Apple Watch Review Roundup: The 'World's Best Smartwatch', But 'Not For Everyone'

[darkslide29]

I am still deciding between a Sport and Stainless Steel. I am a little discouraged to see so many reviewers give a hesitant "yes" to buy, but probably just the sport, because gen 2 or 3 is what you'll want to buy.

To me, there are only a couple of things that I can see improving in gen 2 to make it worth my uprade dollars. 1) A significant improvement in battery life, and 2) a significant improvement in speed (to address the lag reviewers mention). If I had to pick a 3, I suppose it would be the sensors. I'm sure more are coming, but I am not a big fitness guy so those are less important to me personally.

I don't know that battery tech can advance enough in a couple of years to make that big of a jump. Even if the battery goes from 18 hours to 36 hours, that means it will die halfway into the next day, so I will still be charging it nightly. As for the speed, I wonder how much of it is software side and app developers optimizing their apps better. Since these issues likely won't get addressed, I was leaning toward the SS version. Yet, I still hesitate that hand picked reviewers would be so harsh. I guess it's not the Apple Watch they're so against, but more the Smart Watch category as a whole.

A little over 12 hours to decide.

 

[Thunderhawks]

I am 26 and I use my phone heavily and frequently. All the more reason to keep it totally silent whenever I'm not using it.

That makes you older in my estimation. I am talking under 20.

Or, you just have the right attitude about what to do when.

Just read a study that the most stress these days comes from thinking having to be available 24/7.

Bosses and customers abusing the privilege etc.

I have customers who think nothing of calling me at 11 at night (I will not pick up) for something that can clearly wait until the next days business hours.

Or, if a call seems to be too intrusive, they figure texting is okay. Sundays,
holidays all days.

It is getting pretty wacky out there.

My guess is the watch will increase that stress for those who can't manage their time (head game) and wait when the people who already now stare at their phones all the time while talking to you or being with you get the SILENT notifications.

 

[LordVic]

That makes you older in my estimation. I am talking under 20.

Or, you just have the right attitude about what to do when.

Just read a study that the most stress these days comes from thinking having to be available 24/7.

Bosses and customers abusing the privilege etc.

I have customers who think nothing of calling me at 11 at night (I will not pick up) for something that can clearly wait until the next days business hours.

Or, if a call seems to be too intrusive, they figure texting is okay. Sundays,
holidays all days.

It is getting pretty wacky out there.

My guess is the watch will increase that stress for those who can't manage their time (head game) and wait when the people who already now stare at their phones all the time while talking to you or being with you get the SILENT notifications.

yeah, we've run into this recently where client expectations weren't managed correctly, because one support staff decided to be "pro-active" and respond to client requests during the weekend outside of normal business hours.

we have a strict "no support outside of business hours unless production issue" policy.

so what ended up happening is this support was given on a saturday, where a good dozen emails went back and forth.

the following weekend, the client sent emails on saturday and got no response. Come monday, we had a scathing email and voice mail from the same client wondering why we "dropped off" and stopped supporting them

 

[Chip Brown]

Great roundup. I'm an Apple fanboy but I’m not buying this Apple Watch. Why? Because, this is the worst Apple Watch ever.

My complete rationale is at chipbrown.me, but my advice is, take the $350-$17,000 you would spend on an Apple Watch 1 and buy Apple stock then buy the Apple Watch 2 next year.

 

[Aniseedvan]

If you're in a meeting, put your phone on mute and silence your notifications for heaven's sake. Everyone will thank you.

As I have a 'smart watch' now, my phone is always on mute and in my bag. I must be one of the very few who doesn't have it going off incessantly in meetings, but if my watch buzzes I can just take a small look at my wrist if it's a phone call. For me calls during the work day cannot wait if they are to do with my children at school, if they are ill and need me to come home.

 

[BlueMoon63]

Great roundup. I'm an Apple fanboy but I’m not buying this Apple Watch. Why? Because, this is the worst Apple Watch ever.

My complete rationale is at chipbrown.me, but my advice is, take the $350-$17,000 you would spend on an Apple Watch 1 and buy Apple stock then buy the Apple Watch 2 next year.

Yea, the previous Apple Watch was much better and thanks for the stock tip.

 

[AFDoc]

I don't play golf, it is boring as hell Good luck finding me.

Oh finding you is the easy part!!

