer apps which tweak the core functionality of the Apple Watch - there are so many ways of adding more to what we already have.
> 
> So, even though the Apple Watch offers a refined experience when you use its available features, not all of those features are as fully fleshed out as I would like - which makes me eagerly await future versions. I do however appreciate that Apple did not include functionality that wasn't ready for prime time and that isn't very reliable.


----------



## BarracksSi

Water resistance test (you really need to see this) --


----------



## dawiz

wbird said:


> As far as a family treasure, the last thing my kids are interested in are my watches. If at some point they become interested in watches they'll want to have what they like not what I bought.


I agree with most of your points concerning pricing etc. - but I can assure you: my three-year-old is already interested in my watches. Would he be at least as thrilled about an Apple Watch? Certainly. But I'm seriously not worried about making my kids very happy with these watches some 15 years down the line. I have inherited one of my grandmother's pocket watches and an early 70s chrono from my dad. Would I have bought either of them? Probably not. But they hold sentimental value and at this point I'd gladly sell my Speedy Pro or the Submariner if I had to, but I'd never sell the ones that were passed down to me. Will the Apple Watch ever evoke feelings like that? I don't think so.

I'm not saying the Apple Watch is bad. There are millions of people out there who'll love wearing it. At this point (that could change over time, of course), I'm not one of them - I just cherish my small watch collection too much for that - plus I really don't want yet another gadget that distracts me from work.


----------



## JKNorth

Well, I've had one for about 24 hours now. My wife got one too. Stainless Steel with the black classic buckle leather band.

It looks terrific. It's much more jewelry like than you would expect from the pictures, though yeah most of the time it's a black rectangle. 

The UI takes a bit of getting used to, but nothing that using it for a day or two won't fix. 

Already I find I use my phone less. Which means I run down the battery less, so that's an added benefit. Speaking of battery, it looks like the watch in my usage will go for about 24 hours before needing to be charged. Charging is super-easy with the magnetic adapter.

Today I used it as a countdown timer for my parking, to view my calendar, text messages, asking Siri questions, notifications from other apps (tailored to just what I want), paying at Starbucks, and reading the Wall Street Journal headlines. If it never does any more than that I'll still be happy with what I paid for it, but that's not going to be the case. App developers are just getting started.

Luxury mechanical watches will be around forever. But I sense that we're on the cusp of a transition similar to horses being replaced by cars. There have always been and will always be horse people that appreciate riding horses and will do it as much as they can. Nothing could ever be the same as a relationship with an animal that is your mount. But for the majority of the rest of the world, cars are faster, more comfortable, and more convenient. Same with the watches. No smartwatch will ever equal the craftsmanship an uniqueness of a mechanical watch, but for the vast majority of the population they are less expensive and able to do so much more for the wearer than tell time, bringing more convenience to their day to day activities.

I may still buy a Rolex in the future for all those reasons that make it a nice jewelry piece, but I'd never buy one to wear every day. Not any more.


----------



## BarracksSi

Back in mid-March, WUS member Maithree spotted an interview on Bloomberg with Elmar Bock, one of the creators of the original Swatch. Worth a couple minutes of your time to hear from one of the major creative minds of the watch industry.

https://www.watchuseek.com/showthread.php?t=1659474


----------



## rationaltime

*A detailed review of the Apple watch*

Journalist Andrew Cunningham wrote a detailed review of the Apple Watch,
including purchase, watch set up, and use of the applications. If you are
interested in the Apple Watch it is worth reading.

tl;dr 
Andrew Cunningham says if he were spending his own money he would wait
for some refinement of the controls and applications.

Read the review there. -->
Review: The absolutely optional Apple Watch and Watch OS 1.0 
by Andrew Cunningham - May 3, 2015

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

*Re: A detailed review of the Apple watch*



rationaltime said:


> Journalist Andrew Cunningham wrote a detailed review of the Apple Watch,
> including purchase, watch set up, and use of the applications. If you are
> interested in the Apple Watch it is worth reading.
> 
> tl;dr
> Andrew Cunningham says if he were spending his own money he would wait
> for some refinement of the controls and applications.
> 
> Read the review there. -->
> Review: The absolutely optional Apple Watch and Watch OS 1.0
> by Andrew Cunningham - May 3, 2015
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


He included this tweet comparing results of jogging with the AW -- _without_ its iPhone -- and a Garmin (610, maybe?):

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/592249808972288000
The numbers are good enough for me to ditch my Garmin (at least for non-biking workouts, unless I stop caring about pedaling cadence, too).


----------



## BarracksSi

*Re: A detailed review of the Apple watch*

Distractions - Matt Gemmell



> The Watch's size, and the need to raise your wrist, discourages prolonged reading, which automatically makes you filter what you deal with. On the iPhone, or any of its ancestors further up the tree, the default mode of response is _now_. On the Watch, it's _later_.
> 
> It's difficult to explain how profound a change that is. Even in a handful of days, I've found that my iPhone has joined the MacBook as the "computer in the other room", almost as if the hierarchy of devices has shifted up a level.
> 
> The Watch encourages what's presumably the most desirable and productive pattern of behaviour: a glance, possibly a brief acknowledgement via (at most) seconds of interaction, then dismissal or deferment. Equally, it actively discourages - or makes impossible - the sort of behaviour that makes mobile devices a double-edged sword: being sucked into another context, often for minutes at a time.


----------



## zetaplus93

*Re: A detailed review of the Apple watch*



BarracksSi said:


> Distractions - Matt Gemmell


Thanks for sharing. Nice thoughts about the watch. I'm in agreement and felt much the same thing (i.e. craving less of using my iPhone day to day), Matt's post nicely sums those feelings up.


----------



## BarracksSi

http://www.zdnet.com/article/running-with-the-apple-watch-yes-you-can-leave-your-iphone-behind/

Remember the ZDNet guy who chose a Garmin Vivoactiv over the Apple Watch because of the former's built-in GPS?



> As I explained on Wednesday, I ended up also purchasing an Apple Watch Sport. To evaluate the fitness functionality of the Apple Watch, I went running with the Apple Watch, Garmin Vivoactive, Fitbit Surge, Microsoft Band, and Sony SmartWatch 3 all strapped to my wrists. The next day I left the Fitbit Surge and SmartWatch 3 behind to perform further testing.
> 
> It turns out that the Apple Watch may indeed be just fine for recreational runners like me, even on those days you decide to leave the iPhone behind. Let's take a closer look at my testing and the performance results.


----------



## BarracksSi

I don't think I posted this one from Business Insider:

Apple Watch review - Business Insider



> I let my boss try it the other day, and he launched into a tirade before the thing was even fastened to his wrist.
> 
> "Why do I need this? I already have a giant iPhone that does everything!"
> 
> He was baffled.
> 
> We've seen similar arguments when other new product categories launched.
> 
> "_Chromebooks are just limited computers that only let you use a web browser. The iPad is just a big iPhone. The iPhone is just a BlackBerry without a physical keyboard."_
> 
> They were all wrong.


----------



## scentedlead

John Gruber's Review

What a lot of reviews lack is that they're not written from the PoV of someone who uses watches but enthusiastically looks forward to smartwatches. What I like about Gruber's review is that he goes into detail about the habits he has as a watch user and what impact the AW will have on those habits, for better and for worse.

Of all the things to make me pause about getting an AW (aside from having an iPhone 4S, the last model to fit in my back pocket), it's this review because it makes me realize how I use my watch and what habits I have-and want to keep.

(Yet, I still want one.)


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> John Gruber's Review
> 
> What a lot of reviews lack is that they're not written from the PoV of someone who uses watches but enthusiastically looks forward to smartwatches. What I like about Gruber's review is that he goes into detail about the habits he has as a watch user and what impact the AW will have on those habits, for better and for worse.
> 
> Of all the things to make me pause about getting an AW (aside from having an iPhone 4S, the last model to fit in my back pocket), it's this review because it makes me realize how I use my watch and what habits I have-and want to keep.
> 
> (Yet, I still want one.)


I might've posted a link to his article earlier in this thread, but it's been a while. What I keep refreshing his page to see is what he mentions in footnote #5 -- his thoughts on the AW's UI model. I have never been easily confused by an Apple product, and the AW demo units in the store threw me for a few loops when I tried them out. I wonder if there's anyone high enough in the Apple chain who was willing to say, "Hey, stop -- these Glances aren't working right..."


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> I might've posted a link to his article earlier in this thread, but it's been a while. What I keep refreshing his page to see is what he mentions in footnote #5 -- his thoughts on the AW's UI model. I have never been easily confused by an Apple product, and the AW demo units in the store threw me for a few loops when I tried them out. I wonder if there's anyone high enough in the Apple chain who was willing to say, "Hey, stop -- these Glances aren't working right..."


The v1 is another thing that makes me pause.

Has he written a review on the UI yet? I have his blog in my rss reader and I keep looking for such a review for him but still haven't seen one yet.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> The v1 is another thing that makes me pause.
> 
> Has he written a review on the UI yet? I have his blog in my rss reader and I keep looking for such a review for him but still haven't seen one yet.


No, but his later post, "Watch. Apple Watch", makes me think he warmed up to it, or at least figured out how to get around it.


----------



## BarracksSi

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2920305/wearables/the-apple-watch-and-our-cyborg-future.html



> The personal-area network
> 
> My second epiphany is that the Apple Watch is not about the Apple Watch. It's about the Apple Watch and the iPhone together. The two connected devices working together is the new platform, the new medium.
> 
> More types of wearable systems are on the way -- elegant, discreet smart glasses; smart shoes and clothes; connected medical stickers; glucose-monitoring contact lenses; smart jewelry; and more. When they come online, they'll join the existing ad hoc network already in operation on your physical person.
> 
> All of these devices will evolve with the assumption that the others exist. Functions of the smartphone will be spun out, and the phone itself may shrink as the HD screen in our smart glasses takes over. Just as big phones deflated enthusiasm for tablets, wearables are doing the same for big smartphones. Spending so much time with an Apple Watch makes you want a smaller iPhone. The industry will respond.


I don't agree with everything he says (as a glasses wearer since third grade, I think that adding any more weight into a purely optional pair of glasses is a stupid idea),but it's interesting that he's basically talking about tech devices becoming less obvious and invasive. He's focusing on haptics, the buzzes and taps, as a way to give us information without jumping into our faces.


----------



## zetaplus93

A nice review from a non-techie (Stephanie Rosenbloom), from the perspective of a traveler:

http://www.afr.com/lifestyle/watche...r-travellers-not-technophiles-20150511-ggv77z

A quick back to a previous comment:



BarracksSi said:


> What I keep refreshing [John Gruber's Apple Watch Review] page to see is what he mentions in footnote #5 -- his thoughts on the AW's UI model. I have never been easily confused by an Apple product, and the AW demo units in the store threw me for a few loops when I tried them out. I wonder if there's anyone high enough in the Apple chain who was willing to say, "Hey, stop -- these Glances aren't working right..."


I have to disagree with this point. As much as I like John Gruber's writings (and many of which I agree with), I can't help that John and other tech pundits are making too much of a deal with the concern of a difficult-to-use UI. And it seems this is coming from mostly tech reviewers.

If you go back to Stephanie Rosenbloom's article:



> Setting up the watch, which you can order online for shipping in June, is easy if you're familiar with Apple products. It took me about six minutes to get it going, and even less time to load a dozen or so travel-related apps - including TripAdvisor, American Airlines, Expedia, Hotel Tonight, TripIt and OpenTable - onto my iPhone, which I paired with the watch using Bluetooth technology. For the uninitiated: You use your iPhone to add and set up the watch's apps, including Apple Pay (the contactless payment technology).


Bani McSpedden also mentions the same thing, "Is it complicated? No, it just takes a bit of learning, after which it becomes intuitive, just like the iPhone which of course it links to":

http://www.watch-next.com/video-a-minute-or-two-with-the-apple-watch/

It seems techies are over thinking this. It's a bit different than the iPhone, but it feels like it's from the same family. Spend a few minutes and you'll get the hang of it.


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> I have to disagree with this point. As much as I like John Gruber's writings (and many of which I agree with), I can't help that John and other tech pundits are making too much of a deal with the concern of a difficult-to-use UI. And it seems this is coming from mostly tech reviewers.


I usually listen to these guys because they know the "why" behind some interfaces working better than others. One example was learning about a couple extra layers of system software between an Android phone's touch panel and the corresponding movement in the display, which is why Android phones had felt more "laggy" as you moved objects onscreen.

Or-and this is very subtle-a drop-down menu's forgiveness of cursor positioning: when you click on a menu bar item and want to use a submenu, they build in a sort of "close enough" path that lets you move your cursor a little quicker without fear of the submenu disappearing. It's hard for me to explain now, but it quickly makes a lot of sense if I could show you screenshots or a video.

