Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Will people actually try and steal these right off of your arm? I can't see where this will be an item that will be stolen.

I suspect the very same technology that makes iPhones less desirable to steal now will apply to this watch too. The watch must be "married" to a phone. Apparently it will bring Apple Pay capabilities to some who don't have it in their iPhones.

If stolen, how would it be married to a new iPhone when it's already on Apple's record as being married to another? And that seems essential per the idea that it brings Apple Pay too.

So I doubt it will be a desirable item for thieves once they are educated that it's a dead product once it's former owner declares it stolen through the iPhone/iTunes store connection. Also, it seems like an obvious candidate for a "find my watch" variant of "find my phone".

I don't know this for sure so consider this speculation, but hopefully reasonably logical speculation based on what we all do know.
 
Ah so it's all about Flash. Got it. So I guess John Gruber must also think Bob Mansfield is a bozo for hiring Lynch. Because hey, he was once a company man defending Flash so banish him to hell forever.

Bob has made some bozo decisions but he's harmless. He hired Lynch because he is super intelligent and has the experience to back it up. Only problem is he's too smart for his own good. His geekiness will slowly infiltrate the software as a result but Jony won't be able to always filter this out.
 
I still don't see what makes the sport and edition versions so vastly different as Lynch claims. From a technological point of view, they are the same product. The only difference could be screen size, which at only a 4mm difference, isn't that significant. All the other differences are cosmetic/fashion oriented. So someone who pays for the high end edition watch really has a device that functions no better than the cheapest model. Same processor, memory, sensors, etc.

Early adopters will probably have a lot of fun using the device, but I don't think the edition version is going to be any sort of status symbol. It's really going to be the apps that make the phone - and it looks like they've got some good ones lined up. I wonder if we'll see any $1,000 apps for the phone.

Fashion IS the point. Why would you buy ANY gold watch if a plastic one tells you the same time of day. I think apple nailed this point... pick your price point and design. If you care not for such things, get the $350 and have fun.

I also can't help but wonder if thefts will start rising again. the 6/6+ have the features in place that render a stolen phone pretty unusable, I hope that Apple has built some good security in to the watch. I do know there is the sensor that knows when you remove it from your wrist plus the fingerprint sensor on the screen.

If you pin-lock your (I'm assuming you mean the gold) watch, the gold still has value.
 
So they're not constantly glancing at their phone but they are at their watch? Or if they are constantly glancing at their phone that's ok with you? Why is one ok but the other not?

I think because when someone is frequently looking at their watch, the subtle--or not so subtle--message is "I really need to go" or possibly "I have to get to something more important than talking with you." This scenario existed long before the first smartwatch came about, so the assumption is they are constantly checking the time. When looking at a phone it could mean anything, such as getting a text--not to mention it has become rather commonplace.

I think that sentiment about looking at a watch will fade away if smart watches become the norm.


Michael
 
I suspect the very same technology that makes iPhones less desirable to steal now will apply to this watch too. The watch must be "married" to a phone. Apparently it will bring Apple Pay capabilities to some who don't have it in their iPhones.

If stolen, how would it be married to a new iPhone when it's already on Apple's record as being married to another? And that seems essential per the idea that it brings Apple Pay too.

So I doubt it will be a desirable item for thieves once they are educated that it's a dead product once it's former owner declares it stolen through the iPhone/iTunes store connection. Also, it seems like an obvious candidate for a "find my watch" variant of "find my phone".

I don't know this for sure so consider this speculation, but hopefully reasonably logical speculation based on what we all do know.

I think that's some of the most reasonable speculation I've ever seen on these boards. :)
 
Wow, so much work went into such a pointless product!

too bad so little work went into such a pointless comment...

----------

Hardly a scary preposition when you have Apple waving cash at you..

sure it is. success is not guaranteed, and when you get hired for a high up position failure will not be rewarded -- see Forstall, Browett, etc.

havent you ever taken a new job? the money is the carrot, but the stick is what keeps you up at night. it aint easy.

----------

Sounds like the exact opposite of how great, revolutionary products come into being.

apple has an extraordinary resume that suggests they know how to create excellent new products. i could put more weight into your criticism if i knew your track record -- where's your resume of products? surely you have some, since you know what it takes to launch successful products?
 
