Don't know if you are aware of this, but Steve died a couple years ago. Kind of need to get over it at this point. Pretty sure he isn't coming back.
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.
Jonathan Ive Discusses Steve Jobs and Apple Watch in 'The New Yorker' Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Don't know if you are aware of this, but Steve died a couple years ago. Kind of need to get over it at this point. Pretty sure he isn't coming back.
I can guarantee that Steve was okay with that design because it is pretty much identical to the current iPod touch design which was out right around his death.
You're probably one of the people that wants a fatter battery. I want less grams in my pocket and a good camera so I 100% approve of this design as well. Even when I use my phone without the case it never bothers me. Talk about first world problems.
----------
You sound like the people that said the iPad was pointless and just a big iPod touch and it would fail miserably. I don't see how it is not obvious that ithe smart watch will be huge in the future especially once it is able to do blood chemistry and not just heartbeat. It will be the beginning of a cyborg era and a digital interface with our bodies which are the most precious thing we value in this universe. The fact that we have gone so long without constant digital monitoring of our health is what is mind-boggling.
Sure, people pointed out Steve's penchant for hyperbole, and even poked fun sometimes. The RDF and so on. But overall Steve's salesmanship was respected, and a lot more people claimed that Apple was finished after he was gone (and still do), than ever said that Tim Cook could run the company better.
I wasn't implying it was a medical device, but rather commenting on someone else's suggestion of a use for the Watch that makes a lot of sense - more so than anything Apple has suggested so far, because drawing a heart or sending a "heartbeat" to another Watch user is about as far down on my list of want / need to haves as it could be. Apple does recognize the medical uses for the Watch, or they wouldn't be having a dialogue with the FDA.
I agree that I'm not seeing the uses and features Apple seems to be so excited about.
I'll also say this, for those people who have grabbed on to the "Ive sweat the details on the Watch" comments. Although he may have indeed done so, he chose a singular design aesthetic that will appeal to some and not others. I'm sure part of the design was dictated by how the Watch needed to work, but when you look at watches on the market now, not smart watches, but basic time keeping devices, there is more than one basic design / shape of the watch because like any piece of wearable jewelry, people have different wants / needs / desires.
This is another thing that I think Apple mis-stepped on. Instead of making two versions of the same thing, just slightly different sizes, they might have tried different shapes, more angular, squared-off, rounded or round. Perhaps that is the plan for versions 2, 3, etc. If we get to version 3. I'm sure version 2 is already in the works - it would need to be to include the things they've already fixed or figured out that couldn't make the cut with the first go-around.
Since you seem to be responding to my comment without actually quoting me, I will reply that this is hogwash.
No design is going to appeal to everybody. As a design goal it is ludicrous. To even try is to fail. That said, the watch will be available in more configurations than any previous Apple product. So your comment is ironic besides.
If you read the article, you will see that the form was a direct product of the function, as it should be. To create different shapes just to have different shapes would be gratuitous. That might work for jewelry but not for a functional device. See also: everything.
The 6 Plus is already as big and as heavy as I'd care it to be and the battery life is more than adequate. So to make that phone bigger just to flatten the back but incidentally making it thicker and heavier would be a terrible design choice. I'm glad Apple sacrificed a little aesthetics in order to keep the phone both comfortable to hold while not sacrificing on the camera quality.
Sounds like a lot of points for failure, therefore I wouldn't rely upon this design for any life protecting measure. To name a few, battery from all these devices has to be working (i.e. not dead), the wireless connection between the watch and iphone also has to work, as does the internet for the iphone siri to work at all. I could go on...
For, what you describe, a dedicated device designed to monitor the person is much better idea. Geriatric protections typically are purpose built for simplicity/ease of use, also the easier the design the more reliable a device usually can be.
I wasn't trying to quote you directly, but rather Ive and his "working out all the details" mantra. I'm not suggesting that Apple needs to design to appeal to everyone, which of course is impossible to do. But Apple is trying to make a single design work and they're selling us hard that the Watch is like a fine timepiece, so my point is valid.
And the point is, that Apple's one shape in two sizes with 4 color ways being enough options for a watch is ludicrous. For a smart watch that will likely have a more limited uptake, sure, it might be sufficient to suck some people's hard earned dollars our of their wallets, but they're trying to make a play for a much bigger pie and I don't think they've got what it will take to achieve what they want. And forget about the bands - they're just add-ons and don't change the overall look of Watch, other than showing you how you can take an $X watch and make it look like it's either cheap with a plastic band or a bit more expensive with a leather or stainless band. I'm not dissing their designs either, I like them all and think their unique clasps are interesting, but they're just part of what they should have been doing, imho.
And changing the case look and shape doesn't have to negatively effect function - they're just selling you on the fact that they did what they did, as if they had no choice, which is complete bull.
The 6 and 6plus success didn't require much insight--samsung had already verified the popularity of the large phone. I will add in my behalf i called iphone 5c as being a prerelease fail as it was uglier and cheaper looking than a burn phone
As for the watch--I'm predicting 5-10 million units on the first gen with subsequent interations doing less well as the limitations of the product become clear. That why I see this product as so toxic--its going to make apple a punchline
Keep in mind that practically EVERYBODY said the same thing about the iPad. Few people really have the foresight to envision the potential of a new category. They see the surface value. "It's just a massive iPhone, what's the point if I already have an iPhone in my pocket?" I'm pretty sure people are saying the exact same about the Apple watch. What's the point, if I need an iPhone in my pocket?