We end users get used to interfaces that are actually pretty bad, and we let them slide because we expect technology to be complicated. (my least favorite UIs are on retail credit card machines; the dumbest single screen I've seen on those are when you write your signature and the virtual button in the bottom right corner, placed just after the last stroke of the pen, is to _cancel the entire transaction..._ WTF.)

The engineers who do UI design for a living, and especially the ones who do it exceptionally well, work hard to make things operate so easily that the user forgets that they're dealing with such a complex system. At its best, a UI would feel natural after a couple minutes, not a couple days.

I'm sure I'd figure out the AW quickly enough, but that's not the point. I get awfully annoyed by bad UI design because I feel that the person who made it just didn't care about the user. I don't expect a lack of care to be the case within Apple as they were building the AW's UI, but I just wonder if it was too secret, too prone to inbreeding, if you get what I mean. If it can be streamlined and clarified, I'm all for a change.

[/tangent]


----------



## BarracksSi

Walt Mossberg, writing after he's had an Apple Watch for a month:

http://recode.net/2015/05/12/a-month-with-the-apple-watch-does-it-pass-the-test-of-time/



> It reminds me of the first iPhone a month after its debut. That phone had slow data, was tied to a wireless carrier that constantly dropped phone calls, and - most importantly - it had no app store yet. But I got enough value from it that I've never regretted buying the first model.
> 
> Sure, my test model - stainless-steel with a leather band - sells for $699. But I much preferred it to my trusty $99 Seiko, which just told the time and never knew when Daylight Savings Time began or ended, let alone when my co-workers or friends were texting me.


He also talks about the biggest pleasant and unpleasant surprises later in the article.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> I usually listen to these guys because they know the "why" behind some interfaces working better than others. One example was learning about a couple extra layers of system software between an Android phone's touch panel and the corresponding movement in the display, which is why Android phones had felt more "laggy" as you moved objects onscreen.
> 
> Or-and this is very subtle-a drop-down menu's forgiveness of cursor positioning: when you click on a menu bar item and want to use a submenu, they build in a sort of "close enough" path that lets you move your cursor a little quicker without fear of the submenu disappearing. It's hard for me to explain now, but it quickly makes a lot of sense if I could show you screenshots or a video.
> 
> We end users get used to interfaces that are actually pretty bad, and we let them slide because we expect technology to be complicated. (my least favorite UIs are on retail credit card machines; the dumbest single screen I've seen on those are when you write your signature and the virtual button in the bottom right corner, placed just after the last stroke of the pen, is to _cancel the entire transaction..._ WTF.)


Yup, I agree with your points and it makes sense.

But at the same time, it seems to me that the confusion they experienced is because they're so used to the iPhone paradigm, and they're trying pretty hard to mentally fit the AW UI to the iPhone UI.

I think the average user will think, "it kind of reminds me of the iPhone, but it's a bit different. Now, if I do this (pinch and zoom), it doesn't work. But if I do this (slide up and down or turn the crown), it works like the iPhone. Hmm... Ok, I get it now", and then they move on and accept the new paradigm, rather than saying it doesn't work like the iPhone and throw their hands in the air and give up (or insist it should work like the iPhone and refuse to buy it).

IMHO, sometimes the people who're in too deep with the creation of the device lose perspective with the common user...



BarracksSi said:


> The engineers who do UI design for a living, and especially the ones who do it exceptionally well, work hard to make things operate so easily that the user forgets that they're dealing with such a complex system. At its best, a UI would feel natural after a couple minutes, not a couple days.


For m, it took maybe 10-15min to "get" the UI. It took less for my wife since she just needed to know a few things to get started (and of course, I showed her more advanced stuff over the next few days and weeks). I think she's more like the typical user than I am (who was trying everything out, including exploring all the settings in the watch app on the iPhone and Settings in the watch).

I think if you go in with the mindset that the UI is a sibling or cousin of the iPhone UI, then it's easier to adjust to it.



BarracksSi said:


> I'm sure I'd figure out the AW quickly enough, but that's not the point. I get awfully annoyed by bad UI design because I feel that the person who made it just didn't care about the user. I don't expect a lack of care to be the case within Apple as they were building the AW's UI, but I just wonder if it was too secret, too prone to inbreeding, if you get what I mean. If it can be streamlined and clarified, I'm all for a change.
> 
> [/tangent]


I think in this case, Apple has given a lot of though in how the UI should work. But they had to make modifications with it (or even start from scratch. BTW, you may have read this already, but Apple initially started with a time-based UI, which sounds similar to the Pebble Time. It didn't work out and hey ditched it and restarted apparently, according to one of articles, which Gruber picked up on in on of his podcasts).

For example, the watch face is really the center of the universe and not the app home screen (like the iPhone). Why did they do this? It's interesting to speculate on this design choice.

But I feel they made the right choice here--it makes sense to always start with the watch face when I lift my wrists because, well, it's a watch (of course, many people here disagree with this assertion).


----------



## rationaltime

zetaplus93 said:


> ...
> IMHO, sometimes the people who're in too deep with the creation of the device lose perspective with the common user...


I think what you are saying is justification for the designers to go talk to the customers.
I guess what typically happens is managers talk to managers as proxy for the customers
or marketing people talk to customers.

In the case of a smart watch perhaps it is a reasonable expectation that the designers
might represent typical users.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## zetaplus93

rationaltime said:


> I think what you are saying is justification for the designers to go talk to the customers.
> ...
> In the case of a smart watch perhaps it is a reasonable expectation that the designers might represent typical users.
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


Yes I think it's reasonable, especially given that it was a "secret" before the unveiling. Apple's typically pretty good about getting most pieces right.

I'm just not sure that the tech reviewers have a good grasp of the common user for their reviews to be really that useful. Though a few like Walt Mosberg seems to be "better" since he's not a techie (I think).


----------



## Lokifish

The whole smartwatch thing in general is very fanboyish. Samsung Galaxy Gear owners harp on Live owners. Moto owners harp on LG owners and so on. I'll be blunt, pretty much all of them are inefficient, poorly designed wrist tablets. The Apple watch is no exception. 

I got to play with one and brought along a $75 Chinese "junk" smartwatch. It loaded things slower than the junk watch, was harder to navigate if moving and, except for build quality and updated specs, was inferior to a smartwatch most wouldn't even look at, much less buy. But most reviews are written by those that have little to no experience with smartwatches, so many reviews are either glowing with "new gadget" smell, Apple fans or traditionalists that don't like smartwatches to begin with. About the only thing I can say that good about it was user defined screen order/visibility. Beyond that, I see no reason to add it to the smartwatch collection that I own, much less use it. It's not like there aren't alternatives for iPhone users.

Something to think about. We are ten years into smartwatches, and still have some of the exact same complaints we've had the entire time.


----------



## shnjb

Lokifish said:


> The whole smartwatch thing in general is very fanboyish. Samsung Galaxy Gear owners harp on Live owners. Moto owners harp on LG owners and so on. I'll be blunt, pretty much all of them are inefficient, poorly designed wrist tablets. The Apple watch is no exception.
> 
> I got to play with one and brought along a $75 Chinese "junk" smartwatch. It loaded things slower than the junk watch, was harder to navigate if moving and, except for build quality and updated specs, was inferior to a smartwatch most wouldn't even look at, much less buy. But most reviews are written by those that have little to no experience with smartwatches, so many reviews are either glowing with "new gadget" smell, Apple fans or traditionalists that don't like smartwatches to begin with. About the only thing I can say that good about it was user defined screen order/visibility. Beyond that, I see no reason to add it to the smartwatch collection that I own, much less use it. It's not like there aren't alternatives for iPhone users.
> 
> Something to think about. We are ten years into smartwatches, and still have some of the exact same complaints we've had the entire time.


I think Apple Watch and the other Android wear devices are the first serious crop of "smart" watches which have a potential to disrupt the watch industry.

Previous generation devices such as Pebble or Microsoft smart watches were either not smart at all or designed for a niche audience.


----------



## zetaplus93

Lokifish said:


> I'll be blunt, pretty much all of them are inefficient, poorly designed wrist tablets. The Apple watch is no exception.


I don't know about the other smartwatches, but the AW isn't a tablet.

If you actually used it, you wouldn't state this.



Lokifish said:


> I got to play with one and brought along a $75 Chinese "junk" smartwatch. It loaded things slower than the junk watch, was harder to navigate if moving and, except for build quality and updated specs, was inferior to a smartwatch most wouldn't even look at, much less buy. But most reviews are written by those that have little to no experience with smartwatches, so many reviews are either glowing with "new gadget" smell, Apple fans or traditionalists that don't like smartwatches to begin with. About the only thing I can say that good about it was user defined screen order/visibility. Beyond that, I see no reason to add it to the smartwatch collection that I own, much less use it. It's not like there aren't alternatives for iPhone users.


You don't get a feel of any tool/device by just playing with it for a few minutes or even an hour. You need to use it for days or weeks before you understand how it fits into your life, if it does at all.

If the AW continues to sell well going forward, I'd say that it's not Apple fanboy-ism that's driving sales, but rather Apple delivered a product that the average consumer can use effectively. If it resonates with the market, it's a success.

The other smartwatches that you mentioned... Well, those might become the equivalent of Blackberries.



Lokifish said:


> Something to think about. We are ten years into smartwatches, and still have some of the exact same complaints we've had the entire time.


So what were some of those complaints on previous generation smartwatches?


----------



## BarracksSi

https://medium.com/message/upon-this-wrist-97cfc33c443c



> And I can see in their eyes that they want to hear some accolades. Some uplifting remark. Nothing gibbous. And so I say a single word: Exercise. Like I am selling plastics in 1930. Exercise, I say. And I smile. That is what it does best. But I have to caveat, slumping back into my chair, my posture as the worst salesman ever - Well, I mean, it's good, or, rather, it has potential. But presently it is very dumb.


----------



## jbg7474

BarracksSi said:


> https://medium.com/message/upon-this-wrist-97cfc33c443c


Great review. And it strikes me that what he is complaining about seems easy to fix.


----------



## BarracksSi

This is funny --

Bad decisions: Don't buy a Watch if you don't want one | Macworld



> With the release of the Apple Watch, some kind of telepathic signal went out to tech news sites everywhere saying "Time to drum up a reviewer who hates the very idea of smartwatches." And, lo, it was made so.
> 
> Writing for Engadget, Mat Smith says "I regret buying an Apple Watch (and I knew I would)." (Tip o' the antlers to Elevated Equines.)
> 
> Gosh, with an open mind like that it's hard to imagine how this didn't work out.
> 
> ---------- I bought an Apple Watch.
> 
> THERE. ARE YOU HAPPY? MOM?
> 
> ----------- I didn't preorder it, because at first I didn't even want one.
> 
> It is certainly shocking to learn that people who are not very interested in a product category might end up not finding that type of product useful. Important life lesson here, kids. Pay attention. Don't buy things you don't want. Words to live by.


----------



## jbg7474

BarracksSi said:


> This is funny --
> 
> Bad decisions: Don't buy a Watch if you don't want one | Macworld


The Macalope is always good for a laugh, if you like Apple stuff.


----------



## Lokifish

zetaplus93 said:


> I don't know about the other smartwatches, but the AW isn't a tablet.
> 
> If you actually used it, you wouldn't state this.
> 
> You don't get a feel of any tool/device by just playing with it for a few minutes or even an hour. You need to use it for days or weeks before you understand how it fits into your life, if it does at all.
> 
> If the AW continues to sell well going forward, I'd say that it's not Apple fanboy-ism that's driving sales, but rather Apple delivered a product that the average consumer can use effectively. If it resonates with the market, it's a success.
> 
> The other smartwatches that you mentioned... Well, those might become the equivalent of Blackberries.
> 
> So what were some of those complaints on previous generation smartwatches?


I own quite a number of smartwatches, as well as having done case design, firmware, consultation and UI/UX work for OEMs. As of right now I have three Wear, two Tizen, four Android, a Pebble, Sony SW2, Sony MBW-150, and a couple others. This includes a 30m WR rated custom Moto 360, and a 200m WR advanced companion prototype that uses custom UI. The UI allows for the call log, texts, email, calendar, weather, hangouts, Now updates, and eight app shortcuts to be three or less physical interactions away from the main screen at all times. Most of which can be done while moving, and without even looking at it until you get to the screen you want. I've had Wear and Apple Watch take as many as 9 physical interactions so get to the same content.

Tizen, Wear, and Apple's UI is garbage. It's better than what was available in the past, but still garbage. And as far as Wear being a tablet, vertical layout with overlapping widgets. So it's your phone or tablet's horizontal layout rotated 90deg with a couple minor changes. I saw this after less than five minutes of use.

I played with the Apple Watch for a few days while visiting a fellow developer. On day one I mapped the UI, disassembled it, put it back together, counted the number of interactions to get to common items, as well as timed interaction and launch times. Then I used it for the rest of the remaining time I was there. Not impressed.