Those badges look great, but don't they belong back in iOS 6?

no. w/ iOS 7+, the *OS* removed much of its skeomorphic design elements, the UI chrome. but content doesnt have to follow. and one could argue that the medals are merely content, not UI elements of the OS.

----------

Apple I wasn't such a game changer.

The Apple II, more specifically it's floppy disk drives and it's expansion ports on a home computer? Yes! Game changer all the way.

both. id include both. the II was the first very-successful computer for the masses, but the Apple I was the first kit computer that led the way -- basically the prototype for the II. they sold immediately.
 
That's exactly what I thought.
Steve Jobs would have never allowed this project to continue.

oh, so you knew him well? good friends? close enough that you know howd hed feel years later on a given issue? or.....did you not know him at all? yeah. prolly never even in the same room together, let alone have any insight into how he felt on things. yeah.
 
Apple could launch iPoop and a bunch of us would "shut up and take my money" followed by "best iPoop ever". But I would think "gamechanger" on par with iPod, iPhone and iPad has to at least partially mean moving the masses to buy it too.

The armchair naysaying sounds EXACTLY like the iPod and iPad hits to me--right down to the "iPoop" jokes :)

Google for "thread 500". A mountain of people saying a product is pointless... And then it's a game changer.
 
Bob has made some bozo decisions but he's harmless. He hired Lynch because he is super intelligent and has the experience to back it up. Only problem is he's too smart for his own good. His geekiness will slowly infiltrate the software as a result but Jony won't be able to always filter this out.

What bozo decisions has Bob made?

----------

no. w/ iOS 7+, the *OS* removed much of its skeomorphic design elements, the UI chrome. but content doesnt have to follow. and one could argue that the medals are merely content, not UI elements of the OS.

In that New Yorker piece Ive said he thinks it's ok to use stuff like this as long as it's not used a lot. I wouldn't be surprised though if future versions of iOS dial back the starkness a bit. Not back to heavy UI chrome but not as stark as iOS 7 either.
 
Most of what this watch can do wasn't even discussed in the keynote. The fact that it is attached to your wrist alone creates a completely new industry of development where apps running in the background can provide various alerts throughout the day. Not only do you not have to worry about missing a phone alert but you don't have to reach into pocket and unlock phone. Also the watch has a speaker which can be heard because the watch is always attached to you and doesn't require a high volume. You can have apps running in the background and the watch can verbally remind you of calendar events or to do tasks better than a phone could ever dream of....

Apple basically is a company which provides a framework for developers. There are some brilliant apps in development I'm sure, but the miniscule $1-20 million profit of those developers is not worth their time. They just provide the framework. The original iphone didn't even have an app store.

Just imagine if this watch was released without the app development framework like the original iphone? Give apple credit for that. The efficiency of the development platform means that this watch will advance much quicker than the iphone which came BEFORE app development framework and shipped without apps.

Although Android has its benefits lets not forget the difference with apple is that its MUCH easy to develop apps for apple watch because apps work on ALL models of the iphone. Lets not forget that android app development of various motorolla/ LG watches is not even available or has very little privately-produced apps in existance.
 
Last edited:
"In all the time we've been talking, he's never once looked at his phone."

Here's my problem though. When I'm interacting with someone, I'm far less offended by someone glancing at their phone than I am if they're constantly glancing at their watch, as if they can't wait to be done with me. Both are bothersome, but glancing at their watch feels more offensive to me.

The article doesn't say if constant phone glances were replaced with constant watch glances, but I wonder if the implied message here is that Lynch didn't need to look because he could 'feel' what was going on and only when the "you've got somewhere important to be" message was 'felt' did he up and leave?
 
Wow, so much work went into such a pointless product!

So YOU may not be in the target group that it's for.

I am luke warm on the product, but after reading this article I can see some advantages I hadn't thought of.

I do not want to be reachable 24/7. There are studies that that creates a lot of stress and bosses or anybody don't have filters preventing them from sending e-mails or stuff 2 a.m. or so.

Getting subtle notifications is an advantage. Iv business friends who at lunch put their phone in front of them the table and then look every 30 seconds in fear to have missed something.

I don't always take my phone with me, but something on the wrist is possible to consider. Would however have to work by itself = replacing the phone.

So, by Apple watch 7s , a lot of useful apps and learning how to do things faster and a decent price point I may be tempted.
 
