Yes, you can use Apple Pay with the Apple Watch. Great addition, no more digging in my pocket for my iPhone Plus (if I can actually get it out of my pocket).
The main innovation I like is NFC in the Watch. This makes so much sense. What is the big advantage of pulling a phone from your bag instead of a wallet? Paying with a wrist, opening doors with your wrist, entering the metro with your wrist. Can't wait for the next Wear releases from Samsung to have it integrated :)
Yeah, I was wondering about this. My guess is that security will be based on the fact that you wear a watch, so it's much harder to lose it or steal it. Maybe they will have a passcode that applies until you take the watch off (which they have the sensors to detect). Maybe it will confirm proximity to your phone. There are possibilities.
Sony Smartwatch 3 has NFC (and GPS). Too bad it's rather ugly. AFAIK, it only currently uses NFC for pairing to a phone, but the hardware is there and Android Wear will hopefully soon include complete support for it, like they recently did with watch GPS support.
Given the level of interaction between the phone and watch you really need a deep integration with the phone OS. The Pebble is phone agnostic but the interaction is comparatively limited.
I'm not sure if I missed "dumb" or it was edited in shortly afterward, but either way that's comparing apples and oranges.
Compared to the existing precedent of smart watch prices, Apple's watch is $100 more expensive than the next highest priced model. This is, of course, what Apple does with all of their hardware, but whether it's unsurprising or not it's still a factual and relevant point to make.
The basic Pebble is $150. The premium Pebble Steel is $250. The Apple Watch starts at $350; you can bet that the premium models will be well north of that.
A $500 watch will certainly still have much use 10+ years from purchase.
It might have minor scratches but that's it.
A smart watch will probably not even power on 5 years from purchase (due to bad battery); or be able to pair with your phone (new phone OS might not be backwards compatible).
Most "dumb" watches that cost over $350 will retain the majority of their value well past those 5 years, too. Apple's first generation watch will be ~$50 in 5 years.
The first Samsung Gear watch was only announced a year ago (Sep. 2013), and you can get it for <$150 new. Pretty sure it will be well under $50 for that model in 4 years.
With the notable exception of the first iPhone not having a subsidy price for a month or two Apple products don't tend to drop in price much year to year.
They've had the $199/$299/$399 price structure for the newest iPhones for more than 6 years.
This is true fashion oriented technology in the same vein as Beats headphones. If it becomes a fashion statement to wear it, people will buy one at $350. Probably not many HN readers though.
I agree on the looks in isolation, but the pictures of people wearing the watch makes them not look so bad IMO. I was surprised at the functionality, though, especially Apple Pay.
Interesting, a payments system that works only if you have the latest iPhone, and a watch that only works if you have (possibly latest) iPhone. I love the display, and I think they have some great ideas here but I was hoping more for the 'ipod' replacement that would work with any iOS 8 device (like iPads too) instead of a remote for your phone.
And if you notice, NFC of course isn't in the 5, 5c, 5s. So it makes me wonder if Apply Pay will work with a watch paired to an iPhone 5 series device. That might be a little nudge to get the Apple watch.
Oh, that's a good point. You're probably right, can't use Apple Pay with a watch paired with 5/5c/5s. I noted that the credit card information is available via passbook, but the 5's don't have the related hardware to support Pay, right? I mean the watch has the NFC, but the ability to generate the one-time numbers probably has to come from the phone?
I don't know if maybe the one-time number capability is tied to hardware, or tied to network connectivity - or maybe you need only one of the two paths. In which case, you might be able to do it with a 5/5c/5s with network connectivity and a Watch, but you can only Pay fully offline with a iPhone 6 or iPhone 6 / Watch.
It may be that Google did a pretty good job of preemptively responding to the Apple Watch, but I don't find this that much more interesting than the already not very interesting Android Wear devices.
That's really interesting way to phrase it. if tables were turned would you say the same thing or would it be Google responding to apple or worst, Google copying apple?
Assuming that Google hasn't spent "years" working on the Android Wear platform compared to Apple's "years", does it mean that based on what we've seen tonight vs. Wear, that Google has done better? I'm certainly of that opinion.