Successful and popular often do not equal capability or superior when it comes to tech. For example, I'm posting this using a BT KB/mouse, 21in monitor, fully integrated Ubuntu desktop OS, while checking code and on a phone call, without a PC. It's all being done with my phone, and have been able to do such for four years now. Except for high end gaming or compiling from source, I don't even need a computer.

About some of those years old complaints- battery life, cumbersome number of interactions to get to things, counter intuitive, slow, poor direct sunlight visibility, water resistance, and so on. These and similar complaints can be found in honest reviews dating as far back as 2005 on every smartwatch ever released.

As far as your "average consumer" comment. The average consumer is an idiot when it comes to tech. The industry knows it, counts on it, and profits from it.


----------



## zetaplus93

Lokifish said:


> I own quite a number of smartwatches, as well as having done case design, firmware, consultation and UI/UX work for OEMs. As of right now I have three Wear, two Tizen, four Android, a Pebble, Sony SW2, Sony MBW-150, and a couple others. This includes a 30m WR rated custom Moto 360, and a 200m WR advanced companion prototype that uses custom UI.


That's great. You're a very advanced techie.

But it doesn't sound like you understand what the average consumer wants or needs.



Lokifish said:


> Successful and popular often do not equal capability or superior when it comes to tech.


"Superiority" depends greatly on what you measure. If you measure speeds and feeds, sure, you've got a point. That's the common techie view.

For the average user (i.e. 80% of the population), they care about other things like usability and, in the case of wearables, fashion.



Lokifish said:


> As far as your "average consumer" comment. The average consumer is an idiot when it comes to tech. The industry knows it, counts on it, and profits from it.


That's a pretty strong comment.

I think average consumers aren't "idiots" as you put it. They just care about things that techies don't grasp.

Speeds and feeds matter up to a certain point. Once you reach the "good enough" threshold for specs (or fast enough computational power), then people start looking at physical designs, usability, etc.

There're good reasons technologically superior systems like Linux didn't resonate with average consumers back in the 90s or now.


----------



## Lokifish

So let me get this straight.


ATM WR ratings, three actions or less, don't even have to look at it to get to where you want, has exact same features as the bullet point below, looks exactly like a watch (the LG doesn't even fit into this group)-* Consumers don't want*
Effectively no WR, requires you look at it and swipe 6,7,8,9 times to get to something, but it looks "cool"- **Payday and praises*

If that is the case, then not only is the popular vs superior comment valid, but so is the idiots comment. As far as your specs comment. Way off base. Dual core is more than fine for smartwatches, the OS side is where the issue is.

*only if the smartwatch runs Wear, Tizen or Apple depending on which way the consumer's fanboyism leans. Anything else is often perceived as garbage no matter what facts there are to the contrary.


----------



## BarracksSi

Usability counts for a lot, and it's one of the things I hate about my Garmin 410. It has one of my most-used settings—change the sport mode between running and biking—buried several menus deep. Never mind the touch bezel, which is slick in the store but nigh unusable with sweaty fingers, it's the six or seven layers of sub menus that aggravate me.

Lokifish, I'd like to know what content can take nine physical interactions on the Apple Watch. I believe you, I just haven't used one outside of the store demo models (and that was for maybe 15 minutes).


----------



## zetaplus93

Lokifish said:


> So let me get this straight.
> 
> * ATM WR ratings
> * three actions or less
> * don't even have to look at it to get to where you want
> * has exact same features as the bullet point below
> * looks exactly like a watch (the LG doesn't even fit into this group


Water resistance is, of course, important. (But I'd say it should state things like splash-proof, shower-proof, swimming-proof, snorkeling-proof, etc. The fact that watch manuals have tables explaining what 50m, 100m, 200m means in terms of these activities means that the xyz meter rating don't provide much info to *average* users).

The 3 actions or less, and other such measures: these aren't listed on spec sheets, and not what I referred to.

Let me give examples of specs that do not convey much meaning. For each of these, imagine trying to explain it to your mom, SO, or non-techie. I've also put it anticipated questions from the non-techie:

* Dual core, 512MB RAM. Does this mean it runs as fast as my laptop?

* Android Wear, Apple Watch OS, Tizen: Oh, you meant Android and Apple (ie the brands or products). What's Tizen?

* Display resolution: 320x320 pixels? What's a pixel? I've hear of HD like on my TV... (Or maybe Retina if they know enough about Apple products... maybe)

* Display size: 1.63"? That's tiny! My phone is 5.5"!

* Battery size: 300 mAh. So how many days will that last? And how fast does it take to charge?



Lokifish said:


> * Effectively no WR, requires you look at it and swipe 6,7,8,9 times to get to something, but it looks "cool"


First and foremost, looking "cool", or at least attractive, is a huge deal with wearables. We all wear watches, so I think we can all agree to this point. Of course, smartwatches that look cool but doesn't do very much is a fail.

Any UI, including Apple's, that requires 6-9 swipes is a fail.

Most of what I use the AW is 5-10s. Anything beyond that is a fail.

Let's see how many actions are needed for most things I use it for:

* Activity: complication on watch face. Press to launch activities, then swipe right once to each details of each ring. Most times I just care about the first ring, so click, swipe right, done.

* stop watch and timer: Complication. Click, then start

* world time: complication only

* weather: complication. Click, tap 1 or 2 times to show all 3 sets of info (temp, conditions, precipitation). Scroll down for 10-day forecast. Swipe right for other locations. (Not the best, wish they combined conditions + temp)

* music: swipe up to glances, then just click to play etc. can also click titles to launch music remote app. From there, would need to swipe left to main menu, then click on playlists, artists, etc

* messages: (this is my biggest gripe, they can probably shorten this) side click, click to select contact, click messages, click to voice dictate or use Siri to translate to text (of course you could use Siri to dictate directly anytime), click to send. Emoji take too long so I don't use it

* maps: swipe up for glances, right to maps, click to launch maps. Click to find current position. I use Siri to route.

* airplane mode: swipe up for glances, left, then click

So, most of these interactions are pretty decent In terms of clicks and swipes. Anything more means I won't use it.

What task took 6-9 swipes/clicks/scrolls?



Lokifish said:


> As far as your specs comment. Way off base. Dual core is more than fine for smartwatches, the OS side is where the issue is.


To add to my point above; how does the average buyer know that dual core is more than enough? Wouldn't quad core (all the rage with smartphones a few years ago) be even better?

And I do agree that the speed or responsiveness bottleneck is likely to be more software than hardware today. But again, the average consumer doesn't understand this. So why even list it?



Lokifish said:


> *only if the smartwatch runs Wear, Tizen or Apple depending on which way the consumer's fanboyism leans. Anything else is often perceived as garbage no matter what facts there are to the contrary.


I think discussions on the net gets too extremely one way or another. While I use mainly Apple products, I don't think Google's or other vendor's products are garbage (except when it's preloaded with crapware).

I think we can have a decent discussion without resorting to extremities and name-calling, no?


----------



## Lokifish

Every ATM/Meter/Feet rated (smart)watch manufactured by any company, that adheres to international standards, since early 2012 is water resistant to the depth listed for all water related activities. Those confusing charts and tables are no longer needed and haven't been for some time.

I see where you are going but that's marketing and has little to do with the tech itself. So let me put it into marketing terms;

Hypothetical Smartwatch X
The latest and newest software
Twice the cores and memory of Apple, LG, Samsung and Moto
1.5x the screen resolution of our nearest competitor
Same size and look as expensive watches like Rolex. Omega and others
You can swim, shower, snorkel at depths up to 30ft/10m
Two weeks standby
Four days of battery life

(add in all the asterisks and notations in tiny print commonly found here)

Tizen smartwatches outsold Wear smartwatch by about 3 to 1 last year.

From what you are describing maps, texts, music are all in that very first swipe up. Unless you have a version of Wear I don't, that's not the case. Look at the layout of both Wear and Apple and count the number of actions it takes to get to the last screen.








Using that image as an example, Weather takes 5 swipes to get to, Music on Apple is 6 swipes. Add any two cards and you are at 7 or 8 swipes. On Wear, it also requires you stare at the screen to get to it due to Wears "last in first out" sorting. Now try that while walking and carrying stuff on a busy sidewalk, it's near impossible. It is in use, not much different than swiping through screens on your phone. This is completely counter to traditional watch usage and part of the reason Wear sales were poor when compared to static sorting smartwatches in market studies.

The cores thing mostly marketing. Case in point, Moto 360. Specs wise, inferior in almost every respect, but is one of the most popular advanced companion smartwatches. But what about that eight core smartwatch? Think it would kill in sales? It doesn't.

Why is speed/responsiveness on the list? Because under powered vs poor software is important to the tech savy 20 somethings that are the target group for smartwatches. Them finding out the device is more than capable but the OEM pushed out poor software, has caused serious backlash from the users.

That target group is not my opinion but comes from both industry reports and the OEMs themselves.

You are one of the rare ones then. Personally, I don't care who makes a device, just as long as it's done well.

Regarding your earlier comment about Linux. You say that "Linux didn't resonate with average consumers " then or now. The bulk of the smartwatch and smartphone market run Linux based OSes. They just don't tell you it's Linux.


----------



## zetaplus93

Lokifish said:


> Every ATM/Meter/Feet rated (smart)watch manufactured by any company, that adheres to international standards, since early 2012 is water resistant to the depth listed for all water related activities. Those confusing charts and tables are no longer needed and haven't been for some time.


Understood. But we continue to get threads asking if you can take a 100m watch to shower, or arguments on weather the stroking action in swimming would exert so much force that it would "break" a 100m watch...



Lokifish said:


> I see where you are going but that's marketing and has little to do with the tech itself.


Certainly. But this (marketing, or really just another way, instead of using tech specs, to explain benefits to customers) is arguably more important than specs when we're trying to get the general public (mostly non-techies) to adopt these products.



Lokifish said:


> So let me put it into marketing terms;
> 
> Hypothetical Smartwatch X
> The latest and newest software
> Twice the cores and memory of Apple, LG, Samsung and Moto
> 1.5x the screen resolution of our nearest competitor
> Same size and look as expensive watches like Rolex. Omega and others
> You can swim, shower, snorkel at depths up to 30ft/10m
> Two weeks standby
> Four days of battery life
> 
> (add in all the asterisks and notations in tiny print commonly found here)


Ok makes sense for the most part. But I'd argue that the 1.5x resolution is meaningless once you push beyond "good enough" (something like Retina in the world if iPhones; 440dpi on phones isn't really noticeable, or consumable, by average users).

Also, twice the cores than competitors isn't that meaningful either--people expect fast (default), and blazing fast & slow. You want to be fast. Blazing fast isn't really that important, at least for watches, because I'm using it for 5-10s at a time. To be clear, "fast" means good subjective performance without perceived lags. (As an aside, most 3rd party apps on the AW is slow and sucks today. I expect it to improve and hit the "fast" marker in some time).



Lokifish said:


> Tizen smartwatches outsold Wear smartwatch by about 3 to 1 last year.


But did it sell more because of Tizen or Samsung?

I'd bet people are buying because of the brand and not because they want Tizen.



Lokifish said:


> From what you are describing maps, texts, music are all in that very first swipe up. Unless you have a version of Wear I don't, that's not the case. Look at the layout of both Wear and Apple and count the number of actions it takes to get to the last screen.
> View attachment 4019546
> 
> 
> Using that image as an example, Weather takes 5 swipes to get to, Music on Apple is 6 swipes. Add any two cards and you are at 7 or 8 swipes. On Wear, it also requires you stare at the screen to get to it due to Wears "last in first out" sorting. Now try that while walking and carrying stuff on a busy sidewalk, it's near impossible. It is in use, not much different than swiping through screens on your phone. This is completely counter to traditional watch usage and part of the reason Wear sales were poor when compared to static sorting smartwatches in market studies.


Ah I get what you're saying now.

In practice, I put the most relevant apps as complications on my watch face. Here's an example:










There are 4 complications in each corner. Weather (top left), activities (top right), world time (bottom left), and countdown timer. Info updates as you can see on the watch face. Clicking the complications takes me to the app directly. So you can think of these as shortcuts or widgets on the watch face.

I have 4 glances (in order): music, maps, calendar, stocks. Also, Notification Center is in position zero (far left) and power in last position (far right).

For glances, I use position 1 (music) and 2 (maps) most frequently. Others (0, 3-5) are used rarely (I don't check charge level at all during the day--the battery lasts the whole day for my needs).



Lokifish said:


> Why is speed/responsiveness on the list? Because under powered vs poor software is important to the tech savy 20 somethings that are the target group for smartwatches. Them finding out the device is more than capable but the OEM pushed out poor software, has caused serious backlash from the users.
> 
> That target group is not my opinion but comes from both industry reports and the OEMs themselves.


