Jony Ive's Design Team Nixed Apple Watch Band With Sensors

[Ghost31]

Not really a good comparison. The original telephone was a fixed device. A better comparison was to the later cordless phones...which had to be recharged. I actually owned a Microsoft cordless phone for some years.

The original cell phones looked like walkie talkies (brick like devices), which had to be recharged. As tech advanced, those evolved into smaller flip phones (mine was a Motorolo), and later still into smartphone devices like the iPhone. All has to be recharged. I actually tried to trademark the term "Smartphone" in the early 90s (for a non mobile product). The letter I got back from the US Trademark Office said Microsoft already owned the term.

I bought the watch when it came out and one for my wife some months later. Both are worn daily and both have only the original band, with no interest in a new band. I have yet to encounter anyone else, anywhere, wearing an Apple Watch. I know lots of folks with fitness bands, including a few relatives. Virtually everyone I know has an iPhone.

I've always been more of a function over form person, but that's just me. Most are probably more form based. I would welcome a thicker iPhone for more battery life. The most useful accessories I have purchased in the last year or so is a wireless chargeable case for the iPhone and an assortment of QI chargers including a car mounted one. They were very low cost, easy to use, and ended, literately overnight, my issues with battery life.

The future for AW is still a story not complete. We love ours, but it appears the public has a slightly different view based on the lack of seeing them anywhere. Maybe I'm just not in the right places, but that's our experience to date. My gym gear came from Amazon and is at home.

The AW OS has improved greatly and the user experience improved as a result. It's been a good combo of form and function and battery use has improved (at first when the AW hit the charger at night it was close to out, now it tends to be 30-40% left.)

The band/sensor story is interesting. Time, and consumer direction, will tell where it all goes.

I never understand anecdotes like "I never see an Apple Watch anywhere" when I see them daily. Maybe it's your area? My banker has one. People that work at my dealership wear them daily. I see them every morning when I go to the gym. Even at the store. So it's not even a once in awhile thing. It's daily. So for you to not see a single one? I don't know. Seems odd to me.

I love mine, but it is definitely flawed. Haven't been very interested in 3rd party apps aside from my bank's glance since the watch launched. They definitely launched it before it was ready. The fact that it's as laggy as it is is just...not apple like. I never say "Steve jobs would have never" but....

Hopefully watch os 3 really improves things next month

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'm going to put sensors in the watch but I'm going to put them down here (he points to the underside of the Apple Watch band he's wearing) because I can get a more accurate reading on the bottom of the wrist than I can get on the top of the wrist. They (the Industrial Design group) said very quickly that "that's not the design trend; that's not the fashion trend. We want to have interchangeable bands so we don't want to have any sensors in the band."

Honestly, this is the difference between the two Apples. Jobs would have made it the design trend and told the world Apple was doing it differently because it was more accurate. Going down the pedestrian fashion trend is fine if that is how Apple wants to sell it, but then they shouldn't call it a sports watch after they intentionally didn't pick the best design for intense sports training. Don't make laughable promo videos of athletes training for marathons with it. Just call it a fashion watch and advertise it in those markets.

 

[MH01]

Calibration for running --> better calories

You cannot get better calories, you only burn based on your performace, which is based on HR

If the HR sensor is inaccurate , nothing improves, and you CANNOT calibrate the HR.

Read the calibration articles is just silly basic stuff, calling it calibration it .....sweet but incorrect.

Most people will get better HR readings on the bottom of the wrist, its the optimal spot, hence why the Apple watch is not considered to be a top performer in relation to activity tracking.

 

[Small White Car]

They are talking about moving the sensors to a less optimal part of your wrist

The article says the opposite. The quote from Messerschmidt says that moving them would have been to a more optimal part of the wrist.

 

[Deuce on the Clock]

Steve Jobs liked the horrible transluscent iMacs. He proudly presented the execrable iBook, which was like the Windows XP Teletubbies interface made physical. He liked iPods with shiny aluminum backs that scratched if you breathed on them. Stop invoking Steve Jobs.
[doublepost=1471333948][/doublepost]

And let's hire Angela for $100 million or whatever ridiculous figure it was.

Hiring her was huge mistake. She did a great job in her past life, but that was one of Apples nails in the coffin and being out of touch with retail and the masses. They dont have the pulse of the people any longer. Their cash surplus is their savior. The old men in charge are silly, amusing, and sad now to see on stage ad in interviews.

 

[MH01]

It's personal experience. In my post, I clearly stated 'It's fairly accurate, which differ from person to person.' I speak based solely on my experience with the Watch.

THIS!

While I found it to be way off for me, and even using the sports band tight did not resolve the issue for me, causing me to stop using using it for fitness tracking, I have heard many people say that it works for them without a problem. Ive got no issues using the Apple watch for everything but activity tracking and an activity tracker on the other wrist.