There were a lot of speculators who should be humbled by putting the "iWatch" on a pedestal before it was even released. I personally don't like the way it looks, though Apple considered something interesting, that not everyone's wrist is huge, and made 2 versions (Android Wear OEMs can of course counter this by flooding the market with 'choice')
I totally agree with you and think that google's wear is a better offering.
My original reply was referring to the fact that even though Google came to market with its wear device first (years ago with glass and months ago with on the watch) it's still being called a response to apple's non existent (at the time) product.
however if tables were turned and google were to release its first wear product months from now, after apple, NO ONE would call apple's watch a preemptive response to Google's wear. It would either be reported as Google copying apple or best case scenario Google's response to apple's innovation.
eg. No one called the original iPhone a preemptive strike on Android.
Bring to the table? If they actually made the table computer (the ORIGINAL Microsoft Surface), that'd be great. A computer that doesn't get in the way.
Unlikely that Microsoft will do anything big in the hardware market; they're struggling enough with smartphones as it is, despite their best efforts (Windows Mobile is supposedly pretty awesome, and they bought Nokia).
I guess my problem is that they kept it like a watch instead of a new device and it likely constrained their innovation.
I had seen some band designs, even the MOTO 360 did "if it has to look like a watch" better. Don't get me started on Apple's bling look that started with that Gold iPhone. Its as bad as gold emblems on low end cars, all we need now is gothic/roman lettering
Same; for me it was mostly a practical reason though, my wrists started to hurt from computer work and the strap (metal one) was annoying against the edge of my laptop, so I had it off most of the time. Of course, if this thing proves to have added value (and just notifications isn't added value for me, I don't get them that often and if I do they're not important enough to warrant having to check them at all times), I'd consider going back to watches - pulling out your phone to check the time isn't the most convenient of actions.
Miniaturization has come a long way, but there's no way this costs just $350 to make. Has Apple's strategy changed? They've always sold hardware at a healthy margin and made trivial amounts off software and music.
There are some really nice features here, I would probably buy one if I didn't prefer android so much. But is it so nice that it will drive iPhone sales?
... but every other review I've read (about 6 including these) has really hammered it on the battery being dead well before the day is over.
I'm sure there is some YMMV depending upon usage and a moto 360 might last me a full day personally (since I'm not a reviewer and wouldn't be doing... reviewer things with it all day), but I'm not willing to slap down $250 to find out when even the positive reviews say it has the weakest battery life of all the current crop of watches. I can wait until revision 2 hits to be sure that I only have to take the thing off once per day.
I feel like the next gen Moto watch will have the better SoC, much better battery life (as many Android watches already have) and higher resolution. And maybe more sensors. And hopefully match some of Apple's innovations.
I think I'm about a year from being able to join the bandwagon.
The watch-to-watch communication with all the sharing your heart rate and sending little pictures was the most Samsung thing I've ever seen anyone but Samsung do. Seriously, is there a real problem lurking around somewhere for which this is a solution?
The force sensitive display might be useful, I couldn't really tell from the coverage. At least one person there commented that they were having a hard time seeing the big difference between "force press" and "long press".
Is the "Taptic" feedback significantly different that the vibrating motor present on every other watch? I can't really tell, but I think functionally, vibration can already serve the purpose well enough, although the Apple implementation might be a bit more elegant -- I can't find enough information to say for sure.
I would say the Apple innovations here is mainly the digital crown. On every smartwatch, there's a lot of swiping around to do basic navigation, but there's not been a really good way to zoom in and out. Apple's implementation allows for apps like their photo demo to be more practical. I'm suspicious that they might be overusing it -- the idea of needing to zoom around to launch apps seems less like a good idea, but overall the novel input method is an innovation I'd say.
I assume they must have NFC in the watch to handle the payments system. That's (I think) novel among the smartwatch lineup, and maybe that's a thing that really catches on.
Mostly though, I think that the people who complained that Android Wear was just a mini cell phone on your wrist should be disappointed with the Apple Watch as well. I'm not one of them for the record, I'm wearing the Gear Live right now, and I quite like it. But I don't think Apple has revolutionized the smart watch. They've just made what looks to be a solid entry into the market.
