Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Neither looked nor felt cheap during my try ons at the store. Of course, there is some level of subjectivity there but since I have great taste in all other areas we'll just agree that you're wrong. ;)

It somehow looks cheaper in real life than it does with Apple's photography. The way he pulled it out of the box it just looked like some cheap light plastic watch. I'm waiting to see the comments from people who own it over the next few days.
 
Siri and iMessage alone trump anything android wear has.

Doesn't matter is AndWr has a crappy camera or you have to purchase a seperate data plan...they don't have what many people seem to be important for THEIR use case. Stop being so self centered and thinking you know what's best for other people.

And please, by all means, enjoy your Android Wear...

On first reading of your comment, I actually thought you'd written "CREEPY camera"- and I would have agreed with you. I don't see the point of a camera on a watch except for those who would use it for nefarious purposes. Google Glass creeped me out for the same reasons.
 
Dude, I am not sure you get out much. Please be more specific on what do you mean in terms of "more integrated"?

It does less than many Android Wear phones (some of these have usable cameras or can make calls through the watch itself) and it has worse battery life than many of the latest generation Android Wear stuff.

I don't think any of the Android Wear watches are all that useful either, but am bewildered by why people think this is any better.

I think you have it backwards. Apple watch does far more than any Android Watch. Even making and receiving calls is a feature of Samsung's Tizen-based smartwatch, not Android. As for battery life, Android Wear watches are a *lot* bigger and bulkier so they can pack a bigger battery. But, until very recently, they had no WiFi capabilities so longer battery life with WiFi turned on remains to be seen.

The article below was written before the most recent Android Wear update, but many of those points still hold true.
http://www.t-gaap.com/2015/3/17/10-apple-watch-technologies-that-crush-android-wear-1

As for usefulness, I don't find traditional wrist watches to be very useful but many people buy them, mainly as a fashion statement. And it's in that regard where Apple Watch truly has no equal.
 
Correct - 4/24 to 5/8. And now some with June confirmations have tracking info. I will not be buying one due to this on principle. Voting with $.

Also, it's a huge gift to anyone directly in line behind me for that model. I just moved them up 1!

Kenney, which model did you order? I'm not happy about my 42 SS BSB not arriving day 1 even though I preordered 3:06am ET, but I haven't heard of anyone who ordered the same model after me receiving it.
 
For one thing, many Apps are soooo much faster the best Android Wear could offer. :D

Do you have some speed tests to show us? :)

I'm curious how much faster the apps are on the Apple Watch.

----------

And soooo much more integrated with my iPhone than Androd Wear could ever be, with native Siri, iMessage, Photos, and music support among other things.

How is that more integrated than Android Wear?

Android Wear has native Google Now, Notifications, Hangouts, Photos, and music as well. What's different about Apple Watch?

Siri and iMessage alone trump anything android wear has.

Doesn't matter is AndWr has a crappy camera or you have to purchase a seperate data plan

Android watches have Google Now and Hangouts. Google Now easily matches Siri in functionality, if not surpasses it.

And, umm, you don't have to purchase a separate data plan to use one...

A lot of us have used Android watches before, so lying won't get you very far... we know if you are.

If Apple Watch is really all its cracked up to be, it should really be able to stand on it's own without people having to fabricate facts on forums to make it look better. Think about it...
 
Last edited:
The UK ones are out for delivery. Can't wait!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    96.6 KB · Views: 89
lol. Didn't lie. I went to buy a Samsung smart watch several months ago and it required a data plan. Does the smart watch YOU have require one? No clue. Don't care.

Point still stands but let me make it a little more clear for you. NO smart watch be it android wear or tizen OS integrates with an iPhone better than an apple watch.

So for MY use case. Siri and iMessage trumps everything.
Can I use Google now with my iPhone and apple watch. No. Hangouts. No. You do a very poor job of proving your point.

Do you have some speed tests to show us? :)

I'm curious how much faster the apps are on the Apple Watch.

----------



How is that more integrated than Android Wear?

Android Wear has native Google Now, Notifications, Hangouts, Photos, and music as well. What's different about Apple Watch?



Android watches have Google Now and Hangouts. Google Now easily matches Siri in functionality, if not surpasses it.

And, umm, you don't have to purchase a separate data plan to use one...

A lot of us have used Android watches before, so lying won't get you very far... we know if you are.

If Apple Watch is really all its cracked up to be, it should really be able to stand on it's own without people having to fabricate facts on forums to make it look better. Think about it...
 
The setup is very very cool. Bit confounding when to actually use the app to pair the watch, but once it does just keep and eye on both screens is all in saying.
 