This is not an APPLE vs Competitor debate, its Apple watch working for the individual in relation to HR tracking.

 

[usarioclave]

Honestly, this is the difference between the two Apples. Jobs would have made it the design trend and told the world Apple was doing it differently because it was more accurate. Going down the pedestrian fashion trend is fine if that is how Apple wants to sell it, but then they shouldn't call it a sports watch after they intentionally didn't pick the best design for intense sports training. Don't make laughable promo videos of athletes training for marathons with it. Just call it a fashion watch and advertise it in those markets.

Actually, they'd both be wrong. Why? Because there should be sensor bands and non-sensor bands.

I wouldn't want to wear the link bracelet in the gym, and I wouldn't want to wear an heartrate-capable band to dinner. I wouldn't mind, but I also wouldn't really care if it was HR-capable.

The mentality is wrong, not the design. Why wouldn't you want a sport band with a higher-accuracy HR monitor, and a GPS capable band for whatever? Why not just have a decorative band that does nothing except look good?

From a UX point of view that can make things more difficult, since you have to explain to someone that if their band isn't XYZ capable you won't be able to do XYZ. But maybe Apple feels the watch audience is sophisticated enough to understand that?

I'd love to see the customer profiles that Apple uses for the watch. Most people can figure out "I can't do A if I don't have B," or at least I'd like to think they can. Even fashonistas can understand rules, if they're simple enough.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

I strongly dislike this little anecdote, (though it's apparently meant to be taken as a good thing).
To me, it shows how people only concerned with style/fashion/looks can really hurt the functionality of a product.

When your engineer tells you that it's a simple fact that a sensor placed on or near the bottom of a wrist can more accurately pick up a heartbeat than one placed on top, that should be implemented as part of the design. IMO, such things are really non-negotiable. There's really nothing "innovative" about spending untold amounts of money, time and effort to work around a fact like this.

You have to buy (expensive) Apple Watch compatible wristbands anyway. It's not like any old generic band fits. So who cares if they all have sensors built into them?

I'm just glad we don't have to wear a chest strap, or a clip-on earring with Bluetooth to get the heart rate. Sure, it freaked me out when I checked it on my Apple Watch, and it said 235, but it 'plummeted' into the high 40's in seconds. I'm also glad that someone came up with oral thermometers, as the first doc I had always, as he said with a grin, would 'go to the source' with a rectal thermometer. Now they have those ear thermometers, and while they aren't exactly 100%, they are 'close enough'...

 

[bjet767]

I have written in other threads about the HR measurement issue and many others have also done the same. Both Apple and the FitBit (and I believe others) use this green light method to literally look at the pulse on a person's wrist. If one wants a fully reliable HR measurement for a reasonable price then a chest strap with either BT or ANT (or both) that responds to the electrical pulse should be purchased.

Do I like the AW?

Yes it does the job, but is it my main HR measurement device? Never.

I guess what I am trying to convey is the serious athlete already knows the limitation of such devices and is using the appropriate measurement devices for the discipline they are participating in. The AW is just a good wearable device growing in functionality as the software grows with it.

 

[ProjectManager101]

That is speaking in absolutes for no reason. just speak for myself. Changing watch bands is easy and I like to be able to swap them quickly. I love that implementation, so do many others, as documented in the watch forum here.

No, he is not speaking for himself, he is speaking for myself too. Why don't you find something useful to do instead of trying to make your point with every one who has a different opinion than yours? That is call trolling.

 

[ericwn]

No, he is not speaking for himself, he is speaking for myself too. Why don't you find something useful to do instead of trying to make your point with every one who has a different opinion than yours? That is call trolling.

I am simply providing my opinion. But nice name calling. Classy.

 

[32828870]

Do I like the AW?

Yes it does the job, but is it my main HR measurement device? Never.

Preach!

 

[bobob]

I realize many people love to mock Apple Watch bands, but the attachment system is so freakin' brilliant, that I'd love to see more options just so I'd have a chance to change them more often.

 

[Three141]

""the image you paint is a bigger battery would add a ton of weight and push us back to one of those old school brick phones which is not the case"

I'm sorry, I didn't mean for my post to whoosh over your head. Please read again and try and comment without all the hyperbole.

I said everything about product design revolves around trades. The trade in this case is a heavier, thicker phone for greater battery life. Obviously, that's a user experience trade. I also said the trick is finding the right user experience balance. Apple made a choice based on the understanding of their majority of their customers. Many will be satisfied. Some will not. Such as yourself. That's the way trades work. Not everyone will not be satisfied.

Fortunately there are a lot of phone options out there. People should purchase the phone that meets their needs.

Give it a rest with the whoosh crap, I understood your post but I do not agree with you hence the points I was making.

