Ill be honest, I don't think i've even used an app on my watch since i've had it, i like glances and the idea of third party complications but i mainly prefer the native features and i'm happy enough with then. I think the watch is the one thing self contained apps doesn't really improve.
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.
Quanta Reportedly Developing Next-Gen Apple Watch for 2016 Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Ill be honest, I don't think i've even used an app on my watch since i've had it, i like glances and the idea of third party complications but i mainly prefer the native features and i'm happy enough with then. I think the watch is the one thing self contained apps doesn't really improve.
So they gave you "buying public" numbers ? Okay , where are they ? Where are these buying public numbers that you used to calculate that 3 million was more than 1% ?
I had TWO main points that you didn't like. Just TWO and those were that probably less than 1% of the U.S. population is gonna be looking for an Apple Watch yearly. Then my second point was that Apple never gave specific watch numbers which everybody knows they didn't.
So what is all this "A LOT" of talk with very little info ? TWO points and I gladly used your 3 million YOU GAVE to determine that based off the general population (which is what I said in the beginning) it wasn't past 1%. Then you basically admitted Apple didn't give SPECIFIC watch numbers. So what's the problem here ?
You wrote paragraphs about guesstimates and the "buying public" you can't even quantify yet I'm the one who talks ALOT with very little info ?
Yeah okay, YOU'RE the one who should've decided to talk to someone else before YOU started talking to me in here because I'm clearly not the one to allow their words to be taken and twisted into a false hodge podge of a mess and then expected to believe it. Sorry, not the one.
Lol only if the current bands don't fit the new generation. If that's the case then I will be slightly miffed. Though I will have beat the hell out of my current crop of sport bands by then and possibly in the market for some new ones anyway. I never did get around to buying a leather band. I really like the sport bands.
Many consider the first generation Apple Watch a serious collectors item. Know one associate that bought two Apple Watch Editions. Did not even break the factory seal and is sitting on them as investments.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
Gold is so 80s, I want moon rock and platinum, and diamonds, lots of diamonds!
Did you specialize in fluid dynamics?
So, 1 meter=3.3 feet, that's 1.4 psi. That's all the Watch is rated for -- in a static tank with no external forces just the column of water above it. So now strap that onto the arm of a swimmer, which will not likely submerge below 1 meter during a swimming stroke. So you're asserting that at no time is the psi on the watch greater than 1.4 during a typical swimming stroke?
I couldn't easily find any specs on the exact amount of force against a swimmers hand as it strikes the water, though there have been many studies that have measured the pressure of the applied forces on the hand as it rotates through stroke. However, I did find some info on the psi of various kinds of boxing punches. A basic martial arts punch appears to create about 178 psi on average, all the way up to 1000+. So, I would imagine that the force of the hand impacting with the water is going to be at least somewhere between 1.4 psi and 178 psi. And I'll wager at a minimum considerably more than that subjected to an object 1 meter under a column of static water.
While dynamic pressure doesn't really apply over a certain depth, since the force a swimmer is able to generate with their arms will eventually be negated by the pressure of the depth, there is no doubt that a swimmer is forcing water against the Watch far greater than that for which it's currently rated. And while it seems likely the Watch can withstand far more than that ipx7 rating, the real question is how much more given it's not just sitting at the bottom of a tank, but actively, and repeatedly, being impacted against the surface of the water, and forced through it with enough energy to propel a swimmer forward on the order of 2m/s. Even at a 100 meters under water the pressure is only about 140psi, so depending on the force of of a swimmers hand impacting the water, and assuming it's somewhere in this range, only then does the rating start to protect against swimming. To say nothing of swimming in the ocean where the forces of a moving column of water can generate even more significant surface pressure in the form of wave action.
So far all we have is anecdotal evidence of how well the Watch survives in the water. The "tests" such as they are have by no means been comprehensive. In other words, following depth pressure tests, the watches have not been opened to examine for water ingress to know how effectively they "passed" these tests. And I'm not sure that any have been subjected to high pressure hoses at all and other common tests which could account for some common forces in water sports activities like, swimming, high diving, water skiing, jet skiing, surfing, etc., much less inspected afterwards. So I don't know how anyone can say all Apple watches will survive the impact of sport swimming on a regular basis in every situation a swimmer might encounter, with a certification of only 1.4psi in a static tank, in the absence of proper forensic testing.
You mean, not sell like the competition and be bigger with less function... OK I guess.
I know. That's why I said that I don't think the big battery life increase will happen any time soon. I also meant to add that if Apple addresses a couple of those points then I might consider the upgrade. By no means did I think all of them would happen at once, lol! They never do…ever. Apple picks a few things at a time.