I'd argue that the target market should be non-techies, just like for phones. Sure, initially, techies wanted in. But now, everyone has a phone. I can certainly see my mom, SO, and other non-techies benefiting from a modern smartwatch.



Lokifish said:


> You are one of the rare ones then. Personally, I don't care who makes a device, just as long as it's done well.


I wish that wasn't true...



Lokifish said:


> Regarding your earlier comment about Linux. You say that "Linux didn't resonate with average consumers " then or now. The bulk of the smartwatch and smartphone market run Linux based OSes. They just don't tell you it's Linux.


Yes, but modern Linux-based systems (OS X, iOS, Android, etc) sell not because it doesn't say Linux. Rather, it's all the other stuff (usability etc) added on top of Linux that makes them compelling for consumers.


----------



## Lokifish

zetaplus93 said:


> Understood. But we continue to get threads asking if you can take a 100m watch to shower, or arguments on weather the stroking action in swimming would exert so much force that it would "break" a 100m watch...


Sometimes no matter what you do the willfully ignorant will stay willfully ignorant. Doesn't matter how many reference links and equations you provide. It's the internet, misinformation is king. The other issue is that 100m meant washing your hands only for so long that it's hard to do away with that old thinking, plus many sites folks use as reference were never updated when the change occurred.



zetaplus93 said:


> Certainly. But this (marketing, or really just another way, instead of using tech specs, to explain benefits to customers) is arguably more important than specs when we're trying to get the general public (mostly non-techies) to adopt these products.


Too a degree. Average Joe watch wearer just wants a watch that he doesn't have to mess with or plug in every day that looks like a watch and is not obsolete/unsupported in two years. However, smartwatches are disposable tech and not intended to be long term use devices.



zetaplus93 said:


> Ok makes sense for the most part. But I'd argue that the 1.5x resolution is meaningless once you push beyond "good enough" (something like Retina in the world if iPhones; 440dpi on phones isn't really noticeable, or consumable, by average users).
> 
> Also, twice the cores than competitors isn't that meaningful either--people expect fast (default), and blazing fast & slow. You want to be fast. Blazing fast isn't really that important, at least for watches, because I'm using it for 5-10s at a time. To be clear, "fast" means good subjective performance without perceived lags. (As an aside, most 3rd party apps on the AW is slow and sucks today. I expect it to improve and hit the "fast" marker in some time).


More = better in the minds of most western consumers. Doesn't matter if the "more" is only 20%, it's still more. That's what drives Android sales and to a lesser degree Apple's. In regards to PPI, an elegant and detailed watch face looks poor on a 300PPI display. Part of the reason is that the expectation at a subconscious level is based on previous experience which is traditional watches. At 440 the "jaggies" are greatly reduced but still perceived to a certain degree with diagonal lines or arcs. It has to do with pixel layouts and shape.

Little secret about app developers. Most use cut and paste code and never optimize it for a specific device if even at all. Most average consumers think it's the phone's fault an app runs slow because that's what marketing and uninformed "experts" have told use since day one. In a lot of cases this is not true but it sure sells phones, and smartwatches too.



zetaplus93 said:


> But did it sell more because of Tizen or Samsung?
> 
> I'd bet people are buying because of the brand and not because they want Tizen.


I say the brand, it's mostly to do with an Apple like level of loyalty and not the product per say.



zetaplus93 said:


> Ah I get what you're saying now.
> 
> In practice, I put the most relevant apps as complications on my watch face. Here's an example:
> 
> There are 4 complications in each corner. Weather (top left), activities (top right), world time (bottom left), and countdown timer. Info updates as you can see on the watch watch. Clicking the complications takes me to the app directly. So you can think of these as shortcuts or widgets on the watch face.
> 
> I have 4 glances (in order): music, maps, calendar, stocks. Also, Notification Center is in position zero (far left) and power in last position (far right).
> 
> For glances, I use position 1 (music) and 2 (maps) most frequently. Others (0, 3-5) are used rarely (I don't check charge level at all during the day--the battery lasts the whole day for my needs).


Such a user definable setup is not possible on the bulk of smartwatches, or if it is, it requires third party apps that have to fight the OS for control. Conversely when I suggested this exact same thing for Android and Wear smartwatches (Yes they are two different things) as well as simple notification counters over a year ago, I got laughed at. But it should not have taken years to get to this point for smartwatches of this type. It should have been done from the beginning. But most reviewers and end users don't know that because workflow analysis is not even considered when examining a smartwatch.



zetaplus93 said:


> I'd argue that the target market should be non-techies, just like for phones. Sure, initially, techies wanted in. But now, everyone has a phone. I can certainly see my mom, SO, and other non-techies benefiting from a modern smartwatch.


I agree, and to a greater degree, watch wearers (past and present) should be a target market as well. Traditional watches is a multi-billion dollar market with over a billion customers. The common gripe is battery life of course, but also a lot of them don't want to have to buy a phone to use it or want it to look and function like a watch that's smart, not a wrist tablet they need to replace ever two years. Until smartwatches are done from the "it's a watch" mindset, I see a very long road ahead before they become commonplace.

Oddly this conversation reminds me of every "first conversations" I've had with developers and engineers I ended up working with on projects later.

Wanna design Rolex and Reverso styled smartwatches for the masses? (jk)


----------



## zetaplus93

Lokifish said:


> Too a degree. Average Joe watch wearer just wants a watch that he doesn't have to mess with or plug in every day that looks like a watch and is not obsolete/unsupported in two years. However, smartwatches are disposable tech and not intended to be long term use devices.


I think that's true if you've wore a watch.

For people who don't wear watches anymore (or ever), they probably would also have similar expectations (i.e. don't charge it everyday, battery lasts for years), but they may be more willing to accept the charge-daily routine of modern smartwatches (assuming that the benefits outweigh the hassles).



Lokifish said:


> More = better in the minds of most western consumers. Doesn't matter if the "more" is only 20%, it's still more. That's what drives Android sales and to a lesser degree Apple's.


Agreed (though sadly... I saw the megapixel and DPI race with cameras and smartphones. Thought it was ridiculous once it got past "good enough").



Lokifish said:


> In regards to PPI, an elegant and detailed watch face looks poor on a 300PPI display. Part of the reason is that the expectation at a subconscious level is based on previous experience which is traditional watches. At 440 the "jaggies" are greatly reduced but still perceived to a certain degree with diagonal lines or arcs. It has to do with pixel layouts and shape.


Again, true if you're used to analog watches. If you've never wore watches or are used to digital display watches (ironman etc) then higher DPI is a "nice to have" but not necessary IMHO.

Also, I wonder what percentage of people choose analog displays vs digital ones? I prefer analog but digital displays can provide more info.



Lokifish said:


> Such a user definable setup is not possible on the bulk of smartwatches, or if it is, it requires third party apps that have to fight the OS for control. Conversely when I suggested this exact same thing for Android and Wear smartwatches (Yes they are two different things) as well as simple notification counters over a year ago, I got laughed at. But it should not have taken years to get to this point for smartwatches of this type. It should have been done from the beginning. But most reviewers and end users don't know that because workflow analysis is not even considered when examining a smartwatch.


Which is too bad. These shortcuts are must have on smartwatches. AW's approach, though obviously not perfect, is the way to go.



Lokifish said:


> I agree, and to a greater degree, watch wearers (past and present) should be a target market as well.


And women as well. Android-based watches are humongous. I've heard women colleagues say the AW us too big as well--they want the equivalent of 28mm watches.



Lokifish said:


> Traditional watches is a multi-billion dollar market with over a billion customers. The common gripe is battery life of course, but also a lot of them don't want to have to buy a phone to use it or want it to look and function like a watch that's smart, not a wrist tablet they need to replace ever two years. Until smartwatches are done from the "it's a watch" mindset, I see a very long road ahead before they become commonplace.


I suppose, though I disagree on how long it will take for people to adopt modern smartwatches. But let's see where the market goes. It's an exciting time!



Lokifish said:


> Oddly this conversation reminds me of every "first conversations" I've had with developers and engineers I ended up working with on projects later.
> 
> Wanna design Rolex and Reverso styled smartwatches for the masses? (jk)


LOL would love to!


----------



## BarracksSi

I hate picking nits out of forum posts, but still&#8230;



Lokifish said:


> Hypothetical Smartwatch X
> The latest and newest software
> *Twice the cores and memory of Apple, LG, Samsung and Moto
> 1.5x the screen resolution of our nearest competitor*
> Same size and look as expensive watches like Rolex. Omega and others
> You can swim, shower, snorkel at depths up to 30ft/10m
> *Two weeks standby
> Four days of battery life*


The features that I've bolded don't yet go together. More CPU cores means more power drain, and it's the same with driving more pixels. You can't have that kind of grunt and four days of battery life unless you either have a huge battery or achieve a fantastic leap in battery technology.

About the "same size and look as expensive watches&#8230;" -- are we talking 36mm Rolex Oyster or Planet Ocean Chrono? ;-)


----------



## Lokifish

zetaplus93 There are sub 40mm smartwatches designed for women that get days of battery life. They're Android and iOS compatible but because they a basic companions (no voice search and limited apps) and don't have a big name is not on it, are almost completely unknown in the west even with favorable press from major review sites.



BarracksSi said:


> I hate picking nits out of forum posts, but still&#8230;
> The features that I've bolded don't yet go together. More CPU cores means more power drain, and it's the same with driving more pixels. You can't have that kind of grunt and four days of battery life unless you either have a huge battery or achieve a fantastic leap in battery technology.
> 
> About the "same size and look as expensive watches&#8230;" -- are we talking 36mm Rolex Oyster or Planet Ocean Chrono? ;-)


A quad core LG smartwatch has a more power efficient CPU than a dual core Moto 360. The single core CPU on the Ingenic Newton uses more power than the dual core on the Newton 2. More cores do not always equal greater power requirements.

I own a couple cellular standalone smartwatches that, even with broken/unfinished firmware, get over two weeks of standby and four days of use with a power eating IPS display. They're dual core, the quad core version of the SOC is even more efficient, the octocore version that replaced the quad still uses less power than the dual core. Drop in a more efficient display, like a transflective or OLED, and what I said is possible.

For square displays, an advanced companion class smartwatch (AW, Tizen, Apple), that's about vintage Tissot F1 SeaStar Quartz size, is possible. There were smartwatches capable of running AW in this size already but Google won't let them come to market. For a circular display, sub 40mm is doable in the advanced companion class as well.

In short, maybe not 36mm Rolex Oyster but 39mm Rolex Explorer is more than doable.


----------



## zetaplus93

Lokifish said:


> zetaplus93 There are sub 40mm smartwatches designed for women that get days of battery life. They're Android and iOS compatible but because they a basic companions (no voice search and limited apps) and don't have a big name is not on it, are almost completely unknown in the west even with favorable press from major review sites.


Understood. Wasn't aware of those offerings.

But if they're basic companion watches, they may not get much traction going forward (again, assuming AW and "modern" smartwatches gain traction).

It'd be like 2007 when the first iPhone was introduced. It was rough around the edges, but you could see the potential (and it did advance quickly over the years). If you still bought a feature phone then (given that the first iPhones were rough), you'd likely be going for a modern smartphone by 2010. It took a few more years, but eventually modern smartphones replaced features phones for the most part. So a possible outcome is that the basic companion smartwatches would eventually be phased out.


----------



## Lokifish

Advanced companions do offer more. But on the flip side, basic companions are a fraction of the cost, capping out at around $150 and except for voice sear and specialized apps, perform all the core functions advanced companions do. Then there's Pebble, which is an advanced notifier class, which sold a million units last year. That put them in the number two slot for sales worldwide beating out AW. The odd thing about all this is Samsung was first, their not-AW offerings are Samsung specific and not even compatible with other brands of phones.

Many think that advanced companions will be the market soon (5 years or less), which is very optimistic. It took smartphones 12 years to surpass feature phone sales, and that was a recent thing (2013). The thing that may speed things up is to price all smartwatches as the disposable accessories that they are, say 20-30% net. Either way, I think it's still to early to place your bets as they still have traditional watch wearers and watch free folks to contend with.


----------



## jbg7474

Lokifish said:


> zetaplus93 There are sub 40mm smartwatches designed for women that get days of battery life. They're Android and iOS compatible but because they a basic companions (no voice search and limited apps) and don't have a big name is not on it, are almost completely unknown in the west even with favorable press from major review sites.


Could you give us a link to some of these reviews? I'd like to read about some of these devices.


----------



## Lokifish

jbg7474 said:


> Could you give us a link to some of these reviews? I'd like to read about some of these devices.


I don't have the links any more, I deleted them when I quit the industry. Look to the Chinese makers. Omate is one of the better known brands and a quick search pulled up THIS REVIEW, this UNBOXING, as well as this OVERVIEW, of a slightly larger basic companion smartwatch (42mm w/ crown). So wider than the Apple Watch but not as long and about 2mm thicker.

