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

Discussion in 'Apple Watch' started by appleguy123, Apr 8, 2015.

  1. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #1
    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?
     
  2. zacheryjensen macrumors 6502a

    zacheryjensen

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #2
    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.
     
  3. technosix macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Location:
    West Coast USA
    #3
    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.
     
  4. wizzywig27 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2012
    #4
    For me I would have loved GPS, would allow me to get rid of my Nike sports watch :D
     
  5. rwilliams macrumors 68040

    rwilliams

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Location:
    Durham, NC
  6. Mad Mac Maniac macrumors 601

    Mad Mac Maniac

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Location:
    A little bit of here and a little bit of there.
    #6
    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.
     
  7. KauaiBruce macrumors 6502a

    KauaiBruce

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Location:
    Kauai, HI
    #7
    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.
     
  8. zacheryjensen macrumors 6502a

    zacheryjensen

    Joined:
    May 11, 2009
    #8
    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.
     
  9. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #9
    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.

    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."
     
  10. GrumpyMom macrumors 601

    GrumpyMom

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Location:
    Rinoriducruin
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Cashmonee macrumors 6502a

    Cashmonee

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    #11
    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.
     
  12. samiznaetekto macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    #12
    - 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?
     
  13. Mr.C macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Location:
    London, UK.
    #13
    A glaring omission is a reasonable and acceptable battery life. ;)
     
  14. hemolyzer macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2015
    Location:
    ONTARIO CANADA
    #14
    I am pretty upset that the watch is incapable of 4k video playback. The iPhones could do it.
     
  15. appleguy123 thread starter macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #15
    It has this already.
     
  16. samiznaetekto macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2009
    #16
    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.
     
  17. Multiverse223 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2015
    #17
    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.
     
  18. Cory Bauer macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    #18
    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)"?
     
  19. J4B3, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2015

    J4B3 macrumors regular

    J4B3

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2012
    Location:
    Gamma Quadrant
    #19
    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.
     
  20. mi7chy macrumors 68040

    mi7chy

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    #20
    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.
     
  21. caligurl macrumors 68030

    caligurl

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    socal
    #21
    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!)
     
  22. oneMadRssn macrumors 68040

    oneMadRssn

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #22
    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?
     
  23. Lennyvalentin macrumors 6502a

    Lennyvalentin

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    #23
    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.
     
  24. DreamPod macrumors 65816

    DreamPod

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2008
    #24
    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.

    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.
     
  25. furam90, Apr 8, 2015
    Last edited: Apr 8, 2015

    furam90 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    #25
    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.
     

Share This Page