If you took your S3 that deep under water and didn’t damage it you got lucky. Apple Watch is vastly superior to S3 or S3 Frontier for water resistance.
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 Outsold All Competing Smartwatches Combined Last Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If you took your S3 that deep under water and didn’t damage it you got lucky. Apple Watch is vastly superior to S3 or S3 Frontier for water resistance.
I would prefer the Siri animation in a tiny OLED display to replace the dot for maximum potential.
The screen cracked on my Apple Watch 3 after just two months of use. In my sixty-five year’s of life, I have never had a watch face break - but Apple refused to repair it claiming that I caused the damage. Perhaps I unknowingly did, but if so, this is not a product worth risking $400 for. I said NO to the Apple offer to fix it for $280. And I own 700 shares of Apple stock.
Add Bluetooth 5 to version 4 and I’m in.
Is that the version where bluetooth finally stops sucking?
I won’t be surprised if Face ID eventually comes to all Apple devices, including the Apple Watch as well.
I'm not sure if it's luck or not but yeah it's been through hell and back over the last year and almost half. My Series 2 Apple watch didn't survive nearly as long but that's been par for the course on my Apple products for some reason though the series 3 watch is holding up decently but it hasn't been through everything yet.
The Watch adds ease of access to information that may not be possible in certain circumstances. The convenience factor is huge, but to me is negated by its battery life and its design. There's quite a bit of bulk and chunkiness to it that's very off putting to me personally. I am not opposed to the Watch in what it can achieve, but I will hold out for a redesigned, and possibly round Watch. At the moment, given it's battery life, seems to be a chore more than anything else, just one more electronic I have to be conscious about its battery life over the course of a day.
Most swiss watches are NOT 10K, you knew that hmm, they're actually closer to the ASP of the Apple Watches taken as a whole.
Are you using a series 0? I got a used series 2 SS and my battery life is consistently 3 days+. My series 0 with the same apps couldn't last 12 hours. I suspect the series 3 would be even more performant, battery-wise.
The battery on my watch lasts for longer than my iPhone, that's for sure. My 7 gets around 4-5 hours tops before it needs a charge, due to the poor signal around me.
Still not sure why FitBit killed Pebble. I would have been happy with Pebble and the 7-day battery life and always-on. As such, I've been satisfied with the Apple watch, but not especially happy (Series 3 is definitely an improvement).
I'm actually curious about the Fitbit metric since it's long been considered the gold standard for health tracking. Is this all fitbits or is it just those with smart watch capabilities.
I'll add something, and this isn't to argue against Apple, but unfortunately a person with an iOS device with the intent of using a smart watch is somewhat stuck with Apple if they want any real functionality. I tried to live with a Fitbit, had a few models even, and the notifications were limited, at best. Replies were unavailable. And my understanding is that this is a limitation of iOS.
Now I'm not saying Apple Watch can't stand in its own merit. I'm sure that it can. But it's important to note that no other smart watch can match the Apple Watch features list for iPhone users. And that's not really the fault of any of the other competing devices, Specifically.
I'll add something, and this isn't to argue against Apple, but unfortunately a person with an iOS device with the intent of using a smart watch is somewhat stuck with Apple if they want any real functionality. I tried to live with a Fitbit, had a few models even, and the notifications were limited, at best. Replies were unavailable. And my understanding is that this is a limitation of iOS.
Now I'm not saying Apple Watch can't stand in its own merit. I'm sure that it can. But it's important to note that no other smart watch can match the Apple Watch features list for iPhone users. And that's not really the fault of any of the other competing devices, Specifically.
Yes. I made the whole thing up as a lie to trigger Apple apologists who can’t come to terms with the fact that Apple isn’t what it once was.
[doublepost=1519974869][/doublepost]
Also planning to upgrade but best Apple purchase is definitely a stretch for me.
[doublepost=1519974964][/doublepost]
My sentiments exactly. Yes its completely up to date. Wear it everyday and take great care of it. Its a Sport Model but the timer definitely shouldn’t just freeze. Especially when you’re cooking... Everything is much much slower than it used to be. Even with frequent reboots.