> The watch-to-watch communication with all the sharing your heart rate and sending little pictures was the most Samsung thing I've ever seen anyone but Samsung do.
Haha, yes I thought the same thing too - communicating heart rates, hand drawn fish for sushi, 3 dots for asking lunch - that was _very_ un-Apple-y.
"But think of the teenagers! They will love this feature!" - words probably uttered at Apple HQ during the design phase that made Steve Jobs shake in his grave
And of course the one thing we've heard over and over for the past few years from Apple is "teenagers don't wear watches". Presumably one could also add, "teenagers don't have a grand in cash to spend on a phone/watch combo" as well.
I think the logical conclusion to draw here is that there was an elaborate "Trading Spaces" style bet in the Apple executive ranks on who could get Tim Cook onstage doing the most ridiculous product demo. Kudos to whoever won that one.
> The watch-to-watch communication with all the sharing your heart rate and sending little pictures was the most Samsung thing I've ever seen anyone but Samsung do. Seriously, is there a real problem lurking around somewhere for which this is a solution?
I don't know that it felt Samsung. When I heard about the feature I immediately thought of how I might use it with my wife and family. It basically takes the trivial communication you have with people close to you throughout the day and makes it more physical and less complex. I don't think I've gotten that feeling from Samsung features — that said, I don't really have any desire to wear this (or any) watch at all.
> The force sensitive display might be useful, I couldn't really tell from the coverage. At least one person there commented that they were having a hard time seeing the big difference between "force press" and "long press".
Yeah, I'd like to know more about this. It felt like one of the more clever features if it is actually distinct from long press. That is, if it can feel easily distinguishable from a press or swipe while still feeling intuitive, I think they will really have something.
> Is the "Taptic" feedback significantly different that the vibrating motor present on every other watch? I can't really tell, but I think functionally, vibration can already serve the purpose well enough, although the Apple implementation might be a bit more elegant -- I can't find enough information to say for sure.
Well according to the keynote the "Taptic" feedback unit can actually mark out directions on your wrist. That is, telling you to turn left or right when you come to an intersection purely through touch. So unless it's something stupid like "two vibrates for left, one for right" it might actually be something interesting.
> the idea of needing to zoom around to launch apps seems less like a good idea, but overall the novel input method is an innovation I'd say.
It sounds like you can do either. They mention tapping to zoom in on an "app neighbourhood" and tapping once again to launch an app. I also think the digital crown is quite clever — and it will be a very Apple-thing to pull off if they can make it feel truly one-to-one with the UI animations.
> I assume they must have NFC in the watch to handle the payments system.
I've read that the NFC payments through the watch will be tied to skin contact. So they will only work while the device is touching your skin. If you lose skin contact you'll have to re-enter your pin code next time you wear the watch to enable payments. Seems like a well thought out use case.
> Mostly though, I think that the people who complained that Android Wear was just a mini cell phone on your wrist should be disappointed with the Apple Watch as well. I'm not one of them for the record, I'm wearing the Gear Live right now, and I quite like it. But I don't think Apple has revolutionized the smart watch. They've just made what looks to be a solid entry into the market.
I agree. Though I'm a little disappointed that the Apple Watch attempts to be so many things.
I hope so. Just by switching to a Cortex A7 or A53 @ 22nm instead of Cortex A8 @ 45nm, this should add 78% more battery life (according to the benchmark of Ars Technica). And by having a round battery instead of a square one, 57% more capacity. So if this 360 lasts 12h, we're looking at more than 33 hours of battery life. But the 78% improvement with a Cortex A7 would be under heavy load, probably not the same story for IDLE usage.
Yes, bracelet attachment really makes a world of difference, I was shocked to learn that the 360 is "only" 11.5mm thick but looks much thicker than mechanical chronographs (routinely 15mm thick), and I've had multiple friends comment the 360 was a no-go due to thickness
For non-Mac users, the parent typed "(apple-logo)Watch". The Apple logo is only visible to mac (and iOS?) users because it's in the private use area on fonts on macs.