I'm so happy to hear about the problem with your phone taking up too much of your life. I feel like that, especially with notifications. I'm extremely busy and can't always answer my texts. I really hate that feeling of not knowing if a text is important or not. But this seems to resolve that issue.:D
 
The armchair naysaying sounds EXACTLY like the iPod and iPad hits to me--right down to the "iPoop" jokes :)

Google for "thread 500". A mountain of people saying a product is pointless... And then it's a game changer.

I'm well aware of that thread and that sentiment ahead of the launch of iPod. And I agree that it could certainly be a "history repeating itself" scenario with this Watch. However, from my own perspective, I could see an obvious masses fit for iPod, iPhone and iPad. But I'm not seeing that same kind of "gamechanger" fit for this Watch. It may be the best product ever and move every single person on the planet to buy one but it has fundamental hurdles to leap that those other 3 did not... especially with the masses that are not here, nor were here posting in thread 500.

In my own case, when I first got a sense of what an iPod was, I knew I had to buy one. When I first got a sense of what an iPhone was, the same. When I first got a sense of what an iPad was, the same. All of that "sense" was before those products launched.

With the iPod, Apple wasn't even close to being as dominant and Midas(touch)-like as they are now. And I owned NOTHING from Apple when iPod came on the scene so it was such a draw that it helped lead to owning almost everything from Apple today.

I look at this watch though and that "sense" is not there (for me). It feels like a reach instead of a bulls eye... something hunting for a really good reason to own one, yet trying to drive that reason in "most affluent" channels.

On the same cover of this magazine one can see two dresses and some heart-shaped glasses. If Apple made the dresses or the glasses would we all be trying to rationalize buying those dresses and why we need the glasses as much? And are the "not affluent" masses influenced by small details worn by models on magazine covers enough to both recognize "hey, that's that Apple watch" and then want one? If yes, are they also wanting to buy the glasses, those dresses and maybe that fingernail polish color too?

Would even us Apple fans notice the Apple watch on this magazine cover if it was not pointed out to us? How about the dress? Or the glasses? If you haven't looked at the cover for a few minutes, before you do, what color are the glasses and nail polish? What do you recall about the dresses (which take up far more page real estate than the watch in either picture)?
 
Last edited:
For those who can be objective (meaning not the "Apple is God" or "Apple can do no wrong" crowd), can you look at this and see it on par with iPod, iPhone and iPad? I can't. I see niche product. Many of us will buy it but there's not many of us relative to the number of buyers of iPod, iPhone and iPad.



But is that who made the iPod, iPhone and iPad mainstream successful? I've seen all three of those products in the hands of children, of seemingly poor people, of what can look like the welfare/food stamps crowd (in fact, I just saw a lady checking text messages on a new iPhone in the grocery store line last night, paying for the groceries with a food stamp card. I can't see such people as "more affluent" as implied by Bajarin).

Personally, I think iPod was genuinely the best variation of it's functionality at the time and it hit right when the masses were ready to switch from cassettes and portable CD players to something smaller that could hold more music. Pair that with the "free unlimited music" mentality via Napster at the time and I could say iPod was probably a perfect storm/perfect timing product- probably best example of such in Apple's entire history. Gamechanger (as i define the word)? Yes!

iPhone brought huge things missing from iPod. Technology convergence ("it's an iPod and a phone and an Internet browser...") plus timing again worked well. And after Apple bent on pricing by adopting the seemingly much lower prices available within the subsidy model, the masses could move on it (and did). Gamechanger? Yes.

iPad filled some big holes with iPhone, namely by delivering a larger screen on which some of what people were trying to do on tiny iPhone screens was simply much better on an iPad screen. For some who mostly use traditional computers for (mostly) consumption of content, it could up to fully replace those traditional computers. It brought bigger screen computing to a package that weighed relatively nothing. iPad could also be a bigger iPod and has become that or is sharing that with iPhone (thus the fade of the iPod line in the last few years). Gamechanger? Yes.

