Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
How so?

I have in my pocket a 5.5" iPhone 6S+, which is much more powerful, with a great camera.

An iPad mini only adds bulk to me.

As opposite, I could list the many ways the Apple Watch has great utility. If needed, I will provide such list.

I don't check the time with an iPad. I don't control my music on a Bluetooth speaker with an iPad. I certainly can't do so from my wrist. Can't wear my iPad. Can live quite easily without it. While my Apple Watch gets used daily.
 
If Apple Watch became independent of the iPhone then I think it would sell more.

People say this a lot, but I personally doubt it. I have a bunch of third party apps on my watch and I can count the times I've launched them on one hand. It is just too irritating to interact with the watch for more than a notification... the screen is too small, the input is too limited. If it was a full iPhone I'd probably still just use it for notifications.

I think that is just the nature of the beast. For me, that is just fine, but for a lot of people it makes it not worth it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Altis and iAmAsar
Doesn't help the current model past the beautiful watch faces has an absolutely horrendous user experience. Ridiculously slow apps, useless friend button, insanely small circle app icons to peck on with a finger nail.

It is REALLY baffling the Apple Watch was approved to be released in its first iteration.

Maybe the new WatchOS can start fixing the narrative of, at its basic level, it operates poorly. Then they can move on to what the point of the apple watch, on which screen needs to turn on every time, is beyond fitness and notifications, which any $200 fitness watch with an always-on-display also does.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pentrix2 and dan110
Exactly! The "Apple tax", is really holding them back.

I think the answer is changing as we progress. Apple is still skating to where the puck was. I got a Garmin in Jan that runs custom apps, has an always-on, round display, displays notifications, has GPS, is water resistant to 5 ATM, and has multi-week battery life. Now that we are finally getting GPS, it's not enough to get me to buy even though it would have created enough value a year ago.
 
Last edited:
People say this a lot, but I personally doubt it. I have a bunch of third party apps on my watch and I can count the times I've launched them on one hand. It is just too irritating to interact with the watch for more than a notification... the screen is too small, the input is too limited. If it was a full iPhone I'd probably still just use it for notifications.

I think that is just the nature of the beast. For me, that is just fine, but for a lot of people it makes it not worth it.
I guess the main thing I want is to be able to listen to Pandora or Apple Music while going for a bike ride, a run, or while I'm at the gym and not have to carry my phone in my pocket or strapped to my arm.

Also, if I happen to forget my phone at home when I go to work at least I won't be SOL all day.
 
I can't wait to buy an AW2! Wearables everywhere can suck it; they just don't provide enough utility for me to inconvenience myself with another device (IMHO). Also, I had one of the original pebble watches, and it croaked the first time I washed my hands with it on. I sold the replacement on ebay and have been waiting for AW2 ever since :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howyalikdemapls
Price is probably a factor but I think a lot of it is that watch 1 isn't all that useful beyond basic notifications. Don't get me wrong, I love mine, but when people ask me about it I doubt my answers convert them to go buy one of their own. Watch 2 might change that, we'll see.

That's a great point. The Apple Watch serves seamlessly as a notification device, but it does not compete with a Garmin. It's adequate for a first Gen Watch, but needs improvement, like all first Gen products do.

GPS seems to interest a lot of first time Watch buyers and those who already own Gen 1. The bigger battery and S2 Chip should be a strong selling point to increase efficiency and paired with Watch OS3.
 
The answer to this is... Apple, make a wearable.

My fitbit lasts a week, better health data, sleep tracking (major importance in health), calories, food tracking inbuilt without 3rd party apps, notifications and a hell of a lot cheaper than the AW. The apple watch doesn't add anything new, poor battery, poor health, bulky for sports.

Apple could make a killing in the wearable market. The AW is an allrounder product for those not completely serious about fitness. For those who want a bit of this and that, get the AW. Nobody I know who is serious uses the AW for a fitness device as it's a fragile toy. Also, it struggles with a single days charge.

The AW and wearables are different products for different uses. Apple could broaden their market and get into the fitness, health and sports industry as a serious competitor instead of trying to have a catch-all jack of all, master of none product.
 
How so?

I have in my pocket a 5.5" iPhone 6S+, which is much more powerful, with a great camera.

An iPad mini only adds bulk to me.

As opposite, I could list the many ways the Apple Watch has great utility. If needed, I will provide such list.
Don't take it personally. It's just an opinion. It differs from yours but so what? Please, please, please don't provide the list. It's anecdotal, and relates specifically to you. It in no way proves or disproves the iPad mini is better or worse than an Apple watch. Better is a personal preference and use case specific. Taken at face value, how silly is the argument in first place? Be honest.:D
 
No surprise. It illustrates why the Apple Watch (and other smart watches) have flopped. Consumers have spoken and they want small, lightweight basic wearables like the Fitbit. But Apple doesn't have one. This is the same issue why the Apple TV has flopped. Consumers have spoken and they want streaming sticks. But Apple doesn't have one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dan110
Would love to have a fitness wearable that has more synergy with iPhone. But then I found out how little it does.
Apple Watch abandoned health and fitness.

Things that need to be fixed.
- 5-7 day battery life for tracking sleep cycles. Not having to charge on stand every night.
- GPS for running without phone, and open water swims
- heart rate broadcast to other fitness gear (e.g. Bike computer via ant+ or btle)
- water proof for swimming

All things my Garmin has for a lesser price.
 
