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

You guys, it's not an iPhone on your wrist...

Actually, let me correct myself.

My comments are towards the people who bought one expecting it to be a small iPhone on your wrist. It's not.

If you find a way that it makes things easier for you than using your phone --- that's amazing! Dictate to it! That's cool.

But it's still not an iPhone.

It may be one day, but the technology will obviously advance quite a ways by then.

----------
Cashmonee said:
The fact that this thread, and all of the responses, exist is evidence that the :apple:Watch is not a well-defined product. A solution in search of a problem if ever there was one.
Click to expand...

I just provided a dozen relevant use cases? Your argument is invalid.
 
joshcls said:
***you can't effectively respond to emails on it
Click to expand...

Why not? If you aren't using Apple's email app and instead using a third-party version that allows you to dictate responses, then you can indeed effectively respond to emails. Are you saying none of the 3000 watch apps are mail programs? Or that none of the ones that are let you respond? Personally I think Apple should update theirs to support it, but I'm sure there are alternatives until that happens. Note that people posting here aren't alone, every single review that mentioned the mail app complained about how limited it was in responding to emails.
 
DreamPod said:
Why not? If you aren't using Apple's email app and instead using a third-party version that allows you to dictate responses, then you can indeed effectively respond to emails. Are you saying none of the 3000 watch apps are mail programs? Or that none of the ones that are let you respond? Personally I think Apple should update theirs to support it, but I'm sure there are alternatives until that happens.
Click to expand...

I just corrected myself. You're right.
 
Fortimir said:
Precisely. People complaining about not being able to reply to things like Facebook notifications... think of it as a gateway. You can decide if it is worth getting your phone out for at a glance.
Click to expand...

While I generally agree, I only had Facebook push notifications to my watch for about 2 hours before I turned them off. I realized that with Facebook notifications being completely non-actionable, and not giving me any real information ("so and so commented on xyz" doesn't really tell me WHAT they said), that I would rather just get those notifications on my phone.
 
Cashmonee said:
The fact that this thread, and all of the responses, exist is evidence that the :apple:Watch is not a well-defined product. A solution in search of a problem if ever there was one.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The fact that half the posts made today exist is evidence that most people completely missed the point of what this watch is intended to to. It does what Apple claims it does. Period. If you don't like what it claims, don't buy it. If you think it should be able to do more, oh well, don't buy it. If you think you need to respond to an email on it while your phone is 3 feet away from it then get your head checked. Hahaha!!
 
joshcls said:
I just provided a dozen relevant use cases? Your argument is invalid.
Click to expand...

The problem is, of all those use cases, the watch does none of them particularly well, especially when a device that does most all of them much better must be with you for the watch to function. There is no focus with the :apple:Watch, and it is clear by all of the convoluted, made up situations people seem to continually come up with.

Look at your list. It is a joke. Fashion/tech statement? Really? Home automation? Do you know how many years home automation has been the "next thing" and failed? You even quote things that directly contradict your original premise, like responding to messages, such as emails, and using the watch when access to the phone is unavailable. You're stretching to justify its existence.
 
Cashmonee said:
The problem is, of all those use cases, the watch does none of them particularly well, especially when a device that does most all of them much better must be with you for the watch to function. There is no focus with the :apple:Watch, and it is clear by all of the convoluted, made up situations people seem to continually come up with.

Look at your list. It is a joke. Fashion/tech statement? Really? Home automation? Do you know how many years home automation has been the "next thing" and failed? You even quote things that directly contradict your original premise, like responding to messages, such as emails, and using the watch when access to the phone is unavailable. You're stretching to justify its existence.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If Apple is cool, then wearing Apple is cool.
No one is really talking about it, but I'll own it. *shrugs* Part of the reason I'm buying the Apple watch is because it's cool. ***people spend more on watches that do less all the time***

I have a Nest, love it. Except when I've stayed in my office too long and it thinks I'm no longer home. This could help.

Not having to pull out my phone with a handful of groceries to unlock my house would be fantastic.

Responding to iMessages via dictation or quick responses is a lot different than responding to a typical business email, at least personally.

The watch can still function to some extent when not connected to Bluetooth, including calls, iMessage, fitness tracking, etc.

I'm in no way stretching.

Regardless, this isn't a thread about the viability of the watch, it's just hoping to point out to some people:

"Don't expect it to be a mini iPhone on your wrist, because it's not."

I'm sorry that you can't be happy for me and others who find it useful and relevant.
I'm sorry you don't get it.

The Apple Watch is not for you.
 
Last edited:
Somnospeed said:
It is still dumfounding to read all the "yeah but I still need to use my phone". Well no **** you do. Or "yeah but I still can't do ______ with it." Well did Apple say you could and you found you couldn't? No??? Then what's the problem??

I can't believe that any person on the planet would enjoy typing on a screen that small vs. typing on their phone's keyboard. Even if you could use the watch as a stand alone, would you?? I doubt anyone here is looking to replace their phone with a watch. Good luck with your facebook feed or youtube videos and your friends will be truly impressed looking at your 38mm pics you showed them! Hahaha!!!

It's a timepiece that adds a ******** of technology and convenience. It is not a mini iphone, it wasn't supposed to be, and you wouldn't want it to be anyway.
Click to expand...

100% correct! Imagine playing games on that screen, and detaching it from your wrist all the time just to use it... Lol.

Apple has been clear about the purpose of this device all along, but I think a lot of people just assumed it was something else and now they are surprised.
 
zmunkz said:
100% correct! Imagine playing games on that screen, and detaching it from your wrist all the time just to use it... Lol.