To re-iterate the point I made is Apple could improve the users experience with a bigger battery and wireless charging but currently Apple prioritises thinness of their devices first.
This does not back the 'user experience' comes first argument to me, especially when the size increase can't even be seen as a compromise particularly when referenced against their competitors.

Apple's has a good R&D, no doubt! but they do not always get it right.

 

[Rogifan]

For what it's costs for a $50 silicone watch band that costs $6 to make, Apple could have put the sensors in the band.

What sensors? And then people would be buying new sensors every time they wanted a new band with a different color/style? I own 3 sport bands and 2 nato-style bands. And what about 3rd party bands? A lot of Watch have purchased 3rd party bands that are cheaper than Apple's offerings. It seems like what some people want is Apple to make a Fitbit style fitness band that maybe came in a few colors.

 

[citysnaps]

Give it a rest with the whoosh crap, I understood your post but I do not agree with you hence the points I was making.

To re-iterate the point I made is Apple could improve the users experience with a bigger battery and wireless charging but currently Apple prioritises thinness of their devices first.
This does not back the 'user experience' comes first argument to me, especially when the size increase can't even be seen as a compromise particularly when referenced against their competitors.

Apple's has a good R&D, no doubt! but they do not always get it right.

You are still missing the point.

iPhone weight and thickness is absolutely an element of user experience - a phone is something owners engage with dozens of times per day. It's just that you do not place as high a value on weight/thickness, rather wanting a longer battery life. Apple, and more importantly other people, do. Apple made the user experience trade, it just doesn't happen align with what you want. For millions of others it's the right call, supported by the huge number of sales.

 

[Rogifan]

Honestly, this is the difference between the two Apples. Jobs would have made it the design trend and told the world Apple was doing it differently because it was more accurate. Going down the pedestrian fashion trend is fine if that is how Apple wants to sell it, but then they shouldn't call it a sports watch after they intentionally didn't pick the best design for intense sports training. Don't make laughable promo videos of athletes training for marathons with it. Just call it a fashion watch and advertise it in those markets.

One of the selling points of Watch is how easy it is to swap out bands for different occasions. How much more expensive would swappable bands be if they included a bunch of sensors? And would that even be possible with some of the non-sport bands? And then what about 3rd party offerings? Or do they just not exist? I use my Watch at the gym and when I go walking and stuff but I wouldn't consider myself a hard core fitness buff. Being able to easily change out bands is more important to me than having all kinds of health sensors. My guess is Apple is working on other hardware that is 100% health focused. Maybe they'll go down a path like the iPod shuffle with a narrowly targeted device just for fitness buffs.

 

[GaryLasereyes]

Interchangeable bands is such a no-brainer, I honestly can't understand the push back on that. It's wearable tech but at the end of the day it's still just a watch, even dumb watches have the ability to change bands. Imagine for a moment that Apple shipped the iPhone 7 with a proprietary case and decided that's the only case you could use. Cupertino would burn.

When you buy an Apple Watch you're not paying for something that your phone can't do better and you're not paying for something a cheaper sports band can't do better. You're paying for a watch and in that market design and mass appeal are everything.

 

[Mac 128]

I realize many people love to mock Apple Watch bands, but the attachment system is so freakin' brilliant, that I'd love to see more options just so I'd have a chance to change them more often.

It's not like people haven't thought about this before. You know what's even easier? Grosgrain bands that slip through the pins. I had a whole collection the 80s that worked on any standard watch. They also made them in leather. And they looked great. But after a while, the fad of changing watch bands all the time wore off. And it just makes much more sense to have different watches for different purposes if possible.

The problem with this system is it locks Apple into this design. The minute they shave a millimeter on the corners, or the taper of the connecting point, the whole system has to be redesigned.

That's likely why the watch industry never embraced a different system, because the bands had to operate independently of the watch case designs, allowing the lower end accessory to be manufactured across a much broader standard without having to redesign every time a watch maker changed their case designs, allowing them to maintain profit margins. Technology allows Apple to manufacture the bands much more economically so minor adjustments are negligible to them. The question is how long this fad will persist. I say it's until the first design change making all those bands people have been going wild purchasing incompatible with the then newest model.

 

[jase1125]

Nobody believes you.

Any everyone believes a zealot like you? You see I own products from both companies and understand the pros and cons of each. Lay off the Kool aid every now and then.
[doublepost=1471451750][/doublepost]

Okay then. Why isn't Apple selling those devices?

They can overpower any pharmaceutical they want...
[doublepost=1471324694][/doublepost]

Yep, can you point to where your studies are?

What does uploading your health data to Microsoft in clear text helps you? Nothing.

Apple also has HelathKit that's completely private and can be then used by Apps that can analyze your bio data, like Mayo Clinic and others.
[doublepost=1471324750][/doublepost]

Successful? Haven't seen anyone with one.

Successful, is it number 2 or number 3?