The point is that it opens up entirely new kinds of interaction. A device that lets you FEEL interactions by being attached to your body at all times. I personally see that as the most disruptive idea in the Apple Watch. Apple designers realized that you could open up entirely new and interesting ways of interaction by having a device worn on your body. Obviously we haven't used one yet, but what I'm getting from all the material Apple has covered, is that the user interface and the interactions with the device all have a specific FEEL to them using the tactic engine. Notifications pulse. Digital Touch taps you. Force Touch gives you a pressure sensation. Turning the digital crown clicks, and has an associated "click" sound through the speaker. Map directions tap you left or right, depending on the turn. The Fitness App Circles have a "whoosh" sound when they expand, and have a corresponding rumble that you feel.
I find that incredibly exciting, and also entirely unique to the Apple Watch. I'm not sure what people expect from a wearable, but I think this is a step in the right direction. Mimicking functionality of the smartphone on the wrist isn't. Conceiving entirely new experiences and interactions by virtue of a computer being attached to your wrist is.
They had lots of choice. An infinity of choices. They made the ones they did for a reason, because that's what designers have to do. Whether you agree with the choices they made or not is hardly the point.
Delusional.
Walt Mossburg--who was a bell weather tech writer at the time--wrote enthusiastically about the ipad at the time of its release. The device received immediate praise from the popular press.
Wearables have been in the market for almost 2 years and have not made much of an impact. The apple rollout did not recieve any enthusiasm. Few people wear watches and the smartwatch has little to offer those that do. Its so clear--just open your eyes
What rollout, did apple release the watch without my knowledge? Actually, the media, fashion people and tech press who handled the watch did praise its design when they showed it in September. Nobody's actually tested the software fully since it wasn't ready so not sure how they could review it thoroughly yet. Did somsone get a preview copy? Please point me to this review.
You probably need omega-3's to boost your memory.
Mr. Ive look me straight in the eyes and tell me you didn't introduce a 5.5" iPhone Plus in direct response to what Samsung did.
I doubt he'd have a hard time, after all, it's not like samsung made the first 5in. phone, or was the only company to introduce a 5in. smartphone.
But maybe you're just not much of an apple fan, after all, you'd know apple isn't about just being FIRST!!one!1! like some companies.
I don't mind because I rarely look at my phone from that side.
Speak for yourself, not others. I prefer my phone to be thin and in 20 years of carrying cellphones, iPods and iPhones, I haven't damaged a single one by dropping it.
----------
It is not in response to what Samsung did, it is in response to what people are buying. And people have been buying phablets from many manufacturers, not just Samsung. Samsung might have pioneered the phablet category but by now it's just another device category.Mr. Ive look me straight in the eyes and tell me you didn't introduce a 5.5" iPhone Plus in direct response to what Samsung did.
No love here for Jony. His computer design talent peaked with the MacBook Pro unibody in 2008. His too-thin laptops and goofy, partially functional, Mac Pro have resulted in computers that are less functional than their predecessors, hardly a feather in any computer designer's cap.
It is time he moves on and Apple gets back to building better computers. Of course I am only jesting, Tim Cook is no computer guy either. Apple is branching out in the way companies do while they are losing their ways.
It is time he moves on and Apple gets back to building better computers. Of course I am only jesting, Tim Cook is no computer guy either. Apple is branching out in the way companies do while they are losing their ways.
Mr. Ive look me straight in the eyes and tell me you didn't introduce a 5.5" iPhone Plus in direct response to what Samsung did.
Ah yes, because Apple never offered different sizes for their products prior to this, whether that be iMacs, iPods, MacBooks, etc. Apple always stuck to ONE size forever - never offering their customers a variety of options, sizes, features, etc.
If anyone thinks Apple was going to keep the same size iPhone forever, they're ignoring Apple's history with their other portables. Apple has a history of releasing a new product - and then giving us different variations (sizes, specs, features, etc) in the following years. All possible sizes & variations don't suddenly appear the year a product is first released.
I was clearly referring to the watch event in September, 2014. There is no need for a
preview copy...the broad outlines of the hardware and software are clear
I would say the watch has met with mixed press interest
There's ...a lot of interesting ideas, but there's nothing so immediately
striking about the Apple Watch as to seem really, truly groundbreaking.
verge
There is an extensive piece about the watch in the wall street journal today
titled "What Exactly Is an Apple Watch For?" Good question
I'd say it's very likely they make Watch upgradable. Heard about S chip they use? It includes sensors, RAM, HD and processor in one piece. The form of watch stays, however the chip will upgrade every year and only Apple certified technician is allowed to replace the chip, otherwise you will void the warranty.
----------
There have been lots of questions, and no clear answers. What we got are more speculations and more questions.
Apple only reveal half of what Watch is. Smart moves I'd say.
I think that Apple have encouraged a "thinner", "lighter" mentality that might get caught up to them if they don't find something new, on the other hand, there have been so many points where the general perception was "nothing new in sight" and Apple grabbed new tech as first....