Apple has been clear about the purpose of this device all along, but I think a lot of people just assumed it was something else and now they are surprised.
Click to expand...

This
 
It's not supposed to be an iPhone on your wrist but that's what they've made.
 
No. This is an iPhone on my wrist...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    764.1 KB · Views: 86
hlfway2anywhere said:
I hate that there's a rule preventing me from responding to this the way I want to.
Click to expand...

I agree. The stupidest rule macrumors have in place. These people don't call it because they are ignorant and don't know the name. They call it that way because they like winding up on this forum. And macrumors seems fine with that :mad:
 
joshcls said:
It's not supposed to be.

It's a watch. That gives you a ton more info than a cheap ol' Casio.

Its also a fitness tracker.

And a fashion/tech statement. It says "I'm hip because tech is hip."

Once native apps are available, it will be a game changer.

If you go in expecting to respond to emails (on a watch with no keyboard? Really?!) or doing anything that results in you holding your arm in the air for minutes at a stretch....

You're gonna have a bad time.
Click to expand...

Thats the thing many (myself included) wont realize until they get it and try it out. Many like myself will be saying, why am I spending $400 (or MUCH more money) to do this? To be able to see a notification I can't reply to come in and then have to reach for my phone anyways? I mean, I couldn't even read most my emails, it said to read it on my phone. I thought it was a joke at first. Maybe it will get more polished and useful in a few years but right now, its just another step to do something before I have to use my phone. If this was $199, ok, but at $400-$17k? Im guessing there will be a ton of returns.
 
theEconomist said:
I strongly disagree. They literally took iOS, shrunk it down, whacked it on a circular screen and cut *some* functionality. That's it.
Click to expand...

Ummm, not really. The watch is nowhere near as capable as even a $199 iPod Touch. When you can't even read a full email on a device thats supposed to run iOS, thats a big problem IMO. Not to mention the only way you can reply to anything is by dictation.
 
dexterbell said:
Thats the thing many (myself included) wont realize until they get it and try it out. Many like myself will be saying, why am I spending $400 (or MUCH more money) to do this? To be able to see a notification I can't reply to come in and then have to reach for my phone anyways? I mean, I couldn't even read most my emails, it said to read it on my phone. I thought it was a joke at first. Maybe it will get more polished and useful in a few years but right now, its just another step to do something before I have to use my phone. If this was $199, ok, but at $400-$17k? Im guessing there will be a ton of returns.
Click to expand...
I agree. There was so much hype of the watch, I think there must loads of people that bought it not fully realizing what they were going to get.

The watch is simply a small second screen that gives you select information at a glance plus it can tap you on the wrist when it thinks you there's something you want to know about. That can be handy and I'm looking forward to getting mine soon, but I can see a lot of people being underwhelmed.

Just as the iPad is not a complete substitute for a Mac, the watch is not a substitute for an iPhone. However, what it does do can be quite useful — whether its usefulness is worth the price depends on the individual.
 
I'm sorry but I just had to reply to these, for lack of a better word, moronic statements.

theEconomist said:
It's not supposed to be an iPhone on your wrist but that's what they've made.
Click to expand...

In no way shape or form is this an iPhone on your wrist, my wrist or anyone else's wrist. This is a watch; it has a strap, a varied watch face and it monitors your heart rate. The iPhone does none of this ergo this is not an iPhone.

theEconomist said:
I strongly disagree. They literally took iOS, shrunk it down, whacked it on a circular screen and cut *some* functionality. That's it.
Click to expand...

They did not literally take iOS; just because it's a touch based UI with the same stock apps (in function and form) doesn't make it iOS.

People like you, that turn opinions into full blown-blindly-made statements really get my goat.

To the OP: great thread, I find your debated comments to be valid and the unjust naysayer's comments (by unjust I mean no evidence to back their opinions) to be rather rude on their part.
 
The watch is a COMPANION to the phone. I think THAT is what some people struggle to understand.
 
Trhodezy said:
I'm sorry but I just had to reply to these, for lack of a better word, moronic statements.
In no way shape or form is this an iPhone on your wrist, my wrist or anyone else's wrist. This is a watch; it has a strap, a varied watch face and it monitors your heart rate. The iPhone does none of this ergo this is not an iPhone.
They did not literally take iOS; just because it's a touch based UI with the same stock apps (in function and form) doesn't make it iOS.
People like you, that turn opinions into full blown-blindly-made statements really get my goat.
To the OP: great thread, I find your debated comments to be valid and the unjust naysayer's comments (by unjust I mean no evidence to back their opinions) to be rather rude on their part.
Click to expand...

Stop ranting. You're not making any sense. What exactly is your issue with my post?
 
Fantastic post!

Apple did not set out to make an iPhone for the wrist. I think others have tried and I would say have failed, I don't waste my time with tech that doesn't make sense so I don't follow that scene.

All these comments about not being able to respond to emails make me laugh and I can't believe they don't realise that an iPhone is just seconds away for that type of thing. Its a companion to the iPhone, stick to your iPhone if the Apple Watch doesn't do exactly what the iPhone does.

If a product doesn't suit your needs, don't buy it

----------
theEconomist said:
I strongly disagree. They literally took iOS, shrunk it down, whacked it on a circular screen and cut *some* functionality. That's it.
Click to expand...

So your saying they should have used 100% iOS without any changes :confused:

I don't want an iPhone strapped to my wrist. I don't think you get what the Apple Watch is meant to be

Its also NOT a circular screen
 
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