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

Apple has created a solution that's looking for a problem. The underlying theme may well have some integrity - we'd all like to use our phones less - but their Watch is the wrong answer.

I mean, how unfocused can you get? They even labelled it as a 'watch' just because it sits on your wrist, despite the fact few customers will purchase this product purely for its time keeping functions. In that sense they failed at the first hurdle by not reinventing how a timepiece looks and feels on your body.

This is why i'm still amazed that Apple chose not to design a wearable that targeted a specific industry, such as health and fitness. I've no doubt that was their original intention, but it's possible that with the hardware limitations imposed (notably, battery life), they weren't able to fulfil a particular goal. If only they just bided their time.

For all their pride in scrutinising design choices, they opted to do a lot of things that turned out average rather than just a few things that would turn out great. The reverse is true for all of Apple's greatest products, and one of the reasons why they've been so popular in the first place.

Indeed, when the iPod came out (and was eventually opened up to Windows), nobody needed an MP3 player. They existed in the market alongside portable CD players and the odd compact cassette player, but Apple made the product experience magical for a broad audience, and crucially, very affordable. The price-plan (initially) only adjusted for storage, which meant that you paid for as much music as you owned. In my book, the iPod will always more of a "personal device" than any Apple Watch can be, regardless of what Tim Cook says. What's more personal than your taste and ownership of music?

A computer disguised as a watch? LOL.

And this is where the product fails. I could forgive the £300-minimum price tag if the product were compelling, but it's clear that the company wanted to breakout of the 'geek' spectrum with wearables and attempt to sell this product as a majestic and important device. The terminology is crucial - "an incredibly precise timepiece" (Translation: it connects to the 'net like any other device), "a comprehensive fitness tracker (Translation: your heart rate is interpreted in different ways), etc etc...

The argument that other watch makers also charge up to five-figures and more is largely irrelevant; the clockwork requires an expertise and craftsmanship all of its own, and just as importantly, the product won't lose its value and become technologically obsolete within a matter of years. It's this heritage that appeals to consumers, because a mechanical timepiece is precisely crafted both inside and out. It's the reason that many watch wearers would feint if they were handed an Omega Speedmaster - one of the most important and impeccably engineered timepieces ever made.

On the other hand (no pun intended), Apple expect one to drop £10,000+ on a wrist computer that functions exactly the same as the £300 version, just because it's case is a different material?

Sorry, but that's not how the watch market works. Amusingly, Apple seemed to have ignored this because of nothing more than elitism.

Rant over. For the record I believe that many of the Apple Watches actually look very attractive - the Space Grey Sport model is a little beaut - but there's a limit to how many devices I can be surrounded by these days. And as far as I'm concerned, Apple Watch is just another computer with another plug and more distractions.

 

[jicon]

So, what. I'm still using my 3GS EVERY DAY. Man, I didn't know I should throw it out because it is on 6.1.6 (that some whiners have called slow as hell on the 3GS). I didn't even realize how much my idevice sucked... Man, how far have I fallen... (sic)

How many security upgrades do many top Android phone barely 18 months out of the factory get, despite bugs making them basically botnet fodder; pretty much zero. That's the real standard of obsoleteness, making something so unsecured that you have to upgrade to not be hacked!! At least Apple is not living "up" to that standard.

Unlike MS who got so bogged down in backward compatibility that its OS became a massive buggy unruly mess, eventually Apple decides that hey, then need to move on. Doesn't mean you old device is useless suddenly. Plenty of people still use 10 year old Ipods.

So... if a device works for you, enjoy.

If you are hitting the used market to buy a device that is a few years old, just be aware that support/features will drop at some point. Your mileage will vary. Apple in particular has integrations between devices, but are often limited by either the age of your hardware, or the version of the operating system available. This was pronounced a bit with Handoff support in iOS8 and Yosemite, but I'm sure will again be an issue for the Apple Watch in the next couple of years.

 

[Keirasplace]

Many of these reviews, including this one, demonstrate how little the reviewer knows about current smartwatches. For instance, the author of that one writes about the Apple Watch battery:

"This is not, of course, entirely Apple’s problem; no full-color smartwatch lasts more than a day."

Which is incorrect. All he had to do was read reviews of some other watches to find out that several go 2-3 days... some even with their display always on.