Disclaimer
I'm in no way pushing Omate. It still does not negate the fact that iOS compatible companion class smartwatches, that are not expensive or large (46mm and such), do exist.


----------



## BarracksSi

http://www.zdnet.com/article/one-month-with-the-apple-watch-pain-joy-and-daily-experiences/



> went running in Virginia, navigated around New York and Seattle, took an Uber ride in DC, suffered wrist and hand pain for hours on end, bought coffee, played games, made calls, shared my heartbeat and sketches, followed the Mariners, and looked at my iPhone 6 Plus a bit less all in my first month with the Apple Watch Sport edition.
> After a month of use, check out my full review, the Apple Watch is my favorite smartwatch so far and it's helping keep my SIM card in my iPhone 6 Plus. It's definitely not an essential accessory, but it has surpassed my expectations and I agree with Consumer Reports that it is the best current smartwatch.


----------



## jbg7474

Lokifish said:


> I don't have the links any more, I deleted them when I quit the industry. Look to the Chinese makers. Omate is one of the better known brands and a quick search pulled up THIS REVIEW, this UNBOXING, as well as this OVERVIEW, of a slightly larger basic companion smartwatch (42mm w/ crown). So wider than the Apple Watch but not as long and about 2mm thicker.
> 
> Disclaimer
> I'm in no way pushing Omate. It still does not negate the fact that iOS compatible companion class smartwatches, that are not expensive or large (46mm and such), do exist.


Thanks!


----------



## BarracksSi

Gruber's weeks-old view on the AW's interface model, especially how the digital crown button works:

http://daringfireball.net/2015/05/apple_watch_interaction_model



> Here's a better way to think about it - and without thinking about it, the reason why I think most people aren't frustrated or confused by the crown button after a week or so. It's best to think of Apple Watch as having two modes: watch mode, and app mode.
> 
> You do not need to understand this to use the watch. Most Apple Watch owners will never really think about this. But this idea of two modes is central to understanding the design of the overall interaction model.


Quite an idea. I hadn't gotten to that point in the ten minutes or so that I played with one of the working demos at the Apple Store.


----------



## BarracksSi

ABTW's Ariel Adams, part 2:
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/apple-w...ty-utility-whether-replace-traditional-watch/



> In order to better understand what other people do with their Apple Watches, I simply ask them. From neighbors to strangers on the street, I've been anything but shy in asking people, "how do you like your Apple Watch?" People tend to like the attention, and I've heard a lot of interesting opinions out there. I've seen comments online where people claim to have returned their Apple Watches for various reasons such as "when I realized it needed to be around my iPhone all the time, I didn't want it anymore," or "Apple doesn't tell you that you can't type on it, so I returned it." However, in real life, I've never heard people express these sentiments, and I am pretty doubtful that many people are truly vexed by these issues.
> What do people say about their Apple Watches? I've heard "the battery life isn't really that bad... I look at my phone less... I like seeing information easily without having to use my hands... I've started to not be able to live without Apple Pay..." Some people really don't have much to say other than they like it and are interested in its potential. So do I share these sentiments? More or less, I do.
> 
> I really have no significant complaints about the Apple Watch, to be honest. That isn't to say there aren't loads of features I'd like for it to have, and I am curious to see how Apple develops both the hardware and software - but for a smartwatch, this little thing is incredibly impressive.


----------



## rationaltime

BarracksSi said:


> ABTW's Ariel Adams, part 2:
> Apple Watch Review Chapter 2: Reliability, Utility, And Whether It Will Replace My Traditional Watch | aBlogtoWatch


Though I have no complaint about his statements, Ariel Adams' informal
poll suffers from a strong selection bias.

Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## BarracksSi

rationaltime said:


> Though I have no complaint about his statements, Ariel Adams' informal
> poll suffers from a strong selection bias.
> 
> Thanks,
> rationaltime


I didn't look for a poll. I think the whole "Web 2.0", with commentary from viewers taking such importance, as a big fail.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> ABTW's Ariel Adams, part 2:
> Apple Watch Review Chapter 2: Reliability, Utility, And Whether It Will Replace My Traditional Watch | aBlogtoWatch


This has become one of my fave reviews of the watch. I tend to goss over reviews from people who:

1: get tech but not watches.
2: get watches but not tech.
3: get neither.

My fave reviews so far have come from techies who also wear watches but I think this is the first I've read from a watch aficionado who also at least uses tech.



the article said:


> "Natural" is a word I've been using a lot over the last few days to describe the Apple Watch. I say that because, in my opinion, looking at information on your wrist just feels so much more natural than carrying around a Hershey bar-sized computer in my hands. I am probably not the first person to observe that the throngs of people who keep their mobile phones in a death grip at all times look a bit silly. That just isn't natural and what makes it worse is that many mobile phones today (including the iPhone) have the ergonomics of a bar of soap. Smartwatches are attached to your wrist, don't require a hand to carry around, and are useful at a glance. Mobile phones simply can't claim that . . .


When the iPhone 6 and 6+ were announced, a lot of men grumbled that neither fit into their back pocket. I pointed out that

1. Asia. Apple wants to dent into these markets and there is a general preference there for larger phone (in a dress-up culture where you're more likely to use a bag or briefcase, your phone can be larger) and,
2. Apple Watch. Prolly, Apple's logic is that if your watch is small, then your phone can be larger.

(Try pointing these out to a jeans-wearing dude on the left coast? It's a good way to get someone's wtf face.)

I too have be complaining about the larger iPhone models but, if I get both an AW and an iPhone, I can get the 6+ after all if I'm going to leave it in my bag (or fanny pack, don't laugh), most of the time.



> I posit, instead, that Apple studied the traditional watch industry first and foremost to understand how to build a device that people wear. This involved everything from understanding how people like to engage with wrist watches, to how to build a wrist watch that can survive the abuses of normal wear and tear.


Oh yes, Jony Ive has said multiple times that he loves his automatics.



> In other words, compared to traditional watches, the Apple Watch has very little communicative value in helping to make someone unique.


Just like an iPhone or iPod. There's nothing stopping a woman from buying an black iPod for herself or a man from buying a pink iPod for himself. It comes in a range of colors; you decide which is best for you. Also, you can decorate it the way is best for you. Hence the aftermarket for iPhone cases and stickers and, eventually, the aftermarket for AW straps.

I actually find Apple's neutral styling a refreshing from both the tech and watch industries.



> Apple's focus shifted a few times here and there because, at the end of the day, they decided that they wanted the Apple Watch to be as fashionable and as sexy as possible. Then came things like the Apple Watch Edition in gold - which, while very commercially viable, is confusing to many tech lovers because it does not directly advance the goal of putting useful connected devices on people's wrists. Therefore, in attempting to appeal to as wide an audience as possible with the Apple Watch, Apple has by default confused certain audiences.


I don't think that Apple has tried to widen the AW's audience as much as possible as much as they realized that there are tasks that require at least a look and tasks that need at most a glance and many of the latter would be better served with a watch-and that just will happen to include a lot of people. I think people are overthinking the question, "Who would want or need an AW?" when the answer is simply, people who have tasks that need at most glances. Honestly, I think the only people who got the AW at first are people who _love_ *both* tech and watches.

(Also, the AW is unapologetically gender-neutral-just like the iPhones and iPods. This too, I think, has both watch users and tech users confused, albeit for different reasons. Let's face it, Baselworld and any tech show is going to be testosterone heavy.)


----------



## scentedlead

rationaltime said:


> Though I have no complaint about his statements, Ariel Adams' informal
> poll suffers from a strong selection bias.


Poll? What poll?

As for the comments? I learned a long time ago to never go into comments of an article covering a hot-button issue. That said I still went in and, oh my, it's as if a lot of anti AW comments here were cut and pasted word for word over there. Shocking.

Lesson re-learned: Don't go into the comments of hot-button articles.


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> And women as well. Android-based watches are humongous. I've heard women colleagues say the AW us too big as well--they want the equivalent of 28mm watches.


Honestly, I don't see how a smartwatch is going to be useful at smaller than 35mm-unless you have better than 20/20 vision and can set the text to an absurdly small size.

As for watch-size, what size watch to wear is a construct created by culture. Women's watches are smaller because 1) smaller wrists but 2) when watches were not hermetically sealed like they are today, smaller meant more inaccurate but that's okay for a woman's watch because what does a woman need such accuracy for? But men's watches in the 1930s and '40s, while still larger than women's watches, went to 25 - 30mm because low end watches wanted to save consumers money in the depression and metal for the war effort in WWII while high-end watches went that small to show off how advanced their sealed cases were. Compare that with today where bigger = more manly (as long as there is no over-hang).

My aunts all think a woman's watch should be as small and dainty as possible. But in my age group, women (the ones who wear watches anyways because why? when you have a cell phone and computer and tablet) are going to have watches in a range of sizes, for different occasions from formal wear to chillaxing to needing something tough. A modern woman is less likely to think of a large watch as unfeminine.

That said, the rule of no overhang still applies and for a thin woman with a thin 6″ wrist, 40mm is the largest she'll go for a boyfriend watch. (Though, a woman with a larger wrist could and prolly would go larger for that boyfriend watch look.)

If a smartwatch is going to appeal to women, there has to be a model in the 35 - 40mm range.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> When the iPhone 6 and 6+ were announced, a lot of men grumbled that neither fit into their back pocket. I pointed out that
> 
> 1. Asia. Apple wants to dent into these markets and there is a general preference there for larger phone (in a dress-up culture where you're more likely to use a bag or briefcase, your phone can be larger) and,
> 2. Apple Watch. Prolly, Apple's logic is that if your watch is small, then your phone can be larger.
> 
> (Try pointing these out to a jeans-wearing dude on the left coast? It's a good way to get someone's wtf face.)
> 
> I too have be complaining about the larger iPhone models but, if I get both an AW and an iPhone, I can get the 6+ after all if I'm going to leave it in my bag (or fanny pack, don't laugh), most of the time.


Good points. I'm still undecided on which size I prefer (4", 4.7", though probably not the 5.5").

Ignoring pricing and performance between a 4" and 4.7" model (and assuming Apple continues updating the 4" model), and assuming I'll continue wearing an AW, I could see myself going with either. 4" seems much more portable (I don't use backpacks or business bags), but the 4.7" would be ever more readable (had the Nexus 4 a while back and loved the screen size, but not the carrying size).



scentedlead said:


> Honestly, I think the only people who got the AW at first are people who _love_ *both* tech and watches.


Actually, the few I've met so far seem to not be watch-lover in general, and not techies either. The fact that Apple released *the* watch that's cool looking and useful (health, payments, notifications) made them buy it.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> Honestly, I don't see how a smartwatch is going to be useful at smaller than 35mm-unless you have better than 20/20 vision and can set the text to an absurdly small size.


Agreed.



scentedlead said:


> As for watch-size, what size watch to wear is a construct created by culture.


Bingo. Right on.



scentedlead said:


> A modern woman is less likely to think of a large watch as unfeminine.


That's what I thought as well. But perhaps my friend made the comment based on her view of a watch used for more elegant settings (and where she would use the AW as). Or perhaps it's just a matter of style/taste.



scentedlead said:


> If a smartwatch is going to appeal to women, there has to be a model in the 35 - 40mm range.


Yes I think that's the sweet spot. Those desiring < 30mm watches may not get any smart watches for the time being, until at least the culture shifts enough to persuade them to at least try one.


----------



## BarracksSi

https://stratechery.com/2015/apple-watch-and-continuous-computing/



> I get why most reviews only spent a sentence or at best a small section on the Watch's appearance: it seems so shallow, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. One's skin, though, is as "shallow" as technology has ever gotten, at least compared to the depths of an office, a bag, or even a pocket. Each step towards the light increases the importance of aesthetics, and Apple's advantage here can't be overstated.
> 
> On the other hand, "beauty being in the eye of the beholder" accentuates the downside of Apple's integrated approach: what people wear is an expression of who they are, and while even the most idiosyncratic individual may be willing to have a phone that looks the same as everyone else's, that may be a bridge too far when it comes to something on their body. This is why Apple launched with such a wide array of straps and case materials, and why the company has already opened the door to 3rd-party bands.
> 
> For now, though, I think Apple Watch checks this box in a way other wearables to date have not: more people than not will be willing to wear it.