Yea--it's like they went out of their way to screw up the design? Tim should have taken off the watch and smashed it
on the floor--said sorry; we will be back!
You know, I was thinking the same thing. I think I prefer the roundness of the 360, than the rectangular Apple design. However, you won't catch me wearing either of them until you don't have to have a phone with you.
I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text messaging, and glancing at emails)...
> I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text messaging, and glancing at emails)...
The problem's these require extensive radio interaction/SoC, without a phone support (which can stream the information via bluetooth LE) you have to carry that in the watch itself.
Yeup. So wake me when this becomes a reality: I'm sure somone's patenting building a cellular antenna into a watch band as I type this. Plus, I'm sure 6G networks will be faster and require even less power....
Specifically, you need enough power to regularly transmit an electromagnetic signal on the order of miles that scales with the inverse square law.
Considering that they can't even get the battery life up without that requirement, it might be a while unless we make significant scientific breakthroughs in battery or wireless technology.
Considering that they can't even get the battery life up without that requirement, it might be a while unless we make significant scientific breakthroughs in battery or wireless technology.
"Both the Samsung Gear S and the Gear Circle will be available in global markets in phases through Samsung’s retail channels, e-commerce websites and via carriers beginning October."
But I never leave my phone behind anywhere and the way the watches work is quite brilliant in that they interface with your phone. They do everything you can do on your phone but at a glance, that's the whole point of them. They are small, easily accessible and harness the power of a larger device.
I fear that you might be representing too small a fragment of the market to get your desired product.
I love what moto did with their watch, the shape is great and the design is elegant. I personally dont like the shape of the Apple watch,but I'm waiting for more infos about battery life.
Actual Moto 360 owner here to dispel the two most common complains because I'm tired of hearing them parroted online. You'll find that you only hear them from people who've never actually used/seen the watch in person.
1. Battery life. The initial reviews complaining about battery life are simply inaccurate. I have ambient mode on (always-on screen) which is supposed to kill battery, and am easily getting a day out of this watch (ending 16 hour days with 20-30% remaining). I'm using the watch all the time to read emails, respond to messages, etc. If you don't believe me, check /r/moto360, you'll find a bunch of people who actually have the watch corroborating that the battery life is perfectly fine.
2. Size. I have tiny wrists and it looks great on my arm. Not too thick or too big at all, and very much on par with typical men's watches. The fact that it's very light helps too.
It's a fantastic device and I'm really enjoying it.
Thanks for the feedback; I'm now intrigued enough that I will at least try to find someone local to me that has one to get some real world impressions.
If the battery life is indeed a lot better than the vast majority of reviews are stating then Motorola really needs to get ahead of this message, because it would be foolish for them to expect most people to spend $250 just to try the device out when there is such a clear consensus of a major problem in the published reviews.
The size was never an issue for me because that's an easily measurable spec and I'm okay with the size as specced, but buying the device when almost all the reviews are telling me the watch will be dead in 12 hours represents a pretty big leap of faith, so if it really isn't an issue (other than PR), I do hope Motorola finds a way to get past it.
I saw a girl wearing a moto 360 on the train yesterday. This was my first sighting in the wild. She just looked like a normal fashionable girl wearing a "boyfriend" sized watch. I think the size argument is very much overplayed. Large watches are already the norm, which is nice for smartwatches that'll be unusuable at super-petite sizes.
I was really expecting, from a looks perspective, that the Moto would look like garbage compared to the Apple watch. Instead we got the opposite. A made a little write-up here:
Am I the only one who thinks the available/previewed watch faces don't match the intended goal of the device? This event was all about fashion, inviting all of the fashion journalists and talking about personalization. Not a single one of those watch faces look appealing, and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches. I think the design has potential when it gets a little bit thinner (v2?), but the previewed watch faces look absolutely awful to me. You'd think that would be the easiest part of building a super computer that fit on your wrist.
> and worst off they do nothing to shake off the "geeky" stigma attached to smart watches.
I disagree with you on this. For me, this smartwatch, like all the other recent ones, is everything but geeky. They look like they're designed for everyone except the techies (they probably are). I for one would love a smartwatch that gives the vibe of advanced, "hackery" technology.