He should've said "No other full color watch that works with the iPhone at this time".

Right... Except they don't last 2-3 days if you use it heavily or even typically (none even comes close to claiming this), not even the monstrous Gear S (110% bigger than the small Apple watch).

 

[rocknblogger]

I don't know I've never used one! I'm actually interested to know exactly what information is recorded.

But wouldn't it show if you had an erratic heartbeat? Or a very fast heartbeat? Or a heartbeat very slow to slow down after exercise?

If so, none of these actually diagnose anything but can give you information that it might be worth going to a cardiologist for a proper cardio exam. In the case of an erratic heartbeat, presumably you could show this to a cardiologist. Also you could monitor whether an exercise program that you are taking is having beneficial effects on your pulse, or if you are over-straining.

But maybe I'm misunderstanding how it works?

I could be wrong but I believe it only records you're hear rate for calculating calories burned. I have an irregular heart beat and other than specialized equipment like a Halter Monitor that you wear for 24 hours there's nothing that will record that that's available to consumers.

I believe something like that would have to have FDA approval as it is making a diagnosis. At the moment the Apple Watch sensors are good for fitness but not health. I'm pretty sure that Apple is working on it and we may see something like that a few years down the road. The sensors will have to be quite accurate to pass FDA approval and I don't think technology for the wrist is anywhere near that far along.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I am still deciding between a Sport and Stainless Steel. I am a little discouraged to see so many reviewers give a hesitant "yes" to buy, but probably just the sport, because gen 2 or 3 is what you'll want to buy.

To me, there are only a couple of things that I can see improving in gen 2 to make it worth my uprade dollars. 1) A significant improvement in battery life, and 2) a significant improvement in speed (to address the lag reviewers mention). If I had to pick a 3, I suppose it would be the sensors. I'm sure more are coming, but I am not a big fitness guy so those are less important to me personally.

I don't know that battery tech can advance enough in a couple of years to make that big of a jump. Even if the battery goes from 18 hours to 36 hours, that means it will die halfway into the next day, so I will still be charging it nightly. As for the speed, I wonder how much of it is software side and app developers optimizing their apps better. Since these issues likely won't get addressed, I was leaning toward the SS version. Yet, I still hesitate that hand picked reviewers would be so harsh. I guess it's not the Apple Watch they're so against, but more the Smart Watch category as a whole.

A little over 12 hours to decide.

Why not wait a few weeks and then decide if you're having doubts? Or order it and return it if you aren't satisfied. You know Apple has a few things they will add to version 2 like they always do.

These are hand picked reviewers and this does not sound like a must have product or the next big thing. But we'll see in the next several months.

 

[damant]

All these reviews are so discouraging to so many people ... I sure hope i can preorder one without any problem/waiting tonight ;-)

 

[Allthings-I]

Meh, the Gear S got it right on the first time, certainly much more than the apple watch. At least in functionality, the Gear S is admittedly pretty ugly, but then the Apple watch isn't any beauty queen either.

I c...I'm still going to buy one and try it out because its going to work well with my iPhone and that is all that matters to me at this point.

 

[macgabe]

Yikes - watch out for those Milanese loops!

 

[Thunderhawks]

Apple has created a solution that's looking for a problem. The underlying theme may well have some integrity - we'd all like to use our phones less - but their Watch is the wrong answer.

I mean, how unfocused can you get? They even labelled it as a 'watch' just because it sits on your wrist, despite the fact few customers will purchase this product purely for its time keeping functions. In that sense they failed at the first hurdle by not reinventing how a timepiece looks and feels on your body.

This is why i'm still amazed that Apple chose not to design a wearable that targeted a specific industry, such as health and fitness. I've no doubt that was their original intention, but it's possible that with the hardware limitations imposed (notably, battery life), they weren't able to fulfil a particular goal. If only they just bided their time.

For all their pride in scrutinising design choices, they opted to do a lot of things that turned out average rather than just a few things that would turn out great. The reverse is true for all of Apple's greatest products, and one of the reasons why they've been so popular in the first place.

Indeed, when the iPod came out (and was eventually opened up to Windows), nobody needed an MP3 player. They existed in the market alongside portable CD players and the odd compact cassette player, but Apple made the product experience magical for a broad audience, and crucially, very affordable. The price-plan (initially) only adjusted for storage, which meant that you paid for as much music as you owned. In my book, the iPod will always more of a "personal device" than any Apple Watch can be, regardless of what Tim Cook says. What's more personal than your taste and ownership of music?

