Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What's the glaring omission in the Apple Watch first gen?

appleguy123

appleguy123

macrumors 604
Original poster
Apr 1, 2009
6,873
2,589
15 minutes in the future
It seems that every first gen Apple product has one omission that is obvious, and then is quickly fixed in the second generation.

For the iPad everyone complained about the lack of cameras, the second gen had them. The first iPhone needed 3G, added in the second version. The first iPod touch oddly had no external volume buttons, then Apple added them in the second generation. The first MacBook Air needed the backlit keyboard (and a second sub port) this was added in gen 2. The new MacBook needs a second USB C port, and it will probably get one in the second generation.

As far back as I can remember, the first gen of an Apple product has one obvious missing feature that would make its use so much better. But I don't really know if this is true of the Apple Watch. The only thing I can think of is the price. I think it needs to be $199 for me to really want one enough to buy it. Is it missing something critical feature or hardware wise that in just not seeing?
 
People with even remotely meaningful experience owning and devoting a sincere effort into integrating it in their life before spewing flip floppy meaningless drivel about how good it really is for them.

The opinion of a stranger is truly meaningless for a lifestyle product.

To answer your question more seriously, I'm going to say GPS.
 
I don't see a glaring omission.

Apple Watch is well thought out and the company has to start somewhere. I don't see errors of omission a problem at all.
 
For me I would have loved GPS, would allow me to get rid of my Nike sports watch :D
 
rwilliams said:
You mean other than GPS?
Click to expand...

GPS I would absolutely love... but I also understand that using it for a long run would absolutely demolish the battery.

I've pretty much become at peace with bringing my phone with me. I'll keep it tucked away in my flip belt and simply use the watch and some bluetooth headphones.

I don't really see any glaring omissions, but there will no doubt be some refinement with sensors, processor, and battery.
 
iPad was missing the camera. I understood the lack of 3G for the phone because cell technology was changing fast at the time. But I agree that there is nothing glaring missing from the watch.tery

Once this watch is a success there will be more research for smaller more energy efficient sensors and hopefully a gps that is not a battery drain.
 
Mad Mac Maniac said:
GPS I would absolutely love... but I also understand that using it for a long run would absolutely demolish the battery.

I've pretty much become at peace with bringing my phone with me. I'll keep it tucked away in my flip belt and simply use the watch and some bluetooth headphones.

I don't really see any glaring omissions, but there will no doubt be some refinement with sensors, processor, and battery.
Click to expand...

Just because there is a good engineering reason for not including GPS doesn't mean it won't be perceived as an omission, especially since there are products like the Garmin ForeRunner out there.

Plenty of good reasons for why it's a terrible comparison, but, that doesn't matter for people who look for flaws over anything else.
 
The glaring omission is a problem to solve. It is truly a great solution in search of a problem.

This interview of Apple vice president of technology Kevin Lynch and head of human interface design Alan Dye put it best.

APPLE DECIDED TO make a watch and only then set out to discover what it might be good for (besides, you know, displaying the time). “There was a sense that technology was going to move onto the body,” says Alan Dye, who runs Apple’s human interface group. “We felt like the natural place, the place that had historical relevance and significance, was the wrist.”
Click to expand...

So they decided to make a watch before knowing what for? That is the antithesis of what makes a good product. Imagine Steve Jobs saying "we decided to make an pocket-sized hard drive with a spinny wheel and a screen, and only then set out to discover what it might be good for (besides, you know, storing files). There was a sense that technology was getting smaller to fit into clothing. We left like the natural place was the pocket. Later we figured out to put MP3s on it."
 
The Sport model should have its water resistance beefed up. It should be submersible the way most watches that aspire to a sports destination are.
 
A problem to solve. A reason for me to keep it on my wrist. I think the reviews today made it clear that it is unquestionably the best smart watch. The question most of them seems to have posed is whether smart watches will ever fill more than a niche.
 
- standalone WiFi
- cellular
- GPS
- barometer
- compass
- standalone apps
- 3rd party watch faces
- ambient mode
- less confusing UI

Others can do it, why Apple can't?
 
samiznaetekto said:
No. Standalone WiFi means you can connect to any WiFi network without using iPhone, by selecting the network on the watch and entering the password on the watch.
Click to expand...

If you read the latest info (which you clearly haven't, like 99% of the false info you say), they go over the fact that you don't need an iPhone even on to do basic things like texting, Siri, etc., so it must connect to wifi in some way.
 
oneMadRssn said:
The glaring omission is a problem to solve. It is truly a great solution in search of a problem.
Click to expand...
Honest question; what problem did the iPad solve?


oneMadRssn said:
So they decided to make a watch before knowing what for?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't read too much into that statement. How is it any different than damning the iPhone by saying, "APPLE DECIDED TO make a phone and only then set out to discover what it might be good for (besides, you know, making calls)"?
 
