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 Screen Resolutions: 312 x 390 for 42mm Version, 272 x 340 for 38mm Version
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not that line of thinking again.
Just because a very vocal handful of Mac mini owners use their Mac mini as a HTPC doesn't mean Apple should somehow merge the Mac mini with the Apple TV. It would increase the price of the Apple TV (which needs to go down in price to compete with the alternatives) and it would lower the usefulness of the Mac mini (which is the only screen-less option for most people since the Mac Pro is not priced for regular users).
Hey, let's drop the MacBook Air! After all, MacBook Air users could buy an iPad with a keyboard, right?
Doubt it.
ApplePay uses TouchID, so you would still need to grab your phone.
I suspect that the reason Apple have focused so heavily on the fashion aspect of the Apple watch is because they have no killer app.
My opinion is that they're hoping people will buy it for the watch itself (fashion statement), with the added bonus of notifications etc., and hoping that some developer finds some useful way to use the technology before later versions of the watch are released.
I also suspect that the phone will eventually be marketed like the galaxy gear/note3 - to compliment the 6+. It's a big phone to carry around, sometimes you want access to the most basic features without having to get it out of your bag.
But those are just my thoughts.
So you could fit more than two copies of the entire display of the original Mac (512×342) on one of these things?
Or more than eight copies (on the large version) of the original Apple ][ display (280×192)?!
I find that impressive in some weird, useless way.
I still think this thing is going to be a huge flop. But a remarkably elegant and technically very impressive flop.
----------
You probably should not be quite so sure of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
Last edited:
Then we would see the ones with the small wrist buying the larger watch, thinking the larger is better
But honestly, I don't think Apple should charge the same for both if the cost of making them is different. The difference could be small enough so people don't need to make their buying decision based on the price. Like $20 or 30 more? I wouldn't buy a watch that look small on my wrist just because it cost $30 less! While I already managed to splash a thousand $ or more on both, Apple watch and iPhone.
I'm quite sure you're wrong about that. The Pythagorean theorem is easily proven for all right triangles (in Euclidean space, that is).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_theorem
The sequence 345 is a pythagorean triple -- 3 integers that form a right triangle. This is handy for constructing proper right angles in the real world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean_triple
Overall first impressions:
1) They are taking a "second screen" strategy to the Apple Watch. There is no concept of a stand alone watch app. This is a big break for both Pebble and Google Wear.
2) The Xcode interface was a bit clunky. Took a bit to figure out how to show the watch screen in the simulator.
3) There should be a feature to simulate an Apple Watch on an iOS device that is provisioned for development. Thus, you have your iOS app run on one iOS device and another iOS device showing the Apple Watch views. An iPod Touch is excellent for this.
4) Apple Watch "apps" are just an extension of an iPhone app. Thus, to use Apple Watch "apps" you need an iPhone. No third party connectivity to Android nor Windows smart phones.
5) There is a proprietary wireless link (probably BLE without the throttling) between iPhone and Apple Watch to get apps on the watch using the WatchKit extensions.
6) The narrative voice in the half hour tutorial was really annoying. It is probably a product manager that won or lost the office draw. If they can afford to keep a staffed sound studio in the loop, they can afford a good voice actor.
7) This avoids a new product type in the App Store. It is just an "Apple Watch Enabled" category in the store.
8) It was probably targeted for this Christmas season but due to the Sapphire Crystal Greek Tragedy, it is delayed 'til 1Q15.
9) Dozens of millionaires to be made from the new generation of "fart apps." If you are coding now, don't look for the best, just look the fun and stupid.
10) If someone can spend $4000 for a gold Edition Apple Watch, you can charge $100 for a high end app. Go for it.
11) While there is money in making apps. There is a HUGE market for custom, third party Apple Watch wristbands.
1) They are taking a "second screen" strategy to the Apple Watch. There is no concept of a stand alone watch app. This is a big break for both Pebble and Google Wear.
2) The Xcode interface was a bit clunky. Took a bit to figure out how to show the watch screen in the simulator.
3) There should be a feature to simulate an Apple Watch on an iOS device that is provisioned for development. Thus, you have your iOS app run on one iOS device and another iOS device showing the Apple Watch views. An iPod Touch is excellent for this.
4) Apple Watch "apps" are just an extension of an iPhone app. Thus, to use Apple Watch "apps" you need an iPhone. No third party connectivity to Android nor Windows smart phones.
5) There is a proprietary wireless link (probably BLE without the throttling) between iPhone and Apple Watch to get apps on the watch using the WatchKit extensions.
6) The narrative voice in the half hour tutorial was really annoying. It is probably a product manager that won or lost the office draw. If they can afford to keep a staffed sound studio in the loop, they can afford a good voice actor.
7) This avoids a new product type in the App Store. It is just an "Apple Watch Enabled" category in the store.
8) It was probably targeted for this Christmas season but due to the Sapphire Crystal Greek Tragedy, it is delayed 'til 1Q15.
9) Dozens of millionaires to be made from the new generation of "fart apps." If you are coding now, don't look for the best, just look the fun and stupid.