I'm a nerd, and I'm sorry to be crude but NERD ALERT. A smart watch today starts at Geeky and works, laboring and awkwardly, towards generally acceptable.
If you think a smart watch by any manufacturer, at this early point, is everything but geeky you gotta get out of the office.
I was surprised at how bad the watch faces were. Motorola are the only ones to have done well in that area. Remember though that this device is still 4-6 months away so that's probably not the final software.
> You'd think that would be the easiest part of building a super computer that fit on your wrist.
That's exactly why the watch faces aren't fashionable. As with other forms of art, fashion isn't as trivial as many people, including geeks, seem to think it is. I don't believe it's as easy as picking what the default background should be for each OSX release, however I wouldn't be surprised if they were given closely equivalent development times.
You're not the only one; they look terrible. If they wanted to eschew the traditional watch function and show other detail on there that would be understandable, but to have half-hearted attempts at clock design like this as a central feature is inexplicable in an expensive accessory branded as a watch. Worst of all are the faces with an image (presumably user supplied) with the time carelessly plonked over the top right.
What I find most telling of the abdication of design here though is that they offer so many options and seem to expect you to choose what goes on your home and mash up lots of different features in some sort of customised design - sounds great, but in practice you'll have just enough choice to do something mediocre, and not enough flexibility to do something you love, unless you're a developer and can make an app.
This sort of interface needs to be designed, and this is something Apple should have absolutely nailed on something they called the Apple Watch, not left as an afterthought.
I liked the watch faces, but I think the iOS 7-style icon design looks terrible except on the colourful Watch Sport. Kind of how iOS 7 seemed to be built for the iPhone 5c. Seems very limiting.
As much ink was spilled about competitors' failures, it's interesting that this won't be available some until vague window next year, and needs to be tethered to an iPhone.
The interface looks interesting. The ridiculous draw pictures to each other bit, though -- what a gimmick.
A $350 watch is a too expensive, but $325 beats headphones are chill? When I walk through the seedier parts of town where most of the rent is paid in food stamps and wishes, I still see beats headphones.
Do they also counterfeit the ridiculous bass response in them? Or do they put decent drivers in them, like Beyerdynamic DT 770s with Beats logos on them? That'd be funny.
Watches are a fashion accessory and have a very wide price range. I consider watches under $150 to be low end, under $400 to be middle end and above that to be high end.
Headphones are different because (until Beats) they were mostly about function and not form. You can get very good sounding headphones for under $100, which is why people whine about Beats being so expensive. Beats's innovation wasn't making good headphones, it was making headphones into a fashion (so they could charge a lot).
Yes, seriously. Beats headphones didn't add anything new to headphones except looking cool (and mostly because of the brand name and not because they look particularly good). None of the Apple products you mentioned were like that—they all added significant innovative features in addition to having a beautiful form. The hipness of the brand followed that instead of leading it.
Perhaps, but it is a five minute app. For Apple to spend minutes on the concept of communicating via finger drawings on a tiny screen borders on bizarre. I will say that if Samsung or LG demoed something like this, they would be widely and rightfully mocked. I'm not saying that in a polarizing "camps" perspective, but that people are often surprisingly uncritical of Apple.
I wonder if it was the way it was presented? That one weird Samsung S3 (?) release presentation was odd and strange, and weird. I said weird twice.
With Apple, they appear to present things differently. Perhaps it is because you can't hear Jony Ive smiling when he talks? He sounds like a robot, so it must be a logical thing to do?
Really? I thought that looked like one of the neatest things about it. I imagine that people will find all sorts of creative ways to use it for quick communication.
That's probably my biggest gripe. If me and my gf both had one then sure, I'd send her a heart every now and then however cheesy it may be.
But the fact is, she has a Nexus 5, I have an iphone. Considering so many of the watch's features are dependent on the iphone, it makes a lot of sense to say that you're unlikely going to see anyone have an apple watch if they don't also have an apple phone. It's not a truly standalone product, it's very much an accessory working in sync with your phone. That means that the apple watch is a niche (smartwatches) within a niche (iphone owners, are relatively few) and so I doubt this will really take off. Like facetime. I've used it every now and then, but compared to skype, facebook calling, viber or indeed just text on whatsapp, it's a tiny tiny tiny part of my usage.