And:



> Ultimately, the Apple Watch has exceeded my quite high expectations. The complications and notifications fit into all the slivers of my life the iPhone has not, and the criticism I've levied at Siri has been primarily fueled by the appreciation of just how powerful it is to have a virtual assistant on my wrist instead of my pocket. As for apps, speed is the most easily solved issue in technology, thanks to Moore's Law. I'm confident apps will be fully performant sooner rather than later.
> 
> That said, I suspect there will be a bifurcation when it comes to the Watch's relative importance vis-à-vis the smartphone between developed and developing countries: in the long run I do think that convenience trumps all, but there's no denying a smartphone is already pretty darn convenient. To put it another way, if you can afford it there is a sufficient delta between Watch and iPhone functionality to make the former worth owning despite its dependence on the latter. I also think that when the Watch inevitably gains cellular functionality I will carry my iPhone far less than I do today. Indeed, just as the iPhone makes far more sense as a digital hub than the Mac, the Watch will one day be the best hub yet.
> 
> Until, of course, physical devices disappear completely:


He ends with a pic of the _Her_ movie poster. Now, where have we discussed _Her_ before? ;-)


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> https://stratechery.com/2015/apple-watch-and-continuous-computing/
> 
> He ends with a pic of the _Her_ movie poster. Now, where have we discussed _Her_ before? ;-)


One thing about _Her _is the fact that there are no wrist worn devices. I get that the mini notebook-like device is available, but a lot of useful info could be provided on the wrist as well, similar to the AW... Now, one thing about _Her _is the fact that there are no wrist worn devices. I get that the mini notebook-like device is available, but a lot of useful info could be provided on the wrist as well, similar to the AW...

On a slight tangent, Ben Thompson (among others) have talked about how wearables and IoT (Internet of Things) are the ying and yang of one another. Specifically, wearables (like the AW) can be used to interact digitally with other objects in the physical world (as opposed to iPhones, iPads, and computers in general interacting with the digital world, through browsing the web, playing games, etc etc).

I think this article has been shared before, but this new reality could be similar to how the Disney MagicBand is used today:

Disney's $1 Billion Bet on a Magical Wristband | WIRED

Just replaced "Magic Band" with AW (or similar devices) to see how this could be very useful in the future. Of course, we'd have to grapple with the privacy and security concerns, but certainly this could be part of our future.

If this is what they're aiming to do, then it's interesting to note that companies (device makers, retailors, banks, etc etc) would need to build not only wearables, but also the other infrastructure (IoT components, i.e. sensors like iBeacons, cloud-based data processing). And most importantly, both needs to be built together (as Disney as done in their theme parks). It's the ying and yang; the complete, useful, ecosystem cannot exist without both parts in place. It seems that Apple is one company who could jump start all of this, by building the devices and convincing other companies to build out the rest. Apple Pay is a nice example (they had to convince Banks and retailors to sign up).

So perhaps we'll see a world similar to _Her _in the not-so-distant future. Exciting times indeed!


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> Actually, the few I've met so far seem to not be watch-lover in general, and not techies either. The fact that Apple released *the* watch that's cool looking and useful (health, payments, notifications) made them buy it.


That's interesting, most people around me don't wear watches and they're like, "Why? Why isn't my iPhone enough?" That said, it'll be interesting to see if their attitudes change as 1) Apple airs more ads to show off what the watch can do and 2) more AWs get into the wild.


----------



## scentedlead

zetaplus93 said:


> Yes I think that's the sweet spot. Those desiring < 30mm watches may not get any smart watches for the time being . . .


I think wanting a <30mm smartwatch is a case of not really thinking through what you really want.

I don't think it's a matter of if the tech will support a watch that small but _when_ it will. It's not a question of technology but of biology: Will people's _eyes_ support a smartwatch that small? When my parents get new gadgets, the first thing they do is increase the default text size. There's a reason why the Easy Reader has been such an enduring line for Timex.

It might not matter in character-based languages-one of the first places to adopt Twitter en masse was Japan because 128 characters is a paragraph in that language (that first year of Twitter's existence, seemed like everyone was either from California or Japan). But it matters in languages that use roman letters-in English, the average word length is five letters and it looks like the AW's default font sizes in their new San Francisco typeface yield 18-ish characters per line. To get that same line-length on a 30mm watch, you'd have to reduce the font size to around 75% of what it is on the 38mm watch.

There are already screens sharp enough for it but are our eyes sharp enough?



> . . . until at least the culture shifts enough to persuade them to at least try one.


I think the culture shift is already there for modern women. Dunno what it'll take for old folks though. I've seen a few reviews on some boyfriend watches on Amazon and I'm always amused to see negative reviews along the lines of, "This thing is huge, how is this a woman's watch?" And I'm like, "Um, the pink bracelet and pink dial and purple numbers aren't obviously feminine enough for you?" (Also, on a true boyfriend watch designed especially for women, once you get into 40+ mm range, the lugs curve down more than they would on a man's 40+ mm.)


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> https://stratechery.com/2015/apple-watch-and-continuous-computing/





the linked article said:


> Tim Cook said, "I see [wearables] as a very key branch of the tree," and that "The wrist is interesting. The wrist is natural."


I love that this review quotes Tim Cook on that. On a tangent, I think the designers of Google Glass realized that their competition was smartwatches but, they got half of that right in that Google Glass would be competing with all the ways smartwatches are there to be convenient but, they didn't realize the ways watches are convenient by _not_ being there. Putting away a watch is as simple as lowering your arm. Putting away your glasses is . . . Putting it on top of your head? Not an option for most hats and complicated hairstyles. Placing it to hang off your shirt? Looks fine on a high to mid v-neck but awkward for most other necklines, especially low necklines. Putting it away in your pocket or bag? That's just outright inconvenient. The watch is meant to be worn all the time but, it isn't meant to be looked at all the time-people want data until they don't. And this simple oversight had huge privacy implications that Google and Google Glass users seemed totally unaware of. (Also, people don't want to be data for other people.)



> He ends with a pic of the _Her_ movie poster. Now, where have we discussed _Her_ before? ;-)


I've seen only the trailer but what a creepy premise for a movie. Thank the powers that be for parody trailers.

That said, I do wonder what changes the movie would've had if the device were not a phone but a pair of glasses. Although, Siri is an interface that is an exercise in making interfaces abstract. Also it's easy to put away-you simply don't talk to it.

Whereas Google Glass is an interface that is an exercise in making interfaces a constant presence but it achieved making the body an i/o device by tracking eye movement and blinks and that has a lot of usability issues, but I think what people reacted more negatively to was the idea of making the body a tool of a machine.



zetaplus93 said:


> One thing about _Her _is the fact that there are no wrist worn devices. I get that the mini notebook-like device is available, but a lot of useful info could be provided on the wrist as well, similar to the AW...


I thought the movie was supposed to be Siri on steroids? Smartwatches have been around but it really took Apple announcing one last year-a year after the movie was released, two years after being made, three or more after being written-for the concept of smartwatches to reach critical mindshare. But yes a watch is more convenient for what the movie wanted to do.



> So perhaps we'll see a world similar to _Her _in the not-so-distant future. Exciting times indeed!


Yes, but not like that. Or, rather, I hope that people see computers as appliances and not as people.


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> I think wanting a <30mm smartwatch is a case of not really thinking through what you really want.


I suppose. But this brings up a great point: for wearables the average Joe (or Jane) thinks about the wearability or fashion-sense before they consider functionality. In other words, functionality be damn; if it looks "bad" (whatever that may mean for the wearer), I won't wear it no matter how great of a device it is.

So Apple's stated design goal, specifically goal #1 of making a beautiful product that the average person won't be embarrassed to wear, is paramount for wearables.



scentedlead said:


> I don't think it's a matter of if the tech will support a watch that small but _when_ it will. It's not a question of technology but of biology: Will people's _eyes_ support a smartwatch that small?
> ...
> There are already screens sharp enough for it but are our eyes sharp enough?


Good points.

If Apple decides to create something smaller, perhaps another solution is to create a watch that doesn't require such a massive screen. Maybe it's just displaying less info at any one time (and not scaling things down, which would cause all the legibility issues you mentioned). There are meaningful features that doesn't require a large screen (Apple Pay, fitness, etc)--one could leverage an iPhone for much of this display needs.

Of course, Apple probably would like to keep things simple and just keep the watches at 2 sizes.



scentedlead said:


> I think the culture shift is already there for modern women. Dunno what it'll take for old folks though. I've seen a few reviews on some boyfriend watches on Amazon and I'm always amused to see negative reviews along the lines of, "This thing is huge, how is this a woman's watch?" And I'm like, "Um, the pink bracelet and pink dial and purple numbers aren't obviously feminine enough for you?" (Also, on a true boyfriend watch designed especially for women, once you get into 40+ mm range, the lugs curve down more than they would on a man's 40+ mm.)


I think there are a couple of female-oriented styles. Boyfriend watches are one style, and certainly the smaller sizes are another that conveys elegance (boyfriend watches certainly conveys other aspects more strongly than elegance).


----------



## zetaplus93

scentedlead said:


> On a tangent, I think the designers of Google Glass realized that their competition was smartwatches but, they got half of that right in that Google Glass would be competing with all the ways smartwatches are there to be convenient but, they didn't realize the ways watches are convenient by _not_ being there.


The other very important thing is that glasses are just uncomfortable to wear after some time. There's a very good reason that contacts were invented and adopted en masse today (fashion being the other very good reason, of course).



scentedlead said:


> That said, I do wonder what changes the movie would've had if the device were not a phone but a pair of glasses. Although, Siri is an interface that is an exercise in making interfaces abstract. Also it's easy to put away-you simply don't talk to it.
> 
> Whereas Google Glass is an interface that is an exercise in making interfaces a constant presence but it achieved making the body an i/o device by tracking eye movement and blinks and that has a lot of usability issues, but I think what people reacted more negatively to was the idea of making the body a tool of a machine.


Technically, it wasn't a phone, but rather a small, foldable screen. Microphone and speakers are provided via a small, not-easily-seen earpiece.

I think glasses would've been more adept in this case, especially since the main character wears corrective glasses. It's very likely that one can see more info, and likely more legibly, via HUD-style projections on the glasses than a small, foldable display. Just don't put a camera on that sucker to avoid the privacy concerns.



scentedlead said:


> Yes, but not like that. Or, rather, I hope that people see computers as appliances and not as people.


Agreed. I should've added that I meant a world with all the wearables and IoT devices, but not the AI (main female lead).

Computers as tools (appliances) is great. Computers as semi-sentient companions is really messed up on a lot of levels... for one, in that type of world, are computers used to push people apart so much that an AI companion would see mass adoption/acceptance so easily? (somewhat spoiler-ish: we see them go on dates with humans...)

Nevertheless, great film and worth seeing to contemplate the social implications of human-AI interaction that doesn't go down the path of the AI blowing the human out of an airlock.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> [snip]
> &#8230;That said, I do wonder what changes the movie would've had if the device were not a phone but a pair of glasses. Although, Siri is an interface that is an exercise in making interfaces abstract. Also it's easy to put away-you simply don't talk to it.
> 
> [snip again]
> 
> Yes, but not like that. Or, rather, I hope that people see computers as appliances and not as people.


(I had brought up _Her_ before in another thread, specifically an article in Wired that focused on the design of the tech in the movie)

Part of why _Her_ had the tech as out-of-the-way as possible was to, well, get it out of the way of the story. They didn't want to distract the audience with sparkly, swooshing _Minority Report_-style special effects for computer interfaces.

In pushing the tech into the background, the designers thought that maybe devices didn't need to look and act like computer hardware. The smartphone became a little notebook, the desktop lost its keyboard, and much of the interaction with the OS was via a small earpiece. They thought that small computers could be powerful enough to be controlled entirely by voice, and not by using a preset list of commands, either.

If I could tell my computer, "Show me some flights to California in two months," and get a usable result, it would beat the pants off of starting the browser, picking out some websites, typing in more info, clicking through more interface variants than I can shake a stick at, manually digging through lists and lists of flights, etc etc.

It's just easier on the user side to not have to walk a computer through every single step of a process. Punch cards were the horse and buggy; current GUIs are the modern car that hasn't fundamentally changed since the 1930's. It's possible to make another big leap.


----------



## BarracksSi

A blogger on taking his Apple Watch traveling:

http://sixcolors.com/post/2015/05/travels-with-the-apple-watch/

*Bold* emphasis mine:



> Watch: Surprisingly enough, one of the best features of the Apple Watch while traveling was just having it as a watch. *I haven't worn a wristwatch regularly for years, and having the time at a glance was really handy* when I was constantly budgeting for time, trying to figure out my schedule, and make trains and flights.
> 
> [pic of Apple Watch Utility Face]
> 
> I kept my standard Utility face for the trip, but swapped the Weather complication into the bottom spot, so it gave me the conditions along with the temperature (and because I figured I didn't need to see my calendar events while on vacation); in the top right corner, I put a World Clock complication so I could quickly see the time back home. I liked the Weather at the bottom so much that I'm keeping it there for now, though I've replaced the World Clock with a timer complication for now.


----------



## jbg7474

Yeah, amazingly, wearing a watch helps you see the time quickly and easily. But, this is an example of a non-watch wearer learning the benefits of a watch from the Apple Watch.


