Yeah, really. How do you show people photos on your watch? Shove your arm in their face so they can NOT see the picture due to the puny screen?
What an effing joke.
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 Has 8GB of Storage, Limited to 2GB for Music and 75MB for Photos
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, really. How do you show people photos on your watch? Shove your arm in their face so they can NOT see the picture due to the puny screen?
What an effing joke.
A bottle of wine for $6 or $1000 still contains the same grapes, water and alcohol. Still does the same thing. But the prices vary widely.
Yeah, really. How do you show people photos on your watch? Shove your arm in their face so they can NOT see the picture due to the puny screen?
What an effing joke.
It's not for "people" it's for YOU. It's to get a quick glance at your wife, kids, dog, etc. It's part of the "personal" motif that surrounds the watch. I will personally use it to get a quick glance of my westie and my wife during my commute.
God, why are people such nasty cretins? Take a simple thing like photos and try to twist it around to be a negative...
wait are you laughing at the user wanting to use the watch with the advertised features?
no its not. what is always the same though is the reaction from a certain faction
there were a few very deserving points of criticism. incidentally one of those it shares with the new watch. apple however acted on that in 2 months time. i dont recall anyone saying it was confusing to use.
Last edited:
You nailed it right on the head. A friend asked if she should buy one now and I told her to wait until gen 2 and let other people beta test the 1st gen watch.
I feel the same way, I'm sure the first generation apple watch will be fun to use etc. But there is massive scope for improvements (2-3 day battery life, bugs removed, greater apps etc), that I really don't mind waiting a generation or two before I buy one.
Why wait? Well the 2nd/3rd gen watch will gain significant improvements, while the price is likely to remain the same, if not be lower than the price of the 1st gen Iwatch. Therefore it is much better value for money.
For now I just feel like I won't miss what I never had.
different grapes, different regions, different harvests, different aging...list goes on.
Yeah I'm worried that if I get anything less than stainless steel and sapphire I will scratch the crap out of it. I can't imagine wearing what is essentially an iPhone Nano on my wrist. My watch is always banging into random crap. I don't want the anxiety of always worrying about what my arm might hit while I'm walking around.
My guess is that it's far cheaper to produce on the line and Apple has more supply of aluminum than stainless steel, so they priced it accordingly. They've worked with aluminum for many years. They have the machines to do it. It looks like the process for stainless steel is different, so perhaps they don't have the capacity to keep up? That and the deal with GT Advanced that fell through might have severely limited that amount of sapphire they can get their hands on. Perhaps future versions might be a little cheaper as they are more efficient at the process of making them and can secure greater bulk orders for materials.
I could see them doing the following in coming years:
Apple Watch Sport: Previous gen internals, maybe better motion tracking sensors for sports related activities, better water proofing, price $249-299. Think of it like the iPhone 5C. Bright colors, cheaper materials.
Apple Watch: Current gen internals, better battery, $449/499. Or perhaps offer a version without any band for cheaper as the third party band market expands.
For the same reasons mentioned above, perhaps future versions of the link band will come down in price to around $299-349? I especially think these things are more likely to happen if the stainless steel models aren't selling as well.
might be the same type of grapes. You can get a Merlot for $6 or $1,000.
Yes, they're aged differently, picked differently, come from different regions where the climate is different, etc. which affects all aspects of the wine.
But it's still grapes, water and alcohol.
I can't believe people still don't get that we are moving to a wireless world. An Apple Watch paired up with Bluetooth headphones beats the crap out of a shuffle you have to hold and wires dangling everywhere on your run.
Plus the watch is gathering health data for you at the same time. Have people lost any sense of vision these days? The user experience is multiple times greater than what we had with the shuffle & wired headphones or bringing along a bulky phone.
any more ridiculous than a necklace or locket that a woman would wear with a picture of her kids in it?
any more ridiculous than carrying a wallet with dirty little photos stuffed into it like days past?
I keep a handful of nice pics of my kids and family on my Gear S. Screen is bigger than Apple but it's still small. Still, I have no problem showing someone a photo of my wife or kids on my watch. They come through just fine.
In the end, whether you use it or not, the functionality is there to use and doesn't take anything to implement.
----------
and there's absolutely no difference to how they taste right...
Because you want to go out without your phone and you don't have pockets? Or you have pockets but don't want to fish your phone out of it while running when you can easily change music, see what song is playing, etc. while running/riding your bike, fishing, hiking, gardening?
I mean come on, people are acting like no one ever bought an iPod nano. The Apple Watch beats the nano in convenience and functionality with one arm tied behind its back and in a better form factor to boot.
What high roller would want to show up at the big hangout when everyone else is wearing Rolexes, Tag Heuers, Patek-Phillipes, etc, wearing a toy watch? I'll tell ya who: the one that wants to scream "Look at me, I'm a DORK". A rich dork, but still a dork.