That's why I think this thing is gimmicky. Until every watch has it and it's just a third-party app that allows you to send messages between any platform, apple or android watches or anything else.
Do you think finger sketch messages will show up in iMessage on iPhone, iPad and iPod touch (and maybe OS X via laptop touchpads)?
Suddenly, hundreds of millions of people have it.
(If they don't do this, how is it going to deal with sending a message to someone who doesn't have an Apple Watch? Just show "(!) Message not delivered"?)
I think that's what they're going to be working on for the next three-to-six months. Probably it's not great at the moment and they're desperately trying to get it up to something respectable like a day, but don't want to announce anything in case it proves impossible.
I've always wished there was some sort of one bit communication for "want to get a drink?" or "want to go for a bike ride?" or "want to watch the redskins game?"
How cool would it be to vibrate someone's wrist with a martini glass saying implying that I haven't seen you in a while and want to go get a drink. No need for email, calling, texting anything. Just so simple, ping someone and say that I want to see them.
Without context and metadata, I cannot fathom how finger-drawn pictures could convey data clearly, much less those done on a 1" screen. If someone got a picture of a fish, as demonstrated, for instance -- presuming they actually recognize it as a fish -- are they really going to think of sushi? That seems like a bit of a reach, a tonne of narrative adding context that the picture most certainly doesn't add.
I've done the drawn picture thing. It isn't new, and many messaging clients have supported it for literally years (ICQ supported it in the 90s). And when it was added everyone sent pictures around, and quickly (very quickly) it was completely forgotten.
> How cool would it be to vibrate someone's wrist with a martini glass saying implying that I haven't seen you in a while and want to go get a drink. No need for email, calling, texting anything.
At best, "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. If you haven't seen me in a while and I get a poorly drawn martini glass picture, I'm not going to think, "Cool. Drinks with AlwaysBeCoding." I'm going to think, "what the hell is this picture of an ice cream cone with a marble in it?"
In comparison, texting "Drinks tonight?" is faster to type, faster to understand, and has some vague hope of conveying the intended message. And both show up on the watch.
Pictures might be acceptable to your significant other. If one of my friends sent me one, I and the rest of the group would spend the next 10 minutes brainstorming unflattering nicknames to forever annoint him with.
>At best, "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. [...] Pictures might be acceptable to your significant other.
Isn't useful to you? Personally, I find this immensely useful. I don't know of any other device to communicate with the significant other in such an intimate way. This is precisely what I wanted. You might understand it better when you're in a relationship but spend a lot of time away from each other. Of course pictures and taps mean much more than texting. Of course it's fun to invent your own sign language. If you don't have a use case for this watch, it doesn't mean it's not “useful”.
Funny you should mention it, but I currently live about 10,000 kilometers from my girlfriend. And like I said, it's maybe an OK thing between partners. I think it's a stupid gimmick that would immediately get old even then, but that's it. You should not send a cutesy picture in lieu of an actual message to anyone else.
> I'm going to think, "what the hell is this picture of an ice cream cone with a marble in it?"
Only because this isn't currently a common type of communication. You'd instantly understand it if it were more standard.
> If one of my friends sent me one, I and the rest of the group would spend the next 10 minutes brainstorming unflattering nicknames to forever annoint him with.
Whether you're into smartwatches or not, this doesn't seem like a very friendly personality. You're really going to get this up in arms because a friend sent you a picture-based message?
You're reading me wrong. I wouldn't be up in arms about it -- I'd be giddy at the prospect of giving my friend shit over it. As presumably, my friends would be for me if I sent them sketches.
I have to be honest. The draw pictures to each other was actually something I want. My wife and I usually devolve our texting sessions into a series of emoticons. The ones on Kakaotalk are pretty hilarious and we frequently use them.
TBH I think the gimmicks are just tech demos - they've got the API's ready for it (apparently), and I can really see this device take off with app developers.