----------



## dawiz

jbg7474 said:


> Yeah, amazingly, wearing a watch helps you see the time quickly and easily. But, this is an example of a non-watch wearer learning the benefits of a watch from the Apple Watch.


That's exactly where the Apple Watch fell short from me - telling the time quickly and easily. I found it way too annoying that the watch didn't always recognize my wrist flicks and just stayed dark, not showing the time.


----------



## BarracksSi

jbg7474 said:


> Yeah, amazingly, wearing a watch helps you see the time quickly and easily. But, this is an example of a non-watch wearer learning the benefits of a watch from the Apple Watch.


Yup. He could also say that a regular watch won't have the weather and world time right on the face*, yet it could be argued that both of those functions are superfluous, too.

*Of course we have "ABC" watches that have thermometers, barometers, multi-time zone displays, etc, but they're never sleek, either.


----------



## BarracksSi

A decidedly unhappy owner, and a wide variety of opinions in the comments section:

MacMost I Hate My Apple Watch



> Another issue with smart watches in general is how you interact with them. The typical mode is to hold your arm in "wristwatch viewing position." That is not a comfortable position. If all you have ever done in the past is to glance at your watch for a split second to see the time, then you probably haven't noticed. But from day one with the Apple Watch you quickly realize that that position is uncomfortable to hold for 5 seconds, 10 seconds or 2 minutes. Interacting with apps often requires long amounts of time. Holding you phone is a much better option than twisting your own arm and holding it there like that.
> 
> So what is a smart watch for? If I have my iPhone in my pocket, then do I really need a smaller, slower, dumber device on my wrist as well? After the last 30 days, the definitive answer for me is: no.


My take is that he's trying to use it like he uses his iPhone. He's either missing the point, or he doesn't want to use it as intended anyway. Not even Apple expects the Watch to be used like a smartphone. The published developer guidelines recommend designing apps that only require a few seconds of attention. As a developer himself, he should know this.

[adding on]
About his point here: 


> The one thing that the Apple Watch can do that an iPhone cannot is to track your pulse. I'm not a fitness enthusiast, but I do like to ride my bike several times per week. I do like to make sure that I move around during the day since I work at a desk.


The iPhone can track heart rate, although you'd need a Bluetooth-enabled HR strap to do it. But, you don't need any other adapters anymore (not even ANT+ is necessary), and several apps can get the HR signal, including the Cyclemeter app that he says he uses for his bike rides.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> A decidedly unhappy owner, and a wide variety of opinions in the comments section:
> 
> MacMost I Hate My Apple Watch


The first thing that popped in my head was, you're using it wrong...

The fact that he didn't want a watch from the get go was a big sign. You're probably not going to like any watches, period.

The amazing thing is that he's a developer. Didn't he read that you're suppose to use it for a max of 5-10s? And then when he found that out, he didn't try to figure out what the watch would be good for.

I do agree that 3rd party apps have really sucked for the most part. They're slow. Actually, the built in app sometimes will be very slow too (like weather). But I do expect these things to be ironed out going forward.


----------



## BarracksSi

zetaplus93 said:


> I do agree that 3rd party apps have really sucked for the most part. They're slow. Actually, the built in app sometimes will be very slow too (like weather). But I do expect these things to be ironed out going forward.


I think the partial idea behind making apps reside in the phone should force developers to think lightweight, moving as little data as possible to the watch. When native apps are allowed (maybe as soon as next week?) they will be much faster -- but there's always the chance of unnecessary bloat.


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> I think the partial idea behind making apps reside in the phone should force developers to think lightweight, moving as little data as possible to the watch. When native apps are allowed (maybe as soon as next week?) they will be much faster -- but there's always the chance of unnecessary bloat.


Yup. Jeff Williams has brought up that and it's strongly hinted (as much as Apple is able to) that native 3rd party apps will be coming soon.

The thing about electronics is that they get faster and more powerful as they evolve. The first iPhone only had 2G, no camera (front or back), and battery lasts for a day or so. But the form factor worked (touchscreen, no keyboard, daily charging required) and became the dominant design for modern phones. And we've seen how the iPhone became faster, more powerful, and gained new sensors for new modes of interaction (cameras, force touch (likely to come soon)).

I'd be much more concerned if the critiques were on the form factor (say, if the digital crown was broken and useless). Feeds and speeds will always be taken care of going forward.


----------



## scentedlead

Engadget: Here's what our readers think of the Apple Watch

The article is fairly positive but there are clunkers in the comments, like this one:



> illstplaya
> And you wasted money on something that your phone already does. No point in having a SmartWatch when it only takes two seconds to pull out your phone from your pocket. I doubt you are using the watch all day every day


Not everyone keeps their phone in an open pocket and not everyone is able-bodied. If your pocket has a zipper, or worse yet buttons, or if you have a bag or large bag, or if you have a briefcase, or if you have mobility issues, then taking out a phone might be anything from a mere annoyance to outright burden.

And the comment about the watch doing what your phone already does is a nice segue into this:



BarracksSi said:


> A decidedly unhappy owner, and a wide variety of opinions in the comments section:
> 
> MacMost I Hate My Apple Watch
> 
> My take is that he's trying to use it like he uses his iPhone. He's either missing the point, or he doesn't want to use it as intended anyway. Not even Apple expects the Watch to be used like a smartphone. The published developer guidelines recommend designing apps that only require a few seconds of attention. As a developer himself, he should know this.


Wow. Where to begin with what is wrong with the article?

I hope he never develops anything for any smartwatch.

There are two kinds of smartwatch users:

1. Those who want a mini smartphone.
2. Those who want super watch.

Likewise, there are two kinds of smartwatch developers.

1. The ones who wrote Twitter which shows you your entire timeline and global hashtags. Stuff you get first when using Twitter on a computer or smartphone.
2. Those who wrote Twitterrific which shows you replies, mentions, direct messages, favs, RT's and new followers. Stuff most people-especially those who are on the go and are pressed for time-prioritize.

I can think of people who'd want to keep track of global hastags-journalists, professional bloggers, maybe celebrities. But even they would prolly prioritize replies, mentions, messages, and new followers over the larger and more impersonal timeline.

As for the author, a developer, if he wants the watch to be a mini-phone, then the signs point to the kind of developer whose smartwatch apps are going to be bloatware-too big and yet too useless.


----------



## BarracksSi

Two NY Times writers, at least one of whom was mentioned earlier in this thread, have an "email conversation" about the Watch. Cute:
http://nyti.ms/1QOUXdc


----------



## BarracksSi

http://watchaware.com/post/12876/a-day-in-the-life-i-forgot-my-apple-watch-at-home

As you can guess by the title, he forgot his Watch at home on the charger. He'd been using it for a month.



> Finally, glimpses of my of my old phone-triggered anxiety made appearances. What is that buzz? Is it important? Being very used by now to internally dismissing phone vibrations as unimportant notifications, I also missed a lot of things. All in all, *I found myself less informed, yet more distracted by my phone at the same time.* Yes these two things sound contradictory, and no I'm not sure how else to explain such strange phenomena. I am but an ordinary Apple Watch user in a 2015 world.
> 
> My wrist felt lighter, and I felt very disconnected from my virtual presence in its entirety. Apple Watch isn't something that's just on you; with taptics, especially, it's practically in you. That's the main reason why my watch was back on my wrist today, and hopefully will be tomorrow and onward.


----------



## BarracksSi

Philip Elmer-DeWitt at Fortune compiled a list of seven journalists who didn't like the AW:
http://fortune.com/2015/06/13/apple-watch-returned-disappointed/



> Is this a trend?
> 
> After the New York Times published fashion writer Vanessa Friedman's charming piece about "breaking up" with her Apple Watch, I searched the Web for similar stories. I found a few. Not as many as I expected.


----------



## shnjb

BarracksSi said:


> Philip Elmer-DeWitt at Fortune compiled a list of seven journalists who didn't like the AW:
> http://fortune.com/2015/06/13/apple-watch-returned-disappointed/


Interesting perspectives.


----------



## BarracksSi

shnjb said:


> Interesting perspectives.


Right. Some of their complaints will be fixed when WatchOS 2 hits this fall, though.

I'm starting to wonder if most people are geeky enough to use most of a smartwatch's features.

For those who get frequent emails and tweets, or who log their physical activity, or who are lucky enough to have Apple Pay at their regular retailers (my corner store has no touchless payment system), it would be pretty sweet.

Functions-which become reasons to use the Watch-will be added as developers get a handle on it, of course, so it should become less geek-centric over time.


----------



## BarracksSi

http://www.loopinsight.com/2015/06/16/apple-watch-my-most-personal-review-ever/



> When someone asks me how to use an Apple designed interface, I always tell them the same thing: think of the easiest way to do it, and 9 times out of 10, that's what Apple did. There is that one time that Apple messes up, and something weird happens, but most of time, that advice holds true.
> 
> That is the advice I'd give a new user of Apple Watch.
> 
> This happened to me on a number of occasions as I began using the watch. For example, when I received a notification on the watch, I could swipe right to left and clear that notification. However, there were other notifications still in the queue-how could I dismiss them all? Surely Apple wouldn't want me to dismiss each one individually, so the question was, what magic implementation did they put in the watch to make this happen? What would be the easiest way to do it?
> 
> I tried a Force Touch and sure enough, "Clear All" popped up on the screen. From that point on, I would Force Touch everything just to see what options it would bring up. There are quite a few-explore and you will find many.


Having lost fifty pounds myself using an app, I wanted to make sure you guys on WUS saw this part:


> I workout every day now2. I have incorporated a two mile, 3.5 mph treadmill walk, a two mile outdoor walk, and some light interval training, with eating better.
> 
> With the lost weight, I have also added in some weight training. Doing that has added several inches to my biceps and is tightening up my chest and stomach. I should be clear, I don't exercise for hours a day-I only spend about 40 minutes a day exercising. That's my comfort zone.
> 
> As of this writing, and using the exercises I talked about, I have lost 42.4 pounds.


----------



## BarracksSi

Apple Watch 2 to get a video camera? I doubt it, and so does Daniel Eran Dilger. Give yourself five or ten minutes to get knocked back to reality:

Next Apple Watch extremely unlikely to get FaceTime video calling



> Unfortunately, it's easy to float non-sensical rumors with zero evidence and have them picked up by a wide range of content bloggers and even legitimate appearing news sites that don't know anything about technology or Apple. When this speculation is wrong, it either quickly gets forgotten or the predictor turns around and says that Apple "delayed" planned features. In many cases this has not been true.The reality is that the original prediction was simply wrong
> 
> When a weather newscaster forecasts rain that doesn't happen, it would appear foolish to blame the earth for not raining as planned, then announce that the earth is making a big mistake because "we need rain!" and then, when it does rain, complain that it took longer than predicted. The reality is that the original prediction was simply wrong.
> 
> In this case, it appears that there are no clouds on the radar to suggest a precipitation of FaceTime Apple Watches; Apple TV already supports HomeKit (no Apple Home app required); and that tether-free W-iFi is a feature all Apple Watch owners will get this fall in watchOS 2, not something anyone will have to wait for new watch hardware to get.


----------



## watermanxxl

There is no "built-in obsolescence" engineered into a quality automatic wristwatch...


----------



## shnjb

watermanxxl said:


> There is no "built-in obsolescence" engineered into a quality automatic wristwatch...


Surely the Swiss are holding back more in terms of what is horologically possible vs tech companies holding back what is technologically possible.

Display, CPUs, sensor and battery technology all advance and change at a much faster pace than horological innovations and in particular CPUs advance at a remarkable speed, doubling every two years or so (Moore's Law).

In contrast, minute repeaters, perpetual calendars, tourbillons and chronographs have been around for more than a century and the only reason we don't get them in cheaper watches is for economical reasons.


----------



## BarracksSi

watermanxxl said:


> There is no "built-in obsolescence" engineered into a quality automatic wristwatch...


And Ive and Newson both know this, too, which is [one of several reasons] why I'm not expecting the AW to go through a yearly upgrade cycle.


----------



## Fer Guzman

watermanxxl said:


> There is no "built-in obsolescence" engineered into a quality automatic wristwatch...


That's because a mechanical wristwatch doesn't improve at the rate a smartwatch will improve. I'm perfectly fine with my daily wearer being obsolete every cycle if the improvements to the watch hardware and OS are significant. I _want_ apple to make a version down the line with GPS, better antennas, a waterproof case, different case materials, etc. I don't want them to build a watch and have it be the same after 2 years. I'm not interested in a smartwatch for daily use with the built-in stagnation engineered into a mechanical watch.


----------



## scentedlead

shnjb said:


> Surely the Swiss are holding back more in terms of what is horologically possible vs tech companies holding back what is technologically possible.
> 
> Display, CPUs, sensor and battery technology all advance and change at a much faster pace than horological innovations and in particular CPUs advance at a remarkable speed, doubling every two years or so (Moore's Law).
> 
> In contrast, minute repeaters, perpetual calendars, tourbillons and chronographs have been around for more than a century and the only reason we don't get them in cheaper watches is for economical reasons.