Yeah. It's creepy too. LOL. But it's also crappy. I can't imagine taking a pic with it. Would never use it even if it was on an apple watch but yeah. It kinda screams creeper. Haha


On first reading of your comment, I actually thought you'd written "CREEPY camera"- and I would have agreed with you. I don't see the point of a camera on a watch except for those who would use it for nefarious purposes. Google Glass creeped me out for the same reasons.
 
Delivered in Hong Kong, different package from the video, looooong box!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    68 KB · Views: 130
Correct - 4/24 to 5/8. And now some with June confirmations have tracking info. I will not be buying one due to this on principle. Voting with $.

Also, it's a huge gift to anyone directly in line behind me for that model. I just moved them up 1!

And you cancelled on 4/23 because you wouldn't get it on 4/24. Sounds more to me like you were just gambling with owning one on the first day. Whatever model it is that you ordered, you likely helped nobody at all as that particular combination is obviously lowest in priority to get out the door. If you can't understand how this happens, how so many configurations makes this difficult to serve all at once, you may at least want to refer to that original delivery estimate that you saw before you clicked to purchase...NOT after.

----------

You can call it a tantrum. If you want. I disagree with the process so I voted with my money. Simple economic decision.

You disagree with the process of trying to get your item to you as fast as they can but not meeting your unreasonable expectations.

Don't get me wrong, I completely agree that cancelling your order was the best move if you weren't happy with the way things went. But this whole notion that it's some sort of statement is going a bit far - also, if the added utility of the device were something truly useful to you then you would have been willing to wait. I fought and fought to get a Microsoft Band, it had the same distribution problems with only three sizes of the same device. Apple probably handled this better than any other company ever could but it's unprecedented to pre-sell 2 million+ units of something that comes in more than a couple configurations let alone sizes.
 
Last edited:
It somehow looks cheaper in real life than it does with Apple's photography. The way he pulled it out of the box it just looked like some cheap light plastic watch. I'm waiting to see the comments from people who own it over the next few days.

That's not real life, its a YouTube video.
 
All these fools buying an overpriced digital watch, which is not even waterproof. Plus Apple removed a few of the health features (everyone seems to forget this - http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...n-health-features-watch-will-affect-sales.htm) - in effect its a cut down version at full price. Prefer my swiss made mechanical watch - fully automatic - no battery no charger, and sapphire crystal face and see-through back where you can see the mechanics working.


Wow I'm not buying the watch but i'm not gonna sit there and insult people who do. It shows that you truly envy those who can afford it more easily than you can.

I had interest in the Stainless steel link bracelet until I saw the prices knowing full well this watch would be just a vanity purchase, I chose not to get one. I can afford it but I'm aware that I don't really have a use for it other than it just being a Tech watch. I bought me a GTX 970 for my PC rig which came with GTA 5 and Witcher 3 now this is something i could Really use :)
 
Last edited:
Two things: seems that syncing is incredibly easy for people, which is great, and also, thank you Apple for creating a hugely long cable. I hate the standard 1m length of the lighting cable.
 
It's a novelty item that wealthy will buy, wear for a week and then it'll be gathering dust.
 
Why anyone would need 1gb of music on their watch is beyond me. My running iPod has like 100 songs and that's like 250mbs. Do you really need 400-500 songs?

FYI, the slowness is probably because the software is compressing the songs as it transfers.

I agree it is unlikely that anyone would need that many songs on a watch, but I'd rather have memory to spare than not enough.

I disagree that compression is going on. MP3 is already a lossy compression format, so there is not much to be gained by further compression unless you're willing to drop the sample rate and compromise the sound quality further.

----------

It's a novelty item that wealthy will buy, wear for a week and then it'll be gathering dust.

You post like they only made an Edition watch.

Since when is a $300 watch a play thing of the 'wealthy?'
 
All these fools buying an overpriced digital watch, which is not even waterproof. Plus Apple removed a few of the health features (everyone seems to forget this - http://www.techtimes.com/articles/3...n-health-features-watch-will-affect-sales.htm) - in effect its a cut down version at full price. Prefer my swiss made mechanical watch - fully automatic - no battery no charger, and sapphire crystal face and see-through back where you can see the mechanics working.

Just because you don't want a product, doesn't make anyone who does a fool.

No watch is truly water 'proof' they are water resistant. This one is resistant to most normal exposure, you just can't go swimming with it on.

And the health cuts were done so Apple didn't have to jump through a bunch of regulatory hoops.

As for comparing it to your Swiss mechanical watch, you are comparing two completely different animals. Your Swiss watch is no where near as accurate at telling time, and telling time is all it actually does, assuming you keep it on your wrist every day, or it will wind down and not work at all.

Also a Swiss mechanical watch from a major player like Rolex or Omega is going to cost several thousand dollars, versus a few hundred for the Apple Watch.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.