What big holes does this Watch fill? As is, we're having to spin concepts like putting down aspects of one Apple product to justify this one (is it really so hard to pull the phone out of pockets? is it really inconvenient when you probably have your phone out 50+ times a day now? And if yes, where were these gripes against iPhone before there was an Apple Watch? Why do we find fault with some Apple tech only when something new from Apple has been released that needs those gripes as part of rationalizing the new?).

iPods, iPhones and iPads could be purchased by anyone and everyone, whether they owned any other product from Apple. But this iWatch is dependent on owning another product from Apple. One might say, "but everybody has an iPhone"; however that "everybody" != "everyone" in terms of real numbers.

I keep coming back to this idea of "gamechanger." As defined in this article, it implies it should be as big as iPod, iPhone and iPad. Will it be? Time will tell but from my own perspective, I just can't see it like I could easily see iPod, iPhone and iPad. It's certainly possible I've lost my (that kind of) sight but it wasn't that long ago that iPad seemed obvious for masses adoption (to me). This product seems to keep hunting for rationale, often at the expense of iPhone or in very narrow, relatively unique scenarios where it actually would be difficult to pull out the phone ("when my iPhone is inside 10 layers of clothing while I'm shoveling snow but I urgently need to receive a text" and similar sounds good... but unless you work in the arctic, how often do such atypical-to-rare scenarios really apply?).

Will it sell? Sure. Apple could launch iPoop and a bunch of us would "shut up and take my money" followed by "best iPoop ever". But I would think "gamechanger" on par with iPod, iPhone and iPad has to at least partially mean moving the masses to buy it too. And I don't perceive the masses are fashionistas or models or hollywood stars or professional sports players. Such people bought iPods, iPhones and iPads too but it was the masses that drove the bulk of the sales. And it seems "gamechanger" has to be linked to massive sales volume on some level; else one might be able to tag something popular with a slim niche market like iPod Socks as a "gamechanger" too.



this is a good post. I think that perhaps it'll be what CAN be done with this wearable, the longer it's out, that will define it one way or another.
 
I remember when the iphone came out they had flip phones from verizon that you could watch TV on and were 3g and did much more than the original iphone. That didn't stop the iphone's success.

Don't underestimate the fluidness of the watch's user interface in its success.
 
Those badges look great, but don't they belong back in iOS 6?

It's well known that 3D graphics and animations are used to impress because they represent hardware power , and it's also well known that they've been traditionally used when the hardware is not very powerful, just for showing off. When computers and phones got really powerful the plain looking UIs were implemented because it was no point on showing off since everybody was able.
 
Last edited:
Image The team created a new typeface, San Francisco, specifically for the Watch

I noticed the typeface on promo shots before, and thought it looked a little odd, but didn't give it too much thought. Now that I know Apple purpose-designed this, I've had a closer look. I see people have even been hacking their Macs to use this instead of Helvetica. But I don't get it… I gotta say, San Francisco looks plain old ugly to me, and I can't see that it's even particularly easy to read at small sizes. John Gruber says Apple has been developing this for years, which I find pretty sad if it's true. Even Microsoft did better with its web fonts, Verdana, Tahoma and Trebuchet. Their choice of Segoe is better too.

I'll be disappointed to see this typeface rolled out across iOS and OS X with the next major releases…
 
this is a good post. I think that perhaps it'll be what CAN be done with this wearable, the longer it's out, that will define it one way or another.

Yes. I might inject the word "uniquely" after "CAN". Else, for me anyway, it runs into the "why do I need this?" obstacle of "just pull out my iPhone" (which I have to have with me anyway).

Right now, the uniquely elements are a few sensors not on the phone which yield an ability to do (gimmicky?) things like send your heartbeat to someone you know. There's a "cool" and "look what I have" element to being an early adopter too. If we reach, we might spin "uniquely" into not having to involve our hands (to reach in our pocket to pull out the iPhone). But after that, the "why can't I just use my iPhone?" comeback seems to cover almost all bases.

Is that enough to move the masses to rationalize the Watch? Or is there enough to still be exploited by developers that will not be "about as good" to "just as good" to superior when the same benefit is offered on the iPhone. Maybe. But it's hard to imagine much that can be uniquely done on the watch better than it can be done on an iPhone.

Relative to the "gamechanger" perception, it's easy to recognize very tangible "uniquely" benefits in iPod, iPhone and iPad. Each brought a very obvious, mainstream benefit(s) to the market (which is not just us here at MacRumors). Is there enough "uniquely" associated with this watch... for the masses to buy it at a "gamechanger" sales volume?
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.