Yes. A premium product is one that works better while a luxury product is one that is more expensive. The venn diagram of the two would overlap some but not completely. A premium product is merely one that works better for you. Apple's iPhones-and et al-are premium products because they work better, not because of how their prices compare to, for example, a Vertu phone's price. Luxury products are merely priced high through scarcity and sometimes that scarcity is artificially created. Vertu phones are a luxury because they don't work better but there is only so much gold and and there are only so many diamonds and there is only so big of a market that could pay for them.

A haute couture garment is a premium product-if you knew the differences in materials and production, you'd see why-whereas ready to wear garment of the same label is a luxury item only because they don't work or function any better than many garments of the same lesser quality fabrics and fast mass manufacturing techniques but there are only so many pieces that carry the label. And, tangentially, if the $50 jeans fit you better and last longer than the $500 jeans, then the $50 jeans are what are premium to you.

Is a Swiss mechanical watch a premium product or a luxury product? There are only so many watchmakers capable of the design and engineering that goes into a watch, especially one with many complications. They should be luxury products. For telling time, a mechanical doesn't work any better than any radio-controlled atomic watch or any digital timepiece like a cell phone or smartwatch on NTP. For measuring time, mechanical chronographs have been replaced by digital watches and computers and cell phones and et al. But, you can also argue mechanicals are premium products, it takes a high levels of skills to create a mechanical watch. I think that a mechanical watch is a premium product as a piece of jewelry but a luxury product as a timekeeping device.

That said, I think the Swiss holding back on technology wasn't for any nefarious reason except that it simply didn't appeal to them and therefore, they didn't see how it would appeal to anyone else. We see the beauty in mechanical watches-and that's probably how they saw things and they had chances to make quartz watches-but most people just want a timekeeping device to either be precise like a quartz watch or accurate like a thing on NTP. They kind of underestimated how much the general public wanted its timekeeping devices to-well you know-tell time. The Swiss watch industry is where it is now because once they couldn't be premium products, they had to become luxury products.

(If it's not against the rules, I'd like to re-post this to the Switzerland is in trouble thread. A big part of how mechanical watch makers position their products against smartwatches will depend on whether they see their products as premium or luxury products.)


----------



## scentedlead

If you don't mind reading turds of opinion pieces-or selected quotes from them-on the Apple Watch, The Macelope has been dissecting poorly thought out think pieces: The Macalope

From their latest column:



> It doesn't really change how I work, how I stay on contact with others, or improve my day. It's a hindrance.
> 
> 
> 
> Not if you use it right. The Macalope is willing to accept the argument that Apple could be doing a better job of explaining what the Watch is really good at, because all of these rage quits seem to miss completely that the Watch works best as a filter for notifications. Turn on the same notifications you have on your iPhone on the Watch and, yeah, it's going to be annoying. But filter it to just those you really need to see immediately and it's brilliant.
Click to expand...


----------



## rationaltime

Though we don't want a lot of posts replicated it is not against the rules.


Thanks,
rationaltime


----------



## zetaplus93

BarracksSi said:


> Apple Watch 2 to get a video camera? I doubt it, and so does Daniel Eran Dilger. Give yourself five or ten minutes to get knocked back to reality:
> 
> Next Apple Watch extremely unlikely to get FaceTime video calling


To be fair, Mark Gurman's reports have been quite solid, though he did say it's possible the camera could be delayed for future models and not for AW 2. Read some of Gurman's past reports on all things Apple and you can see that his record is quite good:

http://9to5mac.com/2015/06/18/apple-watch-2-camera-tetherless/

Funny that the AppleInsider report doesn't cite Mark Gurman. Wonder how good their own track record is.

I could see short video messages (like a combination of Vine and short audio messages possible today) being compelling. I doubt you'd like to talk for more than 10s, but sending 5s video messages could be quite useful.


----------



## BarracksSi

Apple Watch & the killer app crisis « Observatory



> But anyone who hinges the success of the [Apple Watch] on the idea of a killer app is living far, far in the past.
> 
> If you need any proof, just look at the iPhone. We can all agree it started one of the biggest technology revolutions of our time. So &#8230; what's the killer app?
> 
> Music? Banking? Fitness? Games? Email? Messaging? Camera?
> 
> That depends on who you are. Any one of those things, or a combination thereof, might be worth the price of admission. But what's killer to one person is boringly insignificant to another.


----------



## scentedlead

BarracksSi said:


> Apple Watch & the killer app crisis





> So &#8230; what's the killer app?
> 
> Music? Banking? Fitness? Games? Email? Messaging? Camera?


Honestly? How is this even a question?

The killer app of the smartphone is the internet in your hand. The killer app of the smartwatch is the internet on your wrist.

The killer app of the wristwatch is the time on your wrist. It tells you the time with a lift of your arm and you put away the time with the lowering of your arm-and this is more convenient than digging out a phone out of a pocket, or a zipped or buttoned pocket, or bag, or a large bag, or wherever else you keep your phone that's less convenient than your wrist. To reduce the killer app of the wristwatch even further-

The killer app of the wristwatch is a piece of info on your wrist.

The killer app of the smartwatch is information on your wrist. And where does a lot of information come from? The internet.

Excluding the camera-because I think that's a no-go for the AW-at least half those things in the author's list are going to use the internet.


----------



## BarracksSi

scentedlead said:


> Honestly? How is this even a question?


Right, and that's the point he was getting at, too. He says that the pundits who always look for a new device's "killer app" (he points to VisiCalc for the original Apple II as a good example) are oblivious to the big picture.

(for others who might not read the piece...)

He goes on to say how he loves the convenience, how easily he uses Maps on the Watch, and how he expects the Apple Pay concept to become more useful and powerful. Then,



> Gotcha! Now you're just talking about killer apps anyway. You're contradicting yourself!
> 
> Not really. In 2015, I just wouldn't be moved to buy a computing device because of a single app. It needs to do many things - to make me feel more mobile, more connected and more powerful.
> In a sense, every one of Apple's revolutions has been an evolution. Our links to the world have moved from desktop to briefcase to pocket, and now to the wrist.
> There's a lot of killer in that. Even without a killer app.


I've noticed that among all the reviews and blog posts about the Apple Watch, everybody likes different parts of it. Some don't like the style, but plenty do. Some use the workout functions all the time, some ignore the workouts but use Maps, some use it all over the house while the phone sits unused by the front door.

There's no _single_ function that absolutely everyone finds indispensable. Instead, there are a bunch of functions that owners find to be useful, and to different degrees for each individual, too. I think that the lack of agreement is a good thing, because it shows that the Watch can manage many different tasks well enough that plenty of people find their own "killer app" (aka, "favorite thing about it").


----------



## BarracksSi

Bump with a three-month group review at iMore.com:
http://www.imore.com/we-review-apple-watch-3-months-later


----------



## scentedlead

This one has been in open in my browser for a few days. I like the mention of how the AW is great for how little it does-it feels refreshingly different (nevermind that the more insightful reviews of the original 2007 iPhone and the 2010 iPad said the same thing).

Macworld: Why the Apple Watch actually is my most personal Apple device



> . . .
> 
> after using Apple's original handset for just a few days, I craved a store where I could download games and utilities to enhance its usefulness, but with my Apple Watch I want it to be as simple as possible.
> 
> . . .
> 
> It's not about replacing your phone or even leaving it in your pocket-it's about using technology to stay more connected, not just through simple or multimedia messages, but through real digital contact.
> 
> . . .
> 
> The Apple Watch does something similar. While there are plenty of things it doesn't do well and likely never will-such as reading lengthy emails or swiping through voluminous photo albums-its unique form factor allows for a deeper visceral reaction to tasks I had grown accustomed to on my iPhone. The best example of this is when I receive a picture:
> 
> . . .
> 
> After delivering so many products that do such great things, it can be strange to have a product that excels at doing so little. Each time I read another article deriding Apple Watch for its dearth of features or general lack of purpose, I'm not surprised-we've been conditioned to judge products on how much they do, and the Apple Watch is a clear departure from that.


----------



## BarracksSi

Quelling Your Apple Watch Worries - Apple Gazette



Justin McGee said:


> It seems like we've been talking about the Apple Watch for years (some of us actually have), and now it's finally here and on the wrists of some of Apple's most devoted fans. But many of you are still waiting on the Apple Watch sidelines, waiting for Apple to work out some of the bugs or a second generation device. We've assembled some of the biggest Apple Watch worries that potential buyers have.


----------



## BarracksSi

Ariel Adams is back with an extended piece about the Edition model:
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/18k-gold-apple-watch-edition-review/

He gives a little history lesson about gold electronic watches, too:


> Before the HP-01 gold calculator watch were other solid gold electronic watches meant to celebrate the novelty of new technologies. Companies like Omega offered solid gold LED watches and even Tiffany & Co. got in the game being the exclusive retailer of a gold version of a Pulsar digital LED watch. Pulsar also released a limited edition LED calculator watch around the same time as the HP-01. These are all thematic ancestors of the Apple Watch and indicate that creating gold technology watches is nothing at all new.


----------



## scentedlead

ben-evans.com: How is the Apple Watch doing?



> None of these are killer apps or 'use cases'. All of them could be done with your phone. They're just better with a watch.





> Reading the Watch's launch reviews, I sometimes got the sense that the tech press was writing about it as though the luxury goods industry didn't exist and that the luxury press was writing as though technology didn't exist: no-one spends money on things because they're just nice and no-one buys things that don't last forever. The gold version brought this out best - a tech product that's $10,000 but has the same spec as the $350 one - heresy! And a gold watch that probably doesn't last a lifetime - again, heresy! But all rules can be broken with the right product - that's how progress happens. Meanwhile, the irony is that it's not actually the gold that's the luxury but the software - that tap on the wrist telling you to turn left. In a sense, the gold case is an accessory to the software in the same way that the strap is an accessory to the watch.


It's nice that the previous post in this thread is to ablogtowatch.com's review on the Apple Watch Edition because it's a nice segue into Ben Evan's commentary on what makes the AW a luxury product.

A premium products is a product that is made and works better. A luxury product is one that priced higher because it can be-and usually, that reason is because of some kind of artificial scarcity, witness anything limited edition, or even anything with merely a specific label. Take two $1,000 bags: The bag that is custom made for your specific purposes and is made of the best leathers and is stitched with thick waxed threads all by a master leather crafter is a premium product, whereas the off-the-shelf bag that costs so because it merely has the label is a luxury product. In the consumer space, the trick to sell more luxury products is to confuse the customer on what is a premium vs what is a luxury.

Mechanical watches are in that weird space where they are both and yet they are neither. From a technological standpoint, they're not premium products because they don't tell the time nearly as accurately as even a dollar store digital, let alone any of the computerized and networked timepieces any of us encounter in our daily lives. They are premium products in that they require a high level of expertise and skill to make-they are premium products as jewelry. But what makes them premium products as jewelry is what contributes to their scarcity, and that's what makes them luxury products as time pieces.

Going back to Ben Evans' blog post, the AW itself is a transgressive piece of equipment because it throws out the rules on what is premium vs. luxury. It's a luxury product compared to the iPhone because no one needs it, but it offers a lot of conveniences that make for a very compelling case to want it. The luxury is the watch itself, whereas the gold is merely an accessory to the luxury-a luxury upon a luxury. But his analysis that the AW is a luxury begins and ends with the iPhone and doesn't really consider the other elephant in the room-mechanical watches.

If mechanical watches are premiums as jewelry yet luxuries as watches, then the AW is premium as a watch-it tells the time better and doles out lots of other info too-and the AW Edition is a luxury as a piece of jewelry. As a premium as a time-telling device and as a luxury as a piece of jewelry, the AW Edition occupies a space wholly opposite that mechanical watches do. And what of the AW and AW Sport? These are luxuries as pieces of technology but they are premiums as watches-again, a space that mechanical watches cannot inhabit.

Many luxury products are advertised as premium products-the consumer feels better about themself when they think they have a product that _works_ better over one that is merely limited. The AW is confusing because it occupies both premium and luxury spaces but in ways that other products before it haven't-where its function is both the luxury and the premium. Mechanical watches are both yet neither luxury nor premium products, whereas the AW is both-and unlike a mechanical watch, is never neither-because what it does is both a luxury and a premium.


----------



## scentedlead

iMore survey shows ultra-high levels of Apple Watch usage



> For two weeks in July we collected answers using Survey Monkey and over 8000 of you were kind enough to respond. Here's what you told us.


If the numbers seem high, well, iMore is an Apple blog so their readers would skew more towards enthusiastic Apple users. But it's a fascinating look into how people are using their watches.

(I'd love to see stats like this compiled for other smart watches.)


----------

