What a waste of money!! Why by a piece of electronics that is tethered to an iPhone? Instead just use your iPhone and get a Fitbit or similar which is a lot cheaper. Now if the Watch was able to do something completely out of the ordinary such as give accurate blood glucose checks with out pricking the skin then that would be worth the $$$.
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 Hands-On: A First Look at Software, Apple Pay, Water Resistance, and More
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
$100 is a lot cheaper (Surge vs Sport Edition). Surge has no full color screen and limited functionality other than what is built in. We also now know the Surge's HRM is inaccurate during intense physical activity.
You can't even compare a Charge HR to the Sport watch. Two completely different devices.
I'm all for the accurate non invasive glucose checks. The tech just isn't there yet.
Forced advertisement. Many users will probably be influenced by it to purchase an Apple Watch.
Exactly. I do have one watch face that has lots of settings (and oddly, it's not app controlled, all the setup is on the watch). But again - it's as simple as an upward swipe and then left to adjust settings. Simple.
I think Apple might have also misjudged this "10 second" glance thing. Because it could take half that time to simply get to the menu/screen you want within an app.
Also - I didn't see it - but with Google Now - you can open up any app on your Android Wear. Can you do the same with Siri - or do you have to locate the app on the watch and open it by touching?
Another thing I didn't see - I didn't want all the videos across the web - I saw how things on the iPhone are sent to the watch or interact with the watch... but what about the other way around. IE - you can either respond via voice on Android Wear - or click and open up the app on the phone for many apps. I assume you can do this with the Apple Watch too?
----------
otherwise - it's bloat.
I use a smart watch that can go 1-2 days easily but I tend to charge it every night without issue. It's not a big deal really. Just as I plug in my phone, I just do the same with my watch.
I gotta say I am a bit shocked in Apple for the lack of styling on this device. It is quite fugly.
IMO they need it to be a standalone device. Lack of cell capability in a smart watch is next to pointless really.
I don't think it's a fad at all. The uses for it will continue to expand. It's capabilities just like phones will start small and then likely move to doing things we've never expected them to do.
[/quote]Apple has an idea. Everyone else is kind of just throwing a bunch of crap in the smart watch and hoping it sticks.[/QUOTE]
Meh...what's different about their idea? Others have ideas and have been helping define the market for wearables.
I agree. Need to break the tethering.
Still not there
I'm fascinated that not only do I not want one of these, I feel sort of obligated to tell the world. It's as if I feel the people that want one have fallen under some sort of Apple spell and can't see the stupidity of the device. But I guess it's their money.
The more they show people using the device...the more I realize I don't want one. The screen is way too small to do anything for a prolonged period of time. It would be a device for me if it cost less...and did less. The best way to market this is to pretend that the iPhone doesn't exist. Because every time they say the watch can do "this or that", I think "gee, so can my iPhone".
I'm fascinated that not only do I not want one of these, I feel sort of obligated to tell the world. It's as if I feel the people that want one have fallen under some sort of Apple spell and can't see the stupidity of the device. But I guess it's their money.
The more they show people using the device...the more I realize I don't want one. The screen is way too small to do anything for a prolonged period of time. It would be a device for me if it cost less...and did less. The best way to market this is to pretend that the iPhone doesn't exist. Because every time they say the watch can do "this or that", I think "gee, so can my iPhone".
Yes, you can shower with it.
The Apple Website says this:
You can, for example, wear and use Apple Watch during exercise, in the rain, and while washing your hands, but submerging Apple Watch is not recommended. Apple Watch has a water resistance rating of IPX7 under IEC standard 60529. The leather bands are not water resistant.
How can you possibly say this with a straight face. What is "thrown in" on the LG G/R watch. Or the Moto 360. Or the Pebble.
Apple is no better/no worse. They've thrown in a lot of "crap" into their OS as well. There are some great things (like Apple Pay accessibility) etc - but you clearly have NO experience with other smart watches if you think they are just throwing in a bunch of crap COMPARED to Apple.
It doesn't. Washing hands is very different. A lot less exposure - if any. How often do you get your wrists wet when washing your hands?
So, you've got an iPhone, a Samsung Galaxy phone AND a Galaxy Gear S cell phone contract so it can be used without the Galaxy phone? I just don't believe you.
The Galaxy Gear S still requires a Samsung phone to load and update the apps on the watch. It also needs a cell contract to work standalone - a different one than the phone has.
Exactly. I can wash my hands without getting my watch wet or submerging it. My whole body usually gets wet when I shower. Can the watch survive this? I think it is a perfectly relevant question.
The IPX7 rating says you can.
http://news.outdoortechnology.com/2...ater-resistant-and-ipx-what-does-it-all-mean/
IPX7 – This is for full water splashdown. If you drop your device in water up to 3 feet your device is still going to work.
IPX6 talks about powerful water jets. IPX7 is one higher.
So. Why would you not believe him? If we can believe people would pay thousands for a smart watch, I think we can believe someone would pay for an additional plan for one that costs around $350
What that doesn't say is for how long it can be submerged.
Getting it wet for a few moments is different than 10-15 of being underwater. Or even longer.
Yes, it does - the IPX7 rating says 30 minutes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code
7 Immersion up to 1 m Ingress of water in harmful quantity shall not be possible when the enclosure is immersed in water under defined conditions of pressure and time (up to 1 m of submersion). Test duration: 30 minutes
The lowest point of enclosures with a height less than 850 mm is located 1000 mm below the surface of the water, the highest point of enclosures with a height equal to or greater than 850 mm is located 150 mm below the surface of the water
I'm curious why Apple mentions hand washing and leaves out showering? And according to the standard that you quoted, I should be able to swim with it as long as I stay near the surface.
Your whole body gets wet when you shower? Pfft, amateur. I don't even get my pinky wet.
Yes, it does seem that that should be the case with IPX7.
Maybe they don't want to confuse people with 'surface swimming' vs. underwater swimming?
Thanks. I was accurate in that the link you provided did not say.
I still wouldn't risk it. I doubt Apple will be handing out replacements very easily on that claim.