Please.
I wonder if Bill Gates ordered one?
----------
I'm not clueless about Bluetooth, but basically I'd have to go buy another set of not so cheap (I hate bad sound) headphones since both my current noise-cancelling and studio ones do not have Bluetooth and there in lies the rub. Most audiophile quality cans aren't about bluetooth. They're about the best possible sound and in most high-end listening situations you typically aren't lacking a headphone jack (more to the point, bluetooth needs BATTERIES and batteries are a PITA which I know from my noise-cancelling ones as I have to keep a 4-pack in my headphone case at all times and god-forbid I forget and leave the darn things turned on (surprisingly easy to do, especially at work) and drain the batteries which is why I need the 4-pack minimum on any kind of trip (it only uses 1 AAA, BTW and somehow I think bluetooth headphones are going to need a lot more power than that for any length of usage given how fast WiFi sucks down my iPod's charge). If you can find Bluetooth plus noise-canceling, even more of a drain.
Next, throw in the watch needing charged every single day as well and that "convenience" of having (only about 200 songs) on a watch is starting to turn into a royal pain in the keystor, IMO. How hard is it to throw my 64GB iPod Touch 5G in my pocket and use EITHER a cord or Bluetooth? Is it easier to look at photos on a watch or on a larger iPod or iPhone screen? WTF is the POINT of this watch? To get stock updates on my wrist? I need to see them THAT often I can't just look at the iPhone? (shrug)
Now if they could get 16GB+ in this thing and have a way for it to operate without needing a damn iPhone to function (WTF can't you program/adjust it with a Mac or PC instead of an iPhone??? And if I have to have the iPhone in my pocket to talk to the Phone to use half its function, then the watch is just a glorified tiny tiny screen for feedback from the phone and little else. I'd like to see a phone that works INSTEAD of an iPod. Get good enough voice commands and the large screen isn't a big deal. Get me a phone that fits inside that watch and a simple bluetooth earpiece for phone calls and I've got a replacement option instead of an accessory (maybe have an iPad or an iPod instead of the expensive iPhone). That would at least be heading in the right direction. For now, it's just an overpriced accessory and sport watch, IMO.
Well if you want all the features of your Apple Watch you need your bulky phone also.
I have so many problems with this watch it is rediculous. First off, being able to only use 2GB is not that flashy. Especially because native apps are going to take up the most space obviously....
Second, music shouldn't be an issue because the Watch pulls music from the phone anyway, but the problem is only being able to use 75mb for the pictures. It would be awesome to scroll through my pictures on my watch to show someone a trip...but...this would only be possible if Apple would allow use without the iPhone. Using the Apple Watch would be a lot more fantastic if you didn't need to have it tied to your iPhone.
If they could get the Apple Watch to support up to 16GB with a 2-3 battery life and NOT have it rely on the iPhone, it would be worth the $349+ price tag but until then, I'm not sold.
Second, music shouldn't be an issue because the Watch pulls music from the phone anyway, but the problem is only being able to use 75mb for the pictures. It would be awesome to scroll through my pictures on my watch to show someone a trip...but...this would only be possible if Apple would allow use without the iPhone. Using the Apple Watch would be a lot more fantastic if you didn't need to have it tied to your iPhone.
If they could get the Apple Watch to support up to 16GB with a 2-3 battery life and NOT have it rely on the iPhone, it would be worth the $349+ price tag but until then, I'm not sold.
No offense, but that is one of the poorest analogies I have read here for a long time.
quick glance at my wife, kids, dog....while i'm riding a bike? or bench pressing?
----------
so now the phone is bulky?
Why? Can't you buy a bottle of wine for $6 and another for $1,000? There really isn't much difference.
I've drinken bottles of $1,000 blanc de blanc wine. Yes, it's better than $6 wine, but only marginally so. In no way $994 better.
Right, and a Lamborghini and a Smart Car are the same. And a Mac Pro is the same as a Chromebook.
I agree completely.
These boards are not filled with the average consumer. Most people on here want everything free, and call something a 'fail' if it doesn't fit for their particular use-case.
----------
For some use-cases - YES.
I need to get to work in the morning in 40 mph bumper-to-bumper traffic. I need a computer to surf the web. The Lamborghini and Mac Pros are useless wastes of money in these cases, and offer no extra value.
You don't need your phone to listen to music on your Apple Watch with your bluetooth headphones. That's what we were referring to. Try and keep up.
Kinda stupid. Especially if you have more than 2 gbs of music (I do and I don't have that huge of a music collection).
I mean at that point, if I have to have blutooth headsets anyways, why not just pair it with my iphone and skip the watch?