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 Beats Original iPhone and iPad in Customer Satisfaction Among Early Adopters
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure how to link here, but yes, the iPod was Mac only compatible until 2004 when they made a Windows based version of iTunes. Three years after it was first available at launch. Before that, all we had was Napster and Winamp, which really kicked the llama's ass.
Scroll down on your link, to the part where it says "not compatible with windows". Hence, Mac only.
Without wishing to sound creepy, I like your changing avatars.
And you write good posts!
The iPad is also a completely unnecessary device - especially when you have a laptop its a luxury item. If you had to take my iPad or Apple Watch away now id give the iPad every time, it barely gets used, the Watch has become an essential part of my life and 4-5 features id hate to live without now, there's nothing on the iPad I couldn't live without.
I don't know why you're getting that impression, I said Apple were doing it well, and that means the survey is flawed. I'm criticising the survey, not Apple.
The survey is inevitably going to be skewed by people's unusually high level of knowledge about the product before deciding to purchase it or not. News stories and reviews of the Apple Watch were everywhere, and everyone had an opinion on it. People knew a lot more than they usually would about what they would be getting before they bought it. Therefore it's more likely that people who would be unsatisfied by any aspect of the product didn't buy it, therefore the satisfaction figures are inevitably going to be very high.
*cringe*
that grammar
usually not a grammar police... but LOL, intentional right(all in fun, dont hate)
I don't know how you can possibly read that and not see that they fixated on the idea of a watch before they knew what for. Even in the quote you provided, they said: "Questions started coalescing around the idea of a watch: What could it add to people’s lives?" They already decided it was a watch, and afterwards asked what is it good for? That is not how good design happens.
Every design school in the world, and I'm sure Ive believes this too, teaches that you first formulate a neutral problem statement that doesn't suggest an inherent solution. Next, you experiment with lots of different solutions to the problem, and rank them using some criteria. From this, you work on the top 2 or 3 designs. That is the design process, that is the engineering process, and it is derived from the scientific method.
Nearly every article that discussed the design process of the Apple Watch, including the one I linked, clearly shows Apple did it backwards this time. They fixated on the idea of a watch, and then set out to find a problem for it to solve. For all we know, there might be better ways to solve those problems. But apparently no one ever bothered to check, because they decided that the product had to be a watch before they understood what the problem to solve was.
I'm reading this thread with great interest despite not owning an Apple Watch and not planning to buy one.
Here in the Netherlands it's 419 euro. That's way, way, way too much for what it seems to do. With the glances, Siri and fitness tracker I'd be willing to pay 99 euro for it – maybe. I just can't justify spending 419 on what is essentially a pretty device that doesn't do much. So it's interesting to read about people who love it and can't imagine living without it, because I wonder if I am missing the point somehow.
I sold my iPad and bought a 99 euro LG 7" tablet. All I do on it is read books, sometimes browse the net or check my agenda, but generally my phone is good for all those things. I couldn't live without my Mac (well I could, but I hope I won't have to ), I like having a good SMALL phone and a tablet that's bigger so reading is more comfortable. Apple Watch solves certain problems that many of us weren't aware we had in the first place. If I got one as a gift, I'd probably be satisfied with it, and if I had a bonkers day and ended up paying half of my rent for one, I'd probably tell everyone I'm satisfied with it, otherwise I'd look pretty dumb. But would I actually be using it much? That's a question I'd like to see answered in a poll, and not a poll of people who use it so actively they joined a community of AW users. I feel the poll is skewed in a similar way that asking people at a Madonna concert "do you like Madonna?" would be.
Here in the Netherlands it's 419 euro. That's way, way, way too much for what it seems to do. With the glances, Siri and fitness tracker I'd be willing to pay 99 euro for it – maybe. I just can't justify spending 419 on what is essentially a pretty device that doesn't do much. So it's interesting to read about people who love it and can't imagine living without it, because I wonder if I am missing the point somehow.
