Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Watch to Feature Time-Only 'Power Reserve' Mode, Prototypes Disguised as Samsung Watches
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Now you're talking (and showing your age too, I'm afraid). Our first color TV was a Heathkit built by my dad. Of course you built it strictly to plans. They even supplied the cabinet. What a stroll down memory lane.
Not really. The apple watch will sell based on brand participation. Apple fans will buy regardless. Read the comments here--this is about "apple-ness"
You don't realize that Apple is doing this for you. They want you to feel superior to the tens of millions who will buy this watch in its various forms. You'll see them happily integrating the Apple Watch into their daily lives, and living their lives satisfied with their purchase. You'll be able to tell yourself "at least I'm not happy and satisfied like those people."
That is true, but apple also always goes for refening what already there. Not starting from scratch.
Last edited by a moderator:
Power reserve...
this makes sense in a watch, but not on a laptop ? Why ? I could see users would get ticked off is suddenly the wi-fi interrupted for no apparent reason except the battery was low, so to save power we disconnected you...
IF the power reserve kicks in when your laptop is at 5%... Well, maybe its time you save your work anyway ;-). I'm guessing you can decide to forgo the "reserve" and simply drive your watch until it shuts down if you so wish.
You do have power profiles on your laptop that can be activated in certain situations. this is kind of the same thing.
Cause jobs was too proud to hide behind what he saw as an inferior product. I understand they logic, it makes sense , but jobs was not logical in these situations. Hell would freeze over before he would hide his product behind a samsung.
The watch never shows the screen till you list it up to view. So screen power draw is irrelevant.
The Apple Watch DOES require an Apple Phone, so what you're saying is meaningless. Only Apple fans will buy the watch, yes, that's guarantted... just like only Samsung fans could buy the Samsung watches
Yeah I totally agree with your points - Only apple fans will purchase the iWatch - I think it will be for true diehard fan though as many wont want to give up there Rolex or Tag for the iWatch but real die hard fans will by anyway,
That's rich. I wasn't the one "screaming," about copying, and I never have. Rather just pointing out the the context of Apple's stuffing its watch innards into a Samsung case is not the same as Samsung copying the original iPhone design and iOS look and feel. You are the one getting upset.
I've read Jobs official bio and many of his "unofficial" ones. Jobs did what was needed to maintain secrecy, whether that was suing bloggers into submission or camouflaging test mules. If the need had arose where he needed to stuff Apple Watch innards in a competitors case to avoid attention he likely would have done it. I don't know which Jobs you are speaking of.
No one will be buying an iWatch because Apple is making an Apple watch. Also you don't know who will be giving up what to purchase and use an Apple watch. I could see someone giving up their expensive Rolex or Montblanc for an Apple edition gold watch because it's beautiful by design and have plenty functionality. It will be done because you will see plenty celebrities using it shortly. Believe that!
Not sure I understand. I likely will buy an Apple Watch. I'm not giving up my 18K gold Baume Mercier. Why must it be a zero sum decision? Also by "apple fans," you mean iPhone users? Because there are a lot of iPhone users that love Apple products but are not fanatics. They don't even know sites like Mac Rumors exist. They shop at places like Selfridges and read Self Magazine and will be among Apple Watch buyers.
It's not likely at all that this was "last ditch". Even if they had achieved 72 hour battery life, this mode would still be highly desirable. And it would have been tougher to cram this feature in at the last minute than design it in from the beginning. So, it is overwhelming likely this feature was part of the design from the beginning.
----------
The flaw in this argument is the assumption of what it is to be a "watch". It's a wearable display. Due to limitations of technology, previously wearable displays were restricted to certain functions, primarily time. Not any more. The only reason it's being marketed as a "watch" is that it is competing for the same real-estate (your wrist) used by traditional watches; just as MP3 players competed for the same real-estate (your pocket) as cell phones a few years ago. The wrist is a well-established location to put displays, hence Apple's interest in this particular real estate.
The argument of Apple Watch vs. Rolex assumes they are the same thing. The Apple Watch is a wearable display; the Rolex is functional jewelry. 5% of the value of the Rolex is in telling time, and 95% is in strapping a pretty thing to your body. Entirely different focus.
Who could resist the siren song of smoke detectors and thermostats? I suspect the Nest Microwave is coming out soon.
----------
You can't be serious about the 360. It has a giant chunk cut out of its display.
nonsense. this isnt apple's first time at the rodeo -- they know exactly the basic limitations of today's battery tech, as do any of the other smartwatch makers.
as for lasting all-day -- it doesnt sound that way to me at all because that data isnt in the piece. you have no way of knowing that or not.
You missed the point of the comment: the product's main appeal is that it is apple branded, not its intrinsic benefit. The primary benefit of the product is apple brand participation.
True.
The primary BENEFIT of the product is that it will pair with your other Apple products to make life in the 'Apple Walled Garden' easier.
That's a huge benefit that non-Apple users don't see. It's not a bad thing at all.
Apple Pay, for example, will be easier to use by owning an Apple Watch. Instead of missing alerts and text messages when my phone is in my pocket and I can't fell the vibrations (or in a crowd like a concert, or in my car), I'll get those alerts. My calendar events will be easier, they'll pop right up. Many things will be easier.
And it WILL be easier than any other smart watch out there IF you have an Apple iPhone already. It will work together better, so IT IS SMARTER to buy an Apple Watch than some other manufacturer's watch if you have an iPhone.
If you don't have an iPhone, then other options undoubtedly are better.
What will tilt the naysayers...
...is something Wear and friends just don't have: a compelling ecosystem.
I've been developing on WatchKit since it was available. Many, many people out here (Silicon valley) have and you *will* be absolutely shocked at the functionality that will be able to be exploited...even using the current incarnation of WatchKit.
Very smart, creative people have pushed it to the limit. It is far, far more capable than a "glorified notification screen" and has real *utility*. It isn't obvious because so much before it has been so..."meh" because the SDKs were pretty weak.
You may not be all that hot and bothered about what it comes with "out of the box" but when apps are extended to the wrist and can actually *do something* more than show you a glorified notification...you'll "get" it.
Don't count out Apple's army of 3rd Party devs. It is they who will make the platform.
-K
...is something Wear and friends just don't have: a compelling ecosystem.
I've been developing on WatchKit since it was available. Many, many people out here (Silicon valley) have and you *will* be absolutely shocked at the functionality that will be able to be exploited...even using the current incarnation of WatchKit.
Very smart, creative people have pushed it to the limit. It is far, far more capable than a "glorified notification screen" and has real *utility*. It isn't obvious because so much before it has been so..."meh" because the SDKs were pretty weak.
You may not be all that hot and bothered about what it comes with "out of the box" but when apps are extended to the wrist and can actually *do something* more than show you a glorified notification...you'll "get" it.
Don't count out Apple's army of 3rd Party devs. It is they who will make the platform.
-K
They're not starting from scratch here either. Their entry into the smartwatch market parallels their entry into the MP3 player market with the iPod.
IIRC, the original context for this discussion was about the demand for a round case. To pull another analogy, this is like demanding that "real" smartphones use front-qwerty keyboards (I resisted the iPhone for months on those grounds). I suspect that, like BlackBerries and Treos after the iPhone popularized slate phones, round smartwatches will fall by the wayside in a couple of years, and the appropriateness of square displays for text and pictures will seem obvious in hindsight.
----------
I think the aWatch will sell on the basis of (1) the sheer size of the addressable market (my guess: 10% of the 200M compatible iPhones), and (2) the well observed trait of iPhone owners spending more money in general (e.g. third party apps and accessories) than Android users.