False on two accounts:
1.) A Swiss watch does not necessarily sell/retail for $10,000, that would likely be for one of the most high-end watches. Swiss watches actually coming in a variety range of prices well below $10,000. Also, You don’t understand the point of the comparison of the Swiss Watch, which is in terms of being one of the better selling watches in the world. That’s where the Apple Watch currently stands.
2.) The Apple Watch doesn’t just start at $330, it actually has a price point all the way up to $1300 for the Hermes Edition. And the stainless model starting at $600.
Same here. I don't think I'll be upgrading from my 1st gen, even when it eventually stops working.
The headline says that Apple sold over 50% of "smart watches" and then the content says about 20% of "wearables". This is very much in the vein of those articles that say iPhones outsell any other model of phone. Careful reading between the lines is always required.
Exactly .
Not to mention the definition of smart watches is what , and is it even a thing ?
The headline is incomplete!
It should continue, "... and most of us can't figure out why we would want/buy one."
It should continue, "... and most of us can't figure out why we would want/buy one."
That's my concern as well. There's no doubt that my series 2 Apple Watch is still serving me well, but I am not sure I am ready to (effectively) spend a few hundred dollars every 2-3 years upgrading my watch when it either stops being supported or gets too slow to work properly.
I never get Apple Products mid generation, it feels like a rip off paying the same price. So, I'll wait for AW4 regardless.
Bluetooth 5 carries twice the data at four times the range. If this device is connected to your smart phone, that matters. Especially if you don’t pay for cellular in the watch. Also if you’re ever away from your phone, which I constantly am when I walk around my house.
[doublepost=1520004199][/doublepost]
It’s definitely the version that sucks less. Lol
Did a single feature you name depend on a third party developer? I think that's really what the difference between a "smartphone" and a "featurephone" is - whether all the capabilities are provided by the manufacturer or whether a decent portion of them came from elsewhere.
I'd say that same distinction should be drawn between smartwatches and wearables or whatever you want to call the dumber things. Sure, the Apple Watch can have extra features added to it, but hardly anybody bothers.
Even playing music doesn't work. Your wife is playing _her_ music from _your_ account. Screwing up your play counts and throwing off any of the music suggestion capabilities of Apple Music. You have two choices:
1. Your wife's music choices will mess up your Apple Music
2. You can ignore any music choices on your HomePod - which means that if you use it as your primary way to play music your Apple Music account will never get any smarter about what you like to listen to.
In addition: your wife's Apple Music account never gets notified of _any_ songs your wife is playing. So, again, it has no chance to learn her preferences, suggest better music or build smart playlists.
Further, there is no way for your wife to play _her_ playlists from her Apple Music account!
For a device that is "supposed to be good for music playing"... it doesn't even get that right!
In comparison, Google Home uses voice recognition to automatically select the correct Spotify account. So when my girlfriend says "Play my morning playlist" - Google Home automatically uses _her_ Spotify account to play _her_ playlist. The songs she listens to are noted on _her_ account and her smart playlists (which are SO good on Spotify) automatically get smarter about what she likes.
While listening to anything you can even say "Add this to my library" and Google Home will save the song to the correct Spotify account.
It is unfathomable to me that Apple released, what is essentially, an Apple Music playing device (that's the thing it does best) and they didn't even make _that_ work for multiple people properly.
As you can probably tell... I'm pretty unhappy about it. I had planned on buying whatever smart speaker Apple put out. I own essentially one (or more!) of every item Apple makes and my entire house is Homekit compatible. I'm _READY_ to give Apple my money... but they're not going to get it unless they pull their heads out of their asses about multiple users.
[doublepost=1520009045][/doublepost]
I would honestly take it in to Apple and explain to them what you're seeing and see what they'll do for you. If you're nice and honest about what's happening I've had the people at Apple take great care of me before (most recently giving me a refurb iPhone 7+ when my screen cracked).