Sidebar Sidebar
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

NinjaHERO said:
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.
Click to expand...
Twice the data rate or four times the range. That's a really important distinction.
https://www.androidauthority.com/bluetooth-5-speed-range-762369/

You'll likely get one eighth the data at four times the range, and 1.7 times the data and a quarter the range.

That's not nothing though. Most of the time with the watch on your wrist and the phone in your pocket you'll benefit from the data rate and an eighth the data over longer range in your house is better than none...

Still I haven't noticed that the data rate to the watch is my limiting factor for anything but software updates, and WiFi seems like the preferred long range communication when at home, rather than point to point over BT. I think I'd benefit more from better WiFi than bumping to BT5...
 
friedmud said:
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.
Click to expand...

My wife doesn't have an Apple Music account. She uses mine; which for her is free btw...

If the music she asks for influences mine in some manor, that's ok. Nothing to get wound up about.



"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."

Oooh...unfathomable... Seriously? Try and unwind a bit. I suspect that and many more features will soon be coming. In the meantime we are both enjoying HomePod many hours a day. Kind of like with the early iPhones which, apparently unfathomably, didn't have copy and paste.

Life goes on. Try and enjoy it.
 
Analog Kid said:
Twice the data rate or four times the range. That's a really important distinction.
https://www.androidauthority.com/bluetooth-5-speed-range-762369/

You'll likely get one eighth the data at four times the range, and 1.7 times the data and a quarter the range.

That's not nothing though. Most of the time with the watch on your wrist and the phone in your pocket you'll benefit from the data rate and an eighth the data over longer range in your house is better than none...

Still I haven't noticed that the data rate to the watch is my limiting factor for anything but software updates, and WiFi seems like the preferred long range communication when at home, rather than point to point over BT. I think I'd benefit more from better WiFi than bumping to BT5...
Click to expand...

Interesting tidbit ...
I own a 3 story townhome. If I left my 7+ in the office on the bottom floor, wifi was the only way for the Apple Watch (Nike 2) to connect if I went to the 3rd floor (bedrooms). For my Gear Sport, BT, I can leave my Razer in the office (bottom floor) and still have BT connectivity on the 3rd floor.
 
friedmud said:
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).
Click to expand...

Thanks. I’ll give it a try.
 
lowendlinux said:
Haven't the watchOS updates improved the speed of the watch though?
Click to expand...

Pretty uneven experience. Some parts of the watch feel faster, other features such as starting activity and launching the music app seem to take forever.

I guess I can only adopt a wait-and-see approach.
 
Gravydog316 said:
Umm... the total shipped doesn't mean the total sold. wtf
Click to expand...

In the case of Apple it likely does as channel inventory is generally minimal, for others not so much.
Also, consider those are just educated guesses for Apple and others (though Tim gives a ballpark figure usually when asked by comparing loosely to known numbers, which makes Apple's numbers less guesswork than those from the competition).
 
  • Like
Reactions: QuarterSwede
Keirasplace said:
In the case of Apple it likely does as channel inventory is generally minimal, for others not so much.
Also, consider those are just educated guesses for Apple and others (though Tim gives a ballpark figure usually when asked by comparing loosely to known numbers, which makes Apple's numbers less guesswork than those from the competition).
Click to expand...
So, it's still # shipped, not # sold, like I said...
 
Gravydog316 said:
So, it's still # shipped, not # sold, like I said...
Click to expand...

Channel depth are known at Apple, they run very lean with quick turnover, so what is your point, if there are 3% of inventory in the channels, the difference at the end of the year is immaterial. During long periods of the years, many models are even out of stock.

So, what is your point. Nothing. Just words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back