I sold my iPad and bought a 99 euro LG 7" tablet. All I do on it is read books, sometimes browse the net or check my agenda, but generally my phone is good for all those things. I couldn't live without my Mac (well I could, but I hope I won't have to
), I like having a good SMALL phone and a tablet that's bigger so reading is more comfortable. Apple Watch solves certain problems that many of us weren't aware we had in the first place. If I got one as a gift, I'd probably be satisfied with it, and if I had a bonkers day and ended up paying half of my rent for one, I'd probably tell everyone I'm satisfied with it, otherwise I'd look pretty dumb. But would I actually be using it much? That's a question I'd like to see answered in a poll, and not a poll of people who use it so actively they joined a community of AW users. I feel the poll is skewed in a similar way that asking people at a Madonna concert "do you like Madonna?" would be.yay 53%...
But i'm a a techy but i have no interest in anything that's needs something else to be fully functional. I think that's probably a large part of it... If the watch could function and have internet access at all by itself, the results would be vastly different, because you'd be now in the position of "well.. i don't really need a phone much anymore" since this thing is more convenient to use on my wrist.
How many of us now don't use a Mac anymore hardly to check our email because we have our iphone with us ? I would bet a vast majority.... I know i do. And that would change the outcome of it being that much more useful.
But i'm a a techy but i have no interest in anything that's needs something else to be fully functional. I think that's probably a large part of it... If the watch could function and have internet access at all by itself, the results would be vastly different, because you'd be now in the position of "well.. i don't really need a phone much anymore" since this thing is more convenient to use on my wrist.
How many of us now don't use a Mac anymore hardly to check our email because we have our iphone with us ? I would bet a vast majority.... I know i do. And that would change the outcome of it being that much more useful.
I can only speak for myself, I love mine and have come to depend on it during the day. It can do a ton of stuff besides Siri and fitness, and with OS2 will do much more. I will admit some people it is not for. Had a client that refuses to use an ATM he was so scared and paranoid of it. And no, just because I spent some cash on it, if I didn't like it I would say so!I'm reading this thread with great interest despite not owning an Apple Watch and not planning to buy one.
Here in the Netherlands it's 419 euro. That's way, way, way too much for what it seems to do. With the glances, Siri and fitness tracker I'd be willing to pay 99 euro for it – maybe. I just can't justify spending 419 on what is essentially a pretty device that doesn't do much. So it's interesting to read about people who love it and can't imagine living without it, because I wonder if I am missing the point somehow.
I sold my iPad and bought a 99 euro LG 7" tablet. All I do on it is read books, sometimes browse the net or check my agenda, but generally my phone is good for all those things. I couldn't live without my Mac (well I could, but I hope I won't have to
And I see absolutely no problem with that as a watch is something people are already familiar with, know how to use, have been around for hundreds of years providing various utility interesting to wearers, and is easily accessible and personal being located on the wrist. Yes, there are other potential possibilities for utility-providing communications devices such as a shoe, glasses, wallet, purse, boombox, clothes, briefcase, baseball, skin implant, etc, but I suspect those didn't require a lengthy study to be quickly rejected in relation to the vision of a watch.
Using your argument, the same "fatal flaw" you have attributed to the Apple Watch would fit well with Apple's decision in the early/mid 2000s to make a communications device and ending up designing a phone - i.e. something that is familiar to people and easily understood/used, while rejecting other possibilities (yes, the iPad which was due to come out first, but that as well sprang from the vision of a tablet - actually a slate-like device).
Starting with a likely platform that people are already familiar with, and selecting from a *relatively* infinite amount of potential utility available that needs to work well UI/interaction-wise is the challenge.
Whether the design process conforms to standard design school principles I suspect wasn't a huge concern to Apple. There were other watch devices on the market, Ive had a vision for a much better and refined design and Apple ran with it.