Wow you speak from ignorance. The data is uploaded and analyzed and then information is provided to help you increase your health in the app. It isn't just plain text to look at. Analytics provide unique specifics to improve your health. Crowd sourced data also helps me understand my health in comparison to others with the same age/weight etc.

I ever said there is tons of data to prove the band2 is better at heart rate tracking. What I said is for me the apple watch is inconsistent where the band2 isn't inconsistent. Read a little more carefully next time. Your fanboism is making you blind.

Studies have demonstrated both are very close, but the band a little more accurate:

 

[amegicfox]

yes Jony, keep putting look first (especially thinness) and disregard function

that's the way to go

 

[Chupa Chupa]

One of the selling points of Watch is how easy it is to swap out bands for different occasions. How much more expensive would swappable bands be if they included a bunch of sensors? And would that even be possible with some of the non-sport bands? And then what about 3rd party offerings? Or do they just not exist? I use my Watch at the gym and when I go walking and stuff but I wouldn't consider myself a hard core fitness buff. Being able to easily change out bands is more important to me than having all kinds of health sensors. My guess is Apple is working on other hardware that is 100% health focused. Maybe they'll go down a path like the iPod shuffle with a narrowly targeted device just for fitness buffs.

OK. But I'm confused why you quoted my post when your comment is really a stand-alone with no connection to what I was saying.
[doublepost=1471484705][/doublepost]

Actually, they'd both be wrong. Why? Because there should be sensor bands and non-sensor bands.

Yes, but I made a distinction between sports and fashion watches. Don't care if Apple want to sell one or the other or both. My comment doesn't preclude what you are saying, that Jobs would have sold both a true sports watch version and a true fashion version, each with features catering to the type of watch it is marketed as.

Instead Apple tried to label the same watch 3 different ways with the only distinction the box it came in and the band and metal and glass it was made with. But the sport version really has nothing to do with fitness in the truest sense of specialized sports watches. Apple, at least the old Apple, endeavored to make the best product in its class, which is not the Apple Watch Sport. If it did have a HRM in the bracelet to measure the bottom of the wrist that would have been unique among such type of sport watches and activity bands too.

 

[Ed217]

I never understand anecdotes like "I never see an Apple Watch anywhere" when I see them daily. Maybe it's your area? My banker has one. People that work at my dealership wear them daily. I see them every morning when I go to the gym. Even at the store. So it's not even a once in awhile thing. It's daily. So for you to not see a single one? I don't know. Seems odd to me.

Yes, but that's what I see...or don't see. The wife works at a high end restaurant directly with customers and sees the same lack of occurrence. She hits the bank each day, same thing. We go to many music events with the same result. Visit different states, same result. I have relatives that work in hospitals and grocery stores, same result. When we walk through a mall, I look for them...same result.

Yes, it seems odd, but that's been our experience so far. Apple has been fairly close hold on releasing many AW sales figures and data. Time will tell...however we both value our AW and wear it every day.

 

[Adam Warlock]

Yes, it seems odd, but that's been our experience so far. Apple has been fairly close hold on releasing many AW sales figures and data. Time will tell...

There's no mystery here: sales numbers for the Apple Watch are poor. If they were any good Apple would be shouting from the rooftops they way they do when the numbers are good: "One billion devices!" "400 million accounts on Apple’s App Store!" "30 billion apps had been downloaded!" "Sold over 30 million 4-inch iPhones in 2015!" etc, etc, ad naseum.

 

[Three141]

You are still missing the point.

iPhone weight and thickness is absolutely an element of user experience - a phone is something owners engage with dozens of times per day. It's just that you do not place as high a value on weight/thickness, rather wanting a longer battery life. Apple, and more importantly other people, do. Apple made the user experience trade, it just doesn't happen align with what you want. For millions of others it's the right call, supported by the huge number of sales.

In terms of sales numbers, we are constantly seeing articles on Iphone sales slipping, plus they made that 'smart battery case' for the 6/6s excluding 6/6s+ devices which points to them acknowledging either via consumer feedback or after sales R&D that this area needed a resolve. Also rivals have put out slightly thicker devices with bigger batteries which sell in millions too.

As I say, I don't buy into user experience comes first and that Apple's R&D always get things right. From looking at Apple's designs we know priority number 1, is a reduction of size as they believe that smaller is 'sexy' and if it looks good it will sell (some quote about licking the devices springs to mind here).

We know Apple knows how crucial battery life is as they pretty much use/used it as a key selling point over their rivals for years and under Steve even went as far as changing how Apple tested battery life so that their 8 hours was real world 8 hours (which I applaud them for).

It's obvious we won't agree I see it as P1 design (slim + attractive), P2 user experience (what needs to be sacrificed for our thin design) = final product.

You see it as R&D + Design + User experience work synonymously = final product with all around agreed compromises.