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 Announces Apple Watch, Available in Early 2015 From $349
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I think there are a number of subtle things that will eventually blow the competition away. I was fully prepared to be very disappointed, as I don't wear a watch, but the haptic notifications are interesting, as is the one-to-one graphic drawings. And I do think most people are missing the personal nature of the device, thinking that it is just a big square watch. What other watch lets you feel your partners heartbeat. Well, none. And that is probably just the surface.
IMO Apple just made all of the other smart watches obsolete.
IMO Apple just made all of the other smart watches obsolete.
I'm curious why some people are so anxious to get their hands on this. Maybe I just don't get it but I don't know what I would actually use this thing for outside of telling time, especially considering that I'd have my phone with me anyway.
I don't think the Swiss have anything to worry about.
I don't think the Swiss have anything to worry about.
Hmmm. Not surprised it's square, but am surprised it looks so chunky. Hopefully it's got a decent battery!
I think I may be waiting for version 2 - remember how much slicker the iPad 2 looked compared to the original.
But then again I've yet to see the OS and iPhone integration in action. I'll probably walk past an Apple store early next year and have another episode where I wake up 10 minutes later holding an Apple shopping bag, this time weighed down with an
Watch...
I think I may be waiting for version 2 - remember how much slicker the iPad 2 looked compared to the original.
But then again I've yet to see the OS and iPhone integration in action. I'll probably walk past an Apple store early next year and have another episode where I wake up 10 minutes later holding an Apple shopping bag, this time weighed down with an
Watch...
No, but it isn't used once the time is set. Making it an input device means the side it is on is much more important.
I've gotta say it, I'm torn.
The positive spin of course is that this thing is an engineering marvel, regardless of what functions other smart watches offer. It's made from premium materials and is constructed with the same attention to detail. The customisation is stunning, and truly gives a more traditional look to what is essentially a mini computer.
But revolutionary? Not quite.
To me this product lacks focus. I dare say it's almost too over-indulgent in the cosmetic details, for while I respect traditional timepiece design (and as we all know, there are plenty of iconic pieces), I don't see how 24k gold and other luxury materials are going to enrich peoples lives. Why does the back of the device even imitate the text of traditional watches, with things like "42mm case - 7000 series aluminium". You wouldn't expect to see "SSD flash storage - 16GB RAM" splurged on the case of a MacBook Pro, so what makes a wrist watch so different? Indulgence.
One of the complaints of many smart watches is that they complete tasks that could be done on a phone anyway, so to have similar functions on your wrist is needless, unless your daily activities call for them. The irony of course is that Apple releases two larger iPhones, and touts how much more productive they are.
So if Apple is so passionate about doing "fewer things well", why wasn't this device designed primarily for health and fitness? I'm pretty sure that if they went down this avenue, they would have a product that while may not be as popular, would at least be more attractive to that audience because there is less of what's not needed and more of what is.
In addition, there would be less services that are essentially crippled on a tiny screen for the sake of pulling your wrist up. Why would I want to check my flight on a watch when there's PassBook on the iPhone? It makes no sense at all.
Cook also played up the fact that "over 200 million people can access the Apple Watch", purely because they already own a compatible iPhone. But why should the product be relegated to iPhone users when the data could be synced with a Mac or iPad? I know more elderly people that own an iPad than those who don't even own a smartphone.
One thing's for sure - this isn't the "watch for everyone". It surely has too much of a tech-stigma for most peoples tastes, and at what will equate to roughly £250, is an expensive add-on.
But then I could be entirely wrong...
I'm quite happy with my F-91, and that has the time, hourly chime, stopwatch, alarm, is waterproof and practically bombproof. Oh, it costs £6.99. And it looks roughly 5.6 million times cooler.
The positive spin of course is that this thing is an engineering marvel, regardless of what functions other smart watches offer. It's made from premium materials and is constructed with the same attention to detail. The customisation is stunning, and truly gives a more traditional look to what is essentially a mini computer.
But revolutionary? Not quite.