I'll go with:

Waterproofing
Sleep tracking
GPS
Less convoluted UI
FaceTime camera? (If you can make calls directly on the watch, why not?)
Oximeter
UV sensor

I think "glaring omissions" are glaring because the competition already has them. The smartwatch space is too immature for us to really know what we need and expect out of a smartwatch. In time, it will be more obvious.
 
Last edited:
Lack of cellular call, data and GPS capabilities that exist in other products. Some occasions you either can't or don't want to be tethered to phone.
 
sleep tracking and silent alarms!

i'll continue to wear my fitbit one after i get my apple watch, if only for the sleep tracking and even more importanly: SILENT ALARM!

nothing is more jarring in the morning than an obnoxious alarm (and even a song on the iphone is too obnoxious).... i much prefer the buzzing of my fitbit (which would have been the tapping on my wrist of the apple phone!)
 
Cory Bauer said:
Honest question; what problem did the iPad solve?

I wouldn't read too much into that statement. How is it any different than damning the iPhone by saying, "APPLE DECIDED TO make a phone and only then set out to discover what it might be good for (besides, you know, making calls)"?
Click to expand...

I was not on the product design team of the iPad, so I am totally speculating, but as a (former) engineer, I would put the iPad problem statement as: keyboards and mice are unnatural modes of interacting with a device, and are often difficult for new users to learn. Users want a computer and applications that use a natural and intuitive method of interacting, which is easy to learn.

You could turn that sentence to be about anything, like you did about the iPhone and I did about the iPod. However, that points out how silly the statement is. Unlike with the Apple Watch, high-level executives in charge of design did not say that about the iPhone. The iPhone solved many problems that are obvious now, but lacking at the time: easy text messaging, good full-site internet browser, good at playing video and music and viewing pictures, flexible interface that adapts to different uses on demand, etc.

I am just not sure there is a problem that smartwatches are solving. The category as a whole feels more forced than the existing ones - we have big far-away screens (TVs), big close-up screens (computers), medium screens (tablets), and small screens (smartphones). As time goes on, each of these categotries goes from specialized purpose to general purpose (tv>smarttv; cable box>media streamer; ereader>tablet; mp3 player>pmd; gaming console>media center), and then it each category eventually reaches saturation. It seems there are only two directions to expand this spectrum: either make an even bigger screen device, or an even smaller screen device. I can't imagine what purpose an even bigger screen would serve (programmable scenery windows, like in back to the future?). So they went with even smaller screen option. First this sector was tested with specialized hardware (fitbit, nike fuelband, etc.). Now it is being expanded to general purpose hardware (smartwatches). But why? Is this category being forced because all the other categories listed above have reached saturation?
 
Waterproofing. That's pretty much it.

It's an exercise tool, but you can't swim with it; THE superior cardio activity above pretty much anything else? Blahhh!

Not that it's any kind of dealbreaker to me, but it IS disappointing. People whinging that it doesn't have GPS, compass, barometer (COME ON, since when did you EVER miss a barometer in your watch?) are pretty much just moaning for the sake of it. iPhones have all of the above these days. You don't bring your phone with you when you go outside? Is it really that heavy to carry?

Waterproofing would have made it a much more complete exercise tool. But...whatever. It doesn't have it, so no amount of whinging about it will change that, except maybe make sure it's higher prioritized by Apple for a future model. *shrug*

Maybe we can get a company to make a silicone condom for it to wear that covers the crown and openings. That'll make it swimproof at least, although I still wouldn't want to dive headfirst into water with it.
 
My "glaring omission" isn't an omission of the first-gen, but an omission of developer support. The fact that no third-party developer is able to make watch apps that actually run on the watch is pretty horrible, and the cause of many reviews claiming that the watch feels slow and clunky, with apps that don't really do much. They all run on the phone, and tell the watch what to display, and then the watch tells them when a button press happens. And the dev kit is designed around simple menus, nothing more complicated, not sensor reading, not even detecting digital crown rotating. Apple claims they'll release the native dev kit later, they should have had that in developers' hands last November.

mi7chy said:
Lack of cellular call, data and GPS capabilities that exist in other products. Some occasions you either can't or don't want to be tethered to phone.
Click to expand...
Have you seen those products?? There are only two I think, both are gigantic and ugly. One of them literally looks like a phone strapped to your wrist. Not a glaring omission but a reasonable choice.
 
I'm gonna go with sensors. I remember the very early rumors saying it would monitor blood pressure, UV, oxygen levels, glucose, stress levels on skin, humidity etc. Instead we got a heart rate monitor that only activates every 10 minutes.

If there is anywhere for Apple to innovate and change the game it will be with sensor technology. As of now there is barely anything the Apple watch can do that your phone can't. With sensors that will change and it will create need for the device.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back