How do you know? I couldn't find that on Apple's iWatch page. (Not doubting it, everyone is saying it, but I'm just wondering where it is or if it's just an assumption.)
859 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 876 ms ] threadThe more I think about it it more I think this watch isn't aimed at me...
Actually, was there anything on the ipod product line?
* Samsung Gear - $199 [1]
* LG G Watch - $179 [2]
* Pebble Steel - $249 [3]
[1] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=samsung_gea...
[2] https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=lg_g_watch_...
[3] https://getpebble.com/steel
Compared to the existing precedent of smart watch prices, Apple's watch is $100 more expensive than the next highest priced model. This is, of course, what Apple does with all of their hardware, but whether it's unsurprising or not it's still a factual and relevant point to make.
They're generally intended to last a lifetime, however long that is, and possibly be left to heirs.
It might have minor scratches but that's it.
A smart watch will probably not even power on 5 years from purchase (due to bad battery); or be able to pair with your phone (new phone OS might not be backwards compatible).
And chances are that's just the glass face, which takes minutes (and a few bucks) to replace.
The body may have some minor scratches, but I think it only adds to the charm.
This will be interesting to watch (sorry!) over the coming years.
They've had the $199/$299/$399 price structure for the newest iPhones for more than 6 years.
I'm calling a $50 price drop for version 2 after this thing doesn't quite hit sales numbers.
Price generally doesn't go down with Apple devices, but they'll gladly sell you an older gen device for a discount.
$199 might fly. $350 is too damn high.
That's better than the few hours some people are getting with the Moto 360, but it's not great. Let's hope it's at least one day consistently.
I'm interested to see the reviews. I wonder if they've reached too far.
Because I hate how that thing looks - it looks sort of like a cartoon, like something from WALL-E.
That's really interesting way to phrase it. if tables were turned would you say the same thing or would it be Google responding to apple or worst, Google copying apple?
There were a lot of speculators who should be humbled by putting the "iWatch" on a pedestal before it was even released. I personally don't like the way it looks, though Apple considered something interesting, that not everyone's wrist is huge, and made 2 versions (Android Wear OEMs can of course counter this by flooding the market with 'choice')
My original reply was referring to the fact that even though Google came to market with its wear device first (years ago with glass and months ago with on the watch) it's still being called a response to apple's non existent (at the time) product.
however if tables were turned and google were to release its first wear product months from now, after apple, NO ONE would call apple's watch a preemptive response to Google's wear. It would either be reported as Google copying apple or best case scenario Google's response to apple's innovation.
eg. No one called the original iPhone a preemptive strike on Android.
Apple watch certainly has qualities though. It's exciting to see how the market will develop now that all parties have opened their cards.
[1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/2fxe2t/its_hideous/?s...
Cue poor Microsoft sobbing in a corner
I guess my problem is that they kept it like a watch instead of a new device and it likely constrained their innovation.
I had seen some band designs, even the MOTO 360 did "if it has to look like a watch" better. Don't get me started on Apple's bling look that started with that Gold iPhone. Its as bad as gold emblems on low end cars, all we need now is gothic/roman lettering
You can only wonder if Steve Jobs would have allowed this to be released as well.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/20/police-say-ios-7-a...
I'm sure there are interesting use cases, but my summary view is this seems like a current-generation iPod with a wristband.
No prediction of how successful it will be, but I kind of think this will be more niche than mainstream.
There are some really nice features here, I would probably buy one if I didn't prefer android so much. But is it so nice that it will drive iPhone sales?
Shame about the battery life, though. Please fix that Motorola, I want to give you my money so bad, but cannot do it until you fix the battery life.
http://www.theverge.com/2014/9/5/6108947/moto-360-review
OTOH, gizmodo says the battery life isn't quite that bad:
http://gizmodo.com/moto-360-battery-life-test-so-far-not-as-...
... but every other review I've read (about 6 including these) has really hammered it on the battery being dead well before the day is over.
I'm sure there is some YMMV depending upon usage and a moto 360 might last me a full day personally (since I'm not a reviewer and wouldn't be doing... reviewer things with it all day), but I'm not willing to slap down $250 to find out when even the positive reviews say it has the weakest battery life of all the current crop of watches. I can wait until revision 2 hits to be sure that I only have to take the thing off once per day.