A computer disguised as a watch? LOL.

And this is where the product fails. I could forgive the £300-minimum price tag if the product were compelling, but it's clear that the company wanted to breakout of the 'geek' spectrum with wearables and attempt to sell this product as a majestic and important device. The terminology is crucial - "an incredibly precise timepiece" (Translation: it connects to the 'net like any other device), "a comprehensive fitness tracker (Translation: your heart rate is interpreted in different ways), etc etc...

The argument that other watch makers also charge up to five-figures and more is largely irrelevant; the clockwork requires an expertise and craftsmanship all of its own, and just as importantly, the product won't lose its value and become technologically obsolete within a matter of years. It's this heritage that appeals to consumers, because a mechanical timepiece is precisely crafted both inside and out. It's the reason that many watch wearers would feint if they were handed an Omega Speedmaster - one of the most important and impeccably engineered timepieces ever made.

On the other hand (no pun intended), Apple expect one to drop £10,000+ on a wrist computer that functions exactly the same as the £300 version, just because it's case is a different material?

Sorry, but that's not how the watch market works. Amusingly, Apple seemed to have ignored this because of nothing more than elitism.

Rant over. For the record I believe that many of the Apple Watches actually look very attractive - the Space Grey Sport model is a little beaut - but there's a limit to how many devices I can be surrounded by these days. And as far as I'm concerned, Apple Watch is just another computer with another plug and more distractions.

So, they should have named it a

Waputer or Compatch ?

and it may have made it better?

I agree with all you points, however the product is still worth "watching" as it has a lot of possibilities we do not see or know yet.

But, this is clearly a first generation and nice for what it is.

Having had Apple products since 1984, I think I have learned to figure them out by just waiting until the product is the way I want it.
Made some mistakes along the way.

Didn't buy the first iPods until the classic came along at 120GB
Didn't buy the first iPhone (totally underpowered IMO)
After buying the 4s I outwaited the iPhone until it got to 128GB, still waiting for the s model.

This one is on the long long long waiting list.

But, thank you to all the early millions beta testers of gen one!
Looking forward to those reports .

 

[Arran]

Yikes - watch out for those Milanese loops!

"Milanese loops". Made me think of Italian breakfast cereal

 

[samcraig]

The Gear S is not in the same lineage as the others. It's more of a continuation of Samsung's earlier wrist smartphones dating back a decade or more, which is a category few other phone makers besides LG have ever ventured into.

The Gear Live is just another Android Wear watch, so it's in that category.

The Gear Fit is unique in its shape, so I tend to isolate it as well.

However, I think it would be fair to say that the Gear, Gear Neo and Gear Neo 2 represent one basic series, so yep, there's your third fair comparison.



Many of these reviews, including this one, demonstrate how little the reviewer knows about current smartwatches. For instance, the author of that one writes about the Apple Watch battery:

"This is not, of course, entirely Apple’s problem; no full-color smartwatch lasts more than a day."

Which is incorrect. All he had to do was read reviews of some other watches to find out that several go 2-3 days... some even with their display always on.

He should've said "No other full color watch that works with the iPhone at this time".

It's obvious in many that they either didn't spend any time with other smart watches and/or are are being obtuse.

Many reviews talk about how vastly superior in functionality the Apple Watch is. I have yet to truly see a "vast" difference. Some functionality - yes. Some useful and others completely gimmicky, yes. But some reviewers wrote as if there's nothing like this in the market and that's simply not the case.

 

[LordVic]

It's obvious in many that they either didn't spend any time with other smart watches and/or are are being obtuse.

Many reviews talk about how vastly superior in functionality the Apple Watch is. I have yet to truly see a "vast" difference. Some functionality - yes. Some useful and others completely gimmicky, yes. But some reviewers wrote as if there's nothing like this in the market and that's simply not the case.

Don't you know, that being able to send your heartbeat to your friend instantly makes this better functional than every other smartwatch ever made, even if those other smartwatches have their own LTE and can make calls too!

/s

 

[BlueMoon63]

Don't you know, that being able to send your heartbeat to your friend instantly makes this better functional than every other smartwatch ever made, even if those other smartwatches have their own LTE and can make calls too!

