About right. The "fluid" UI that Apple has in their OS where they have the right processes monitoring UI flow to keep the display from slowing down or freezing. That takes a lot of CPU time but keeps you from overstuffing the box and making it operate like Windows 2000 / Vista / 8, Copeland, Palm OS 6 Cobalt, OS2 Warp, IBM System 350, etc.
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.
Hands-On With the Apple Watch: A Developer's Experience at Apple's WatchKit Labs
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Meh. Just some guy who used the watch. Whoopty doo. Don't trust him at all.
I would rather trust the experts on this site who have never used the watch but know exactly why it sucks.
In fairness--apple has had two events to show off the watch. Its pretty clear whats on offer. There's no killer app coming: it was it is
Anyone small to medium in build will have a fair choice to go either way. Already in traditional watches 42mm is a standard men's size and 38mm is a standard unisex size.
Let me get back to you in 2 weeks...
I anticipate epic restock issues as apple fans order on impulse and then realize its a pointless extravagance.
----------
Said Tim Cook...
I'm sure all the killer apps and demonstrations of future possibilities for Iphone were showcased with the first Iphone keynote.
I mean we all heard the same "this is useless" before the Iphone and Ipad I feel like people would've learned to wait at least a year by now before doing this over and over again.
This. Apple clearly did the research required and it seems to me that a lot of commentators here and elsewhere either simply don't know the size of their current watch(es) or have a strong preference for the still available small, thin cases. Each to their own.
I've not seen an Apple Watch in the flesh yet, but almost all my watches are the same size or bigger than the 42mm length of the Apple watch and several are as deep or deeper than the 9.5mm height.
For a long, long time the trend, especially in "sports" chronographs, has been for larger cases and even "dress" watches are generally much larger now than they were back in the 60s.
If you look at some of the top-end brands such as Hublot (oh, how I wish I could afford one of those!) or Breitling then you'll see that 42mm is about the norm and some are much larger.
Bizarrely, some of the more, shall we say, "esoteric" brands make a "feature" of being about the size of a saucer and the height of a small car
LOL you will not be able to get a working stainless steel Rolex for 1000 bucks
I don't want to imply that the watch will be not a success, although it's the first time for a long time that I'm a bit sceptical about a new Apple product.
But why should an app developer with a huge interest in the success in the watch (and in his own business) say anything negative about it?
But why should an app developer with a huge interest in the success in the watch (and in his own business) say anything negative about it?
WATCH 2.0 will be leaked in May.Apple will force success
That _is_ the question, although the Apple Faithful never waiver.
Based on radio silence, which in this case is a distinctive and very real lack of buzz the moment one steps out into the real world, it seems this could be a challenge unlike Apple has seen in the last decade.
But never fear, this time Apple will buy success.
That _is_ the question, although the Apple Faithful never waiver.
Based on radio silence, which in this case is a distinctive and very real lack of buzz the moment one steps out into the real world, it seems this could be a challenge unlike Apple has seen in the last decade.
But never fear, this time Apple will buy success.
This. Apple clearly did the research required and it seems to me that a lot of commentators here and elsewhere either simply don't know the size of their current watch(es) or have a strong preference for the still available small, thin cases. Each to their own.
I've not seen an Apple Watch in the flesh yet, but almost all my watches are the same size or bigger than the 42mm length of the Apple watch and several are as deep or deeper than the 9.5mm height.
For a long, long time the trend, especially in "sports" chronographs, has been for larger cases and even "dress" watches are generally much larger now than they were back in the 60s.
If you look at some of the top-end brands such as Hublot (oh, how I wish I could afford one of those!) or Breitling then you'll see that 42mm is about the norm and some are much larger.
Bizarrely, some of the more, shall we say, "esoteric" brands make a "feature" of being about the size of a saucer and the height of a small car
Cogent analysis.
I found that comparing the volume of various smartwatches was illuminating:
- 0.82 in³ = 38mm Apple Watch
- 0.96 in³ = 42mm Apple Watch
- 0.96 in³ = Pebble Time Steel
- 1.17 in³ = Moto 360
- 1.47 in³ = LG Watch R
- 1.76 in³ = Samsung Gear S
Last edited:
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
Meh. Just some guy who used the watch. Whoopty doo. Don't trust him at all.
I would rather trust the experts on this site who have never used the watch but know exactly why it sucks.
@ experts, Unlike other items that have been released before, such as macbooks, imacs, ipads, iphones, the A-watch is an entirely a new and abstract concept (unless your a clairvoyant), thereby making wild assumptions is less admissible and credible as we [mac rumours readership] simply know very little and have little experience of the product. Where as a new imac for e.g., would be quite easy to discuss, as one could infer the benefits of upgrades such as a retina 5k screen, dedicated GPU, PCIe ssd, etc, as we can conceptualise these based on our tangible knowledge and experiences of previous imacs.
From the apple store site: "Apple Watch has a water-resistance rating of IPX7"
7 being immersion up to 1 m for 30 minutes. In my book that counts as waterproof enough.
Yes Apple say not to immerse it, but that is covering themselves as the standard they state includes immersion.
Unbox Therapy will no doubt be posting videos of how fragile the watch is by either smashing it with a hammer or running it over with a car.
Oh yes, and don't forget the light leaks from the edges which can only be seen in a totally black room. You can bet there will be a "xxxx-gate" associated with it. My bet is on gangrenous wrist/hands which will be attributed to faulty band design or some other nonsense.
I am not sure I need an Apple watch for my retired lifestyle but it is looking more compelling to me. After all, I didn't think I needed an iPod over a decade ago and I'm still using one (in my car).
You Apple haters need to get more original and stop phoning it in here. These anti-Watch threads are reading like "cut and past" jobs of your anti-iPod, iPod mini, iPhone, and iPad threads.... product w/o a need, no killer app, no camera, too expensive, all hype. Blah, blah, blah.
I'm pretty sure Steve had people cheering over rubber-band scrolling.
If Tim tried that, people would scoff.
Equivalent functionality, less loss of profit presumably? Also, less PR value if one does go missing.