I want a waterproof wearable with GPS and heart rate for tracking my fitness activities without bringing my phone. Smart functionality is more of a bonus. There's cheaper alternatives that include GPS. For someone with my interests it's a no brainer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dan110
I'm wearing my Beats wireless, iPhone, and AppleWatch. I never thought I'd be wearing over $1k of personal electronics. It's actually kind of absurd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dan110
The answer to this is... Apple, make a wearable.

My fitbit lasts a week, better health data, sleep tracking (major importance in health), calories, food tracking inbuilt without 3rd party apps, notifications and a hell of a lot cheaper than the AW. The apple watch doesn't add anything new, poor battery, poor health, bulky for sports.

Apple could make a killing in the wearable market. The AW is an allrounder product for those not completely serious about fitness. For those who want a bit of this and that, get the AW. Nobody I know who is serious uses the AW for a fitness device as it's a fragile toy. Also, it struggles with a single days charge.

The AW and wearables are different products for different uses. Apple could broaden their market and get into the fitness, health and sports industry as a serious competitor instead of trying to have a catch-all jack of all, master of none product.

Does the FitBit actually have better health data?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/23/study-shows-fitbit-trackers-highly-inaccurate.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: ErikGrim
I think the answer is changing as we progress. Apple is still skating to where the puck was. I got a Garmin in Jan that runs custom apps, has an always-on, round display, displays notifications, has GPS, is water resistant to 5 ATM, and multi-week battery life. Now that we are finally getting GPS, it's not enough to get me to buy even though it would have created enough value a year ago.


Yep, poor old Apple, always "skating to where the puck was." Always "a day late, and a dollar short" er, wait, ok, never mind, forgot that they are the most valuable company on earth and make more profit than anyone else. But Garmin is the best seller of smart watches right? Wait, Apple sold more smart watches than the entire industry combined in just Apple's first year??? OK, Someyoungguy and I need to rethink this and get back to you.
 
Last edited:
I love my Apple gear but Pebble did it correctly. The Pebble is a great WATCH and computer. It lasts a week on a charge, I can glance down and see info without having to touch anything or turn on battery sucking backlighting. It's really a great little gadget. Oh yeah, LITTLE. It's actually watch sized. The new models coming will make it even more "Dick Tracy" too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChadKerley
The answer to this is... Apple, make a wearable.

My fitbit lasts a week, better health data, sleep tracking (major importance in health), calories, food tracking inbuilt without 3rd party apps, notifications and a hell of a lot cheaper than the AW. The apple watch doesn't add anything new, poor battery, poor health, bulky for sports.

Apple could make a killing in the wearable market. The AW is an allrounder product for those not completely serious about fitness. For those who want a bit of this and that, get the AW. Nobody I know who is serious uses the AW for a fitness device as it's a fragile toy. Also, it struggles with a single days charge.

The AW and wearables are different products for different uses. Apple could broaden their market and get into the fitness, health and sports industry as a serious competitor instead of trying to have a catch-all jack of all, master of none product.
Someone is going to have to explain to me why Apple needs to get into the "basic wearable" market, at all. In a world where you've got Brett Farve shilling for a glorified $20 step tracker, why would Apple need to compete in this space?
 
No surprise. It illustrates why the Apple Watch (and other smart watches) have flopped. Consumers have spoken and they want small, lightweight basic wearables like the Fitbit. But Apple doesn't have one. This is the same issue why the Apple TV has flopped. Consumers have spoken and they want streaming sticks. But Apple doesn't have one.

While I agree that's part of the picture, those other devices you mention are a lot less expensive than the comparable Apple Products. Apple puts more into their devices to be more universal, but also charges a premium. People only interested in their fitness, aren't necessarily interested in all the other stuff the Watch does that commands a premium.

This is totally an expected development. The watch has been out for 2 years, and everybody who has found a use fro them as they currently exist have paid Apple's premium. When the next watch comes out, the first gen watch will become a more affordable option, which indeed does offer more than a Fitbit. Once the prices are equalized a little more, then the Watch will have greater appeal at the expense of the Fitbit, simply because it looks nicer and can do more.

Apple is also losing out on the Android market by not making the watch compatible. That likely also explains the push for independence form the iPhone, so it can do most things it does with the iPhone without relying on the same support from Android.
 
Note: I use the term, Fitbit, but this means any fitness device with similar features...

This compares $100-150 devices to the $350+ Apple Watch... Yeah people are going to spend half the cost on the fitbits instead.

There's very little reason to upgrade to a smart watch when a Fitbit will perform the majority of what most people want from such a device. Including connecting to a phone to show quick messages and who is calling. Being able to respond is a convenience most won't pay double for.

The Apple Watch still hasn't given much reason for its existence at its current price beyond people with money to waste on enthusiast products. The Watch does what it does well, but doesn't do enough over the Fitbits to justify the cost. The watch is pure luxury.
 
Note: I use the term, Fitbit, but this means any fitness device with similar features...

This compares $100-150 devices to the $350+ Apple Watch... Yeah people are going to spend half the cost on the fitbits instead.

There's very little reason to upgrade to a smart watch when a Fitbit will perform the majority of what most people want from such a device. Including connecting to a phone to show quick messages and who is calling. Being able to respond is a convenience most won't pay double for.

The Apple Watch still hasn't given much reason for its existence at its current price beyond people with money to waste on enthusiast products. The Watch does what it does well, but doesn't do enough over the Fitbits to justify the cost. The watch is pure luxury.


Marty, how do you square your comments with the tremendous success of the first generation Apple Watch? It's probably close to 20 million in sales already from just the early adopters, with a huge demand waiting for the second generation.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.