To me this product lacks focus. I dare say it's almost too over-indulgent in the cosmetic details, for while I respect traditional timepiece design (and as we all know, there are plenty of iconic pieces), I don't see how 24k gold and other luxury materials are going to enrich peoples lives. Why does the back of the device even imitate the text of traditional watches, with things like "42mm case - 7000 series aluminium". You wouldn't expect to see "SSD flash storage - 16GB RAM" splurged on the case of a MacBook Pro, so what makes a wrist watch so different? Indulgence.
One of the complaints of many smart watches is that they complete tasks that could be done on a phone anyway, so to have similar functions on your wrist is needless, unless your daily activities call for them. The irony of course is that Apple releases two larger iPhones, and touts how much more productive they are.
So if Apple is so passionate about doing "fewer things well", why wasn't this device designed primarily for health and fitness? I'm pretty sure that if they went down this avenue, they would have a product that while may not be as popular, would at least be more attractive to that audience because there is less of what's not needed and more of what is.
In addition, there would be less services that are essentially crippled on a tiny screen for the sake of pulling your wrist up. Why would I want to check my flight on a watch when there's PassBook on the iPhone? It makes no sense at all.
Cook also played up the fact that "over 200 million people can access the Apple Watch", purely because they already own a compatible iPhone. But why should the product be relegated to iPhone users when the data could be synced with a Mac or iPad? I know more elderly people that own an iPad than those who don't even own a smartphone.
One thing's for sure - this isn't the "watch for everyone". It surely has too much of a tech-stigma for most peoples tastes, and at what will equate to roughly £250, is an expensive add-on.
But then I could be entirely wrong...
I'm quite happy with my F-91, and that has the time, hourly chime, stopwatch, alarm, is waterproof and practically bombproof. Oh, it costs £6.99. And it looks roughly 5.6 million times cooler.
Last edited:
Ive a Design Flaw
As other forum posters have pointed out, the "Digital Crown" doesn't work for left handed users without obscuring the screen which was apparently the whole point of it. Even if Apple is neglecting that population, I'm surprised Ive didn't use the NEST model of twisting a round bezel to zoom in and out -- which would make more sense on a watch. Crowns on traditional watches are not really supposed to be used while WEARING the watch - they're for winding and adjusting dates and times usually when it's off your wrist. It's very strange to twist a crown while wearing it (especially since there's not a lot of room for your finger thickness). Plus, pushing a crown sideways will cause a slightly awkward lateral movement of the watch face on your wrist that doesn't feel natural nor magical -- pressing down on a circular bezel atop the watch (like with the original iPod wheel or the NEST dial) would create a much more natural and pleasant action on the bone of your flat wrist. Plus, I feel as if it's going to feel weird to zoom in and out of things with a 'VERTICAL' 'forwards-backwards' movement on the crown - zooming with a horizontal dial makes more intuitive sense (like screwing in a nail -- right for screwing in, left for screwing out). The circular screen would definitely have made more aesthetic sense and more intuitive-apple-sense, and I, for one, who always loves Apple products definitely think this needs a design revision. I hate to say it, but I feel like Jobs would have picked up on this crown issue...it's just NOT the simplest and most intuitive way of doing it. If you have a NEST thermostat you'll know what I mean. Imagine if it had a crown on the side -- how weird would that feel?
As other forum posters have pointed out, the "Digital Crown" doesn't work for left handed users without obscuring the screen which was apparently the whole point of it. Even if Apple is neglecting that population, I'm surprised Ive didn't use the NEST model of twisting a round bezel to zoom in and out -- which would make more sense on a watch. Crowns on traditional watches are not really supposed to be used while WEARING the watch - they're for winding and adjusting dates and times usually when it's off your wrist. It's very strange to twist a crown while wearing it (especially since there's not a lot of room for your finger thickness). Plus, pushing a crown sideways will cause a slightly awkward lateral movement of the watch face on your wrist that doesn't feel natural nor magical -- pressing down on a circular bezel atop the watch (like with the original iPod wheel or the NEST dial) would create a much more natural and pleasant action on the bone of your flat wrist. Plus, I feel as if it's going to feel weird to zoom in and out of things with a 'VERTICAL' 'forwards-backwards' movement on the crown - zooming with a horizontal dial makes more intuitive sense (like screwing in a nail -- right for screwing in, left for screwing out). The circular screen would definitely have made more aesthetic sense and more intuitive-apple-sense, and I, for one, who always loves Apple products definitely think this needs a design revision. I hate to say it, but I feel like Jobs would have picked up on this crown issue...it's just NOT the simplest and most intuitive way of doing it. If you have a NEST thermostat you'll know what I mean. Imagine if it had a crown on the side -- how weird would that feel?