Last edited:
If you think that's fine, then it's fine for you. And I sincerely am happy for everyone who likes the Apple Watch - we are all on this forum because we know and love the joy of playing with a cool Apple gadget. However, from a business perspective, from a design and engineering perspective, all smartwatches - including Apple's - are flawed from inception.
I understand why all consumer electronics companies are pushing the idea - it's a new category. Other categories have dried up: tv margins are super low and are practically a commodity now, tablet sales are down, computer/laptop sales are down, smartphones are likely next on the horizon, and everything else is down because they have nearly all been converged into smartphones and tablets (cameras, camcorders, media players, light gaming, etc., heck, what isn't there an app for yet?). Smartwatches look promising in comparison. They're an attempt to un-converge, to take something out of a smartphone and get people to buy another category of device. But that isn't a very compelling reason for consumers to buy it.
The iPhone comparison is not an apt comparison at all. Had Apple designed the iPhone in the same way they designed the Watch, the iPhone would have been a flip-phone with buttons, because people were familiar with that and already knew how to use them; or it would have been like a Blackberry, with a keyboard and a square screen for the same reasons. When Apple set out to design a new communications device, they threw out nearly all existing ideas and started with a neutral problem statement - people want to talk, email, text, and surf the web from anywhere (notice there is no implied solution in this problem statement, it can be anything, even a baseball as you said). They didn't know it would be a mini-slate computer when they first set out; unlike the Watch where they decided it had to be a watch at the very first step and before understanding what problem they set out to solve.
There are many articles and books that discuss all the ideas they had when designing the iPhone, how they came to the final design, and what they threw out. For example, they decided it had to have a landscape keyboard, a portrait numberpad, and it had to be able to switch between the two seamlessly. It also had to have a "large" screen for media. They threw out mechanical options because those were unreliable and added undesirable bulk. They decided the only way to do this was with a software keyboard that could be hidden when not needed and transform into whatever configuration was needed at the time; but it had to be accurate and quick, it had to have a sensor for knowing whether it was in portrait or landscape, and it had to work without a stylus.
But still, from the beginning, they decided a phone form-factor was the appropriate device - i.e. something you hold in your hand and bring to your head to talk. Likely because that's what the market would accept being familiar to people for years (decades with pots phones).
There were other phones that handled email and web-browsing (though crude - and with expensive data plans), messaging, alarms, etc. There were also phones that had a touch screen surface (also crude, awful resistance-based plastic surface).
What Apple brought to the table was a highly refined well-integrated and stunning design (physical and UI) that didn't feel like a pos as other phones, a reasonable data plan with AT&T partnership, and superb marketing.
The Watch underwent similar refinements (also starting with an existing market); i.e. an superb OLED display, rectangular inform factor, force-touch and haptic feedback, shaft encoder (digital crown) control, nice looking/working user replaceable bands, a HUGE amount of attention to UI and typical use cases, and a stunning design that similarly did not feel like a pos.
That's the way Apple works. Superb refinement of existing concepts that were previously poorly executed. The iPad is another great example - msft had one in the early 2000s that was awful.
There were other phones that handled email and web-browsing (though crude - and with expensive data plans), messaging, alarms, etc. There were also phones that had a touch screen surface (also crude, awful resistance-based plastic surface).
What Apple brought to the table was a highly refined well-integrated and stunning design (physical and UI) that didn't feel like a pos as other phones, a reasonable data plan with AT&T partnership, and superb marketing.
The Watch underwent similar refinements (also starting with an existing market); i.e. an superb OLED display, rectangular inform factor, force-touch and haptic feedback, shaft encoder (digital crown) control, nice looking/working user replaceable bands, a HUGE amount of attention to UI and typical use cases, and a stunning design that similarly did not feel like a pos.
That's the way Apple works. Superb refinement of existing concepts that were previously poorly executed. The iPad is another great example - msft had one in the early 2000s that was awful.