/s

To be fair, and I actually agree with all of you, even the most technical reviewer (said by others) said this about the Apple Smartwatch...

"There’s no question that the Apple Watch is the most capable smartwatch available today"

"Easily the nicest smartwatch available"

To me, that says there isn't anything available that comes close... No Question and Easily don't leave much room to argue.

Not sure that means "vast" or not, but I am trying not to be yelled at for posting the most technical review and nothing I said or feel as a fan.

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

So, they should have named it a

Waputer or Compatch ?

and it may have made it better?

No, I never suggested that. The point I was making was that Apple built their wearable around the style of a watch, which is exactly the same avenue that many other manufacturers have taken. The only logical reason they did this was so that they could sell the device as a fashion accessory, which is somewhat a safer bet than something radically different.

 

[samcraig]

To be fair, and I actually agree with all of you, even the most technical reviewer (said by others) said this about the Apple Smartwatch...

"There’s no question that the Apple Watch is the most capable smartwatch available today"

"Easily the nicest smartwatch available"

To me, that says there isn't anything available that comes close... No Question and Easily don't leave much room to argue.

Not sure that means "vast" or not, but I am trying not to be yelled at for posting the most technical review and nothing I said or feel as a fan.

Cynical me believes that some reviewers are looking to be quoted. Because those comments are hyperbolic. I would expect comments like that when referring to the UI - not overall functionality.

 

[LordVic]

To be fair, and I actually agree with all of you, even the most technical reviewer (said by others) said this about the Apple Smartwatch...

"There’s no question that the Apple Watch is the most capable smartwatch available today"

"Easily the nicest smartwatch available"

To me, that says there isn't anything available that comes close... No Question and Easily don't leave much room to argue.

Not sure that means "vast" or not, but I am trying not to be yelled at for posting the most technical review and nothing I said or feel as a fan.

go read the review thouhgs. these hyperbolic sound bites aren't truly indicative of the actual reviews.

For example, with the Verge's. The verge actually rated the apple watch LOWER in final scores than both the Moto360 and LG Watch R. The Apple watch got better scores in design and looks, but functionality and the like got less.

So to come out and say "this is the BEST smartwatch" sounds like they're trying to grab sound bite attention so that you read the article.

What makes the "Best" smartwatch? the nicest build? nicest looking? best feature set? best handling of those features? best app selection? speed? screen resolution?

there's very little context in single quotes and they are often taken well out of context. I wouldn't take that as best featureset.

Journalism today is more about addclicks and revenue and looks for hyperbolic statements than fact finding these days.

EG: Engadget's review of the new MacBook outright in the headline says that Apple has "reinvented" the laptop again... but doesn't actually go into any detail or depth HOW it came to that conclusion other than it's a "smaller laptop with a better screeN"

 

[Thunderhawks]

No, I never suggested that. The point I was making was that Apple built their wearable around the style of a watch, which is exactly the same avenue that many other manufacturers have taken. The only logical reason they did this was so that they could sell the device as a fashion accessory, which is somewhat a safer bet than something radically different.

That was somewhat joking. I did get your points.

Don't see though what else they could have called it. It does go on the wrist and looks like a watch, so.............

 

[kdarling]

Right... Except they don't last 2-3 days if you use it heavily or even typically (none even comes close to claiming this),

Except they DO last that long, that's the whole point. I myself bought some just to check this out, and posted my results in the Alternative Devices section.

I got 24/36 hours with a Moto 360 with display always on/not. Then I got _49_ hours on an LG Watch R with the display always on bright.

Others chimed in to say they had similar experiences.

Some of the watches did have relatively poor battery life (i.e. 18 hours) when they first came out, but later software updates fixed that.

not even the monstrous Gear S (110% bigger than the small Apple watch).

Not sure why people bring up the S, which is an actual smartphone on your wrist, NOT something comparatively simple like an Android Wear or Apple Watch device.

It's obvious in many that they either didn't spend any time with other smart watches and/or are are being obtuse.

I love the way some talked about too many notifications. Hello! They never owned a smartwatch before? The whole point is to trim back what you get bothered by.

Others mentioned the display with deep blacks. Again, have they never seen an OLED before?

Basically, few of these reviewers seemed experienced enough to make valid conclusions as to what was "amazing" or "new technology", and what was not.