I am not mad at it...
... but I think that it is a bit expensive. It doesn't look better than the round motorola one though. I think Apple missed the memo on the whole health thing as well. While they may get a few people to buy this and start acting healthy all of a sudden, most of their potential audience does't really care about that.
This is just the opinion of someone that has a $130 a month gym membership and wears a fitbit. I think the health focus was a waste, or at best premature.
... but I think that it is a bit expensive. It doesn't look better than the round motorola one though. I think Apple missed the memo on the whole health thing as well. While they may get a few people to buy this and start acting healthy all of a sudden, most of their potential audience does't really care about that.
This is just the opinion of someone that has a $130 a month gym membership and wears a fitbit. I think the health focus was a waste, or at best premature.
What really blows me away about this watch is how many different styles/combinations there are for a V1 product. Just looking at the classic stainless steel page on Apple's website and there's 18 different combinations you can chose from. I can only imagine how many SKU's Apple's going to have to maintain with this product.
Yes, many variations of an hideous design. Not really Steve's style...
Cook, go back to logistics. And Ive, without Jobs, you're just a mediocre designer (and a terrible at UI design, you ruined iOS for me, so I hate you).
Last edited:
3D on televisions is a feature like smart TV or surround. You don't have to use it. And i'ts not like something you have to use. Claims like the next revolution make it bigger than it should be. It's just a feature.
A really cool thing is the haptic feedback in combination with Google Maps so you can feel where you have to go.
I've gotta say it, I'm torn.
The positive spin of course is that this thing is an engineering marvel, regardless of what functions other smart watches offer. It's made from premium materials and is constructed with the same attention to detail. The customisation is stunning, and truly gives a more traditional look to what is essentially a mini computer.
But revolutionary? Not quite.
To me this product lacks focus. One of the complaints of many smart watches is that they complete tasks that could be done on a phone anyway, so to have similar functions on your wrist is needless, unless your daily activities call for them.
So if Apple is so passionate about doing "fewer things well", why wasn't this device designed primarily for health and fitness? I'm pretty sure that if they went down this avenue, they would have a product that while may not be as popular, would at least be more attractive to that audience because there is less of what's not needed and more of what is.
Cook also played up the fact that "over 200 million people can access the Apple Watch", purely because they already own a compatible iPhone. But why should the product be relegated to iPhone users when the data could be synced with a Mac or iPad? I know more elderly people that own an iPad than those who don't even own a smartphone.
One thing's for sure - this isn't the "watch for everyone". It surely has too much of a tech-stigma for most peoples tastes.
But then I could be entirely wrong...
This. What this watch lacks is indeed focus. Too many apps out of the gate, too many unnecessary things it does. Market it as a health product and it would have been more focused. I was quite confused about how to use it when it was being demoed as well. So the interface does not look as polished as iOS 1.0 was when Jobs demoed the iPhone. You could see exactly how you'd interact with the phone on that demo, and it was so crystal clear.
To me the design is very nice, I would wear that without hesitating. But the software is problematic imho.
I's with youse guys. And I've come to detest his pretentious videos sent down from inside a cloud over Mt. Olympus, too high and mighty to commune with us mere humans.
Also, if you gave me this product, I'd have it up for resale in a New York minute to extract some value from having it.
But then I gave up watch wearing 5 years ago and haven't looked back...
Seriously though, this whole "function follows forms that interest me" direction that Ives has pulled the company in - as noted above - helped differentiate the company when Steve was in overall control of the product, and he seems to have far too much influence since there's no real "vision guy" on the tech side to offset him.
It would have been useful about 10 years ago -- before everyone got comfortable just taking their phones out in public. This would have been a nice way to keep people off their phones public (since you can check messages on your watch and filter the noise).
That ship has sailed though. Now, the only group of people who I think would benefit from this tech are women (who keep their phone in their purses) -- but the watches are all bulky and unfashionable, I'd be shocked if any woman would be caught dead wearing one.
- Status