10) If someone can spend $4000 for a gold Edition Apple Watch, you can charge $100 for a high end app. Go for it.
11) While there is money in making apps. There is a HUGE market for custom, third party Apple Watch wristbands.
Last edited:
The bezel makes a big difference in the PPI
Bigger one 390*312 = 121680 pixels
Smaller one. 340*272 = 92480
(a 2.5 mm bezel gives, counting rounding)
Bigger one : 1.7 square inch (37*29.6 = 1767) / (25.4*25.4) , so we have 121680 / 1.7 = (268 ppi) squared
Smaller one: 1.34 square inch (33mm x 26.2mm = 864.6 ) / (25.4*25.4) , So we have 92480 / 1.34 = (263 ppi)squared
So, around 265 ppi
(With a 4mm bezel, counting rounding)
Bigger one : 1.43 (34 * 27.2) / (25.4*25.4) , so we have 121680 / 1.27 = (291 ppi) squared
Smaller one : 1.116 (30 * 24 ) / (25.4 * 25.4) , so we have 92480/1.27= (288ppi) squared
So, 265-290 ppi
My feeling is the bezel is more than 2.5 mm on both side, so my gut is saying that the watch has :
280 PPI for both sizes.
----------
I think will do as always. Be very tight about what goes on the watch, and how people are using watch resources, at first, then they will open it up once they're sure all is going fine on the watch. That way people don't blame Apple if apps mess up their watch.
There will be a slight materials and manufacturing cost difference. The larger screen may be a little more expensive. The internals are likely to be the same. Any additional development cost will be completely swamped by the volume of sales. So the answer is probably "not really". You can, after all, buy a fully working traditional watch for a few pounds/dollars.
Are you sure about that. Because from where I'm sitting, Apple seems to be marketing the watch as a way to use Apple Pay.
http://www.apple.com/watch/features/ (scroll down.... a lot)
I thought native apps were coming in 2015 (probably announced at WWDC)?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/11/18Developers-Start-Designing-Apps-for-Apple-Watch.html
----------
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/09/10/apple-watch-apple-pay-security/
Wait until the Magic Apple Ring debuts. You'll be able to pay by waving your finger.
Wouldn't it be better to have it work by just pointing at the item you want to buy?
Not that line of thinking again.
Just because a very vocal handful of Mac mini owners use their Mac mini as a HTPC doesn't mean Apple should somehow merge the Mac mini with the Apple TV. It would increase the price of the Apple TV (which needs to go down in price to compete with the alternatives) and it would lower the usefulness of the Mac mini (which is the only screen-less option for most people since the Mac Pro is not priced for regular users).
Hey, let's drop the MacBook Air! After all, MacBook Air users could buy an iPad with a keyboard, right?
If the 2014 Mac Mini is any indication, they are starting to trim back on the features and specs. The next Mac Mini refresh might be even more limited than the 2014 one. Hey I use my mac mini as a desktop machine and I love it.
A rotary encoder by any other name...
What kills me is that the "digital crown" is really just a rotary encoder with a push button. FYI Apple, you didn't invent the rotary encoder, they've been around for a long time and have found their way into lots and lots of products before the Apple Watch. I found this patent from '86 for an optical rotary encoder, so a magnetic encoder might even be older than that. https://www.google.com/patents/WO1987006338A1?cl=en&dq=rotary+encoder&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xKRsVMmuMtfXoASQsIKoDA&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK
What kills me is that the "digital crown" is really just a rotary encoder with a push button. FYI Apple, you didn't invent the rotary encoder, they've been around for a long time and have found their way into lots and lots of products before the Apple Watch. I found this patent from '86 for an optical rotary encoder, so a magnetic encoder might even be older than that. https://www.google.com/patents/WO1987006338A1?cl=en&dq=rotary+encoder&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xKRsVMmuMtfXoASQsIKoDA&ved=0CCMQ6AEwATgK
Last edited:
A lot of people already use a "digital crown". It's called a mouse scrollwheel. But just like Apple calls their HiDPI displays "retina", they're calling their rotary encoder "digital crown". It's marketing.
actually on an ordinary watch it's already called a crown, but because this one doesn't physically turn the hour and minute hands of the watch and instead sends digital information to do that, plus more they call it the "digital crown". Makes perfect sense to me and everyone understands that.
most of the worlds population have no idea what a rotary encoder is - even if that is the technology being used to convert the analogue rotations to digital information and yes it looks like the scroll wheel of a mouse works in a similar fashion.
Last edited:
Wait a minute.
Are you actually suggesting this feature on the Apple Watch should be called the "mouse scrollwheel"?
Even if you're trying to take all marketing out of the naming equation, that is a hilariously out of date and inaccurate descriptor.
Its already called a crown. So, digital is just to distinguish from the one normally on a watch. In fact, its probably Apple at its most respectful of watch history and the English language...
You will have to enter a 4 digit code to use Apple pay on the watch, if the watch does not lose skin contact after this, then you don't have to enter the 4 digit code. If you take the watch off, you have to enter the code again.
Do you always know the people you criticize personally?
----------
People don't tend to use fragmentation to mean broken into two lines. Compare with Android where it's dozens or hundreds.