I think I'm about a year from being able to join the bandwagon.
The force sensitive display might be useful, I couldn't really tell from the coverage. At least one person there commented that they were having a hard time seeing the big difference between "force press" and "long press".
Is the "Taptic" feedback significantly different that the vibrating motor present on every other watch? I can't really tell, but I think functionally, vibration can already serve the purpose well enough, although the Apple implementation might be a bit more elegant -- I can't find enough information to say for sure.
I would say the Apple innovations here is mainly the digital crown. On every smartwatch, there's a lot of swiping around to do basic navigation, but there's not been a really good way to zoom in and out. Apple's implementation allows for apps like their photo demo to be more practical. I'm suspicious that they might be overusing it -- the idea of needing to zoom around to launch apps seems less like a good idea, but overall the novel input method is an innovation I'd say.
I assume they must have NFC in the watch to handle the payments system. That's (I think) novel among the smartwatch lineup, and maybe that's a thing that really catches on.
Mostly though, I think that the people who complained that Android Wear was just a mini cell phone on your wrist should be disappointed with the Apple Watch as well. I'm not one of them for the record, I'm wearing the Gear Live right now, and I quite like it. But I don't think Apple has revolutionized the smart watch. They've just made what looks to be a solid entry into the market.
Haha, yes I thought the same thing too - communicating heart rates, hand drawn fish for sushi, 3 dots for asking lunch - that was _very_ un-Apple-y.
I think the logical conclusion to draw here is that there was an elaborate "Trading Spaces" style bet in the Apple executive ranks on who could get Tim Cook onstage doing the most ridiculous product demo. Kudos to whoever won that one.
I don't know that it felt Samsung. When I heard about the feature I immediately thought of how I might use it with my wife and family. It basically takes the trivial communication you have with people close to you throughout the day and makes it more physical and less complex. I don't think I've gotten that feeling from Samsung features — that said, I don't really have any desire to wear this (or any) watch at all.
> The force sensitive display might be useful, I couldn't really tell from the coverage. At least one person there commented that they were having a hard time seeing the big difference between "force press" and "long press".
Yeah, I'd like to know more about this. It felt like one of the more clever features if it is actually distinct from long press. That is, if it can feel easily distinguishable from a press or swipe while still feeling intuitive, I think they will really have something.
> Is the "Taptic" feedback significantly different that the vibrating motor present on every other watch? I can't really tell, but I think functionally, vibration can already serve the purpose well enough, although the Apple implementation might be a bit more elegant -- I can't find enough information to say for sure.
Well according to the keynote the "Taptic" feedback unit can actually mark out directions on your wrist. That is, telling you to turn left or right when you come to an intersection purely through touch. So unless it's something stupid like "two vibrates for left, one for right" it might actually be something interesting.
> the idea of needing to zoom around to launch apps seems less like a good idea, but overall the novel input method is an innovation I'd say.
It sounds like you can do either. They mention tapping to zoom in on an "app neighbourhood" and tapping once again to launch an app. I also think the digital crown is quite clever — and it will be a very Apple-thing to pull off if they can make it feel truly one-to-one with the UI animations.
> I assume they must have NFC in the watch to handle the payments system.
I've read that the NFC payments through the watch will be tied to skin contact. So they will only work while the device is touching your skin. If you lose skin contact you'll have to re-enter your pin code next time you wear the watch to enable payments. Seems like a well thought out use case.
> Mostly though, I think that the people who complained that Android Wear was just a mini cell phone on your wrist should be disappointed with the Apple Watch as well. I'm not one of them for the record, I'm wearing the Gear Live right now, and I quite like it. But I don't think Apple has revolutionized the smart watch. They've just made what looks to be a solid entry into the market.
I agree. Though I'm a little disappointed that the Apple Watch attempts to be so many things.
The band connection to the very bottom is really too bad, it makes the watch look extremely thick.
The Swiss are going to sleep well tonight.
I really wanted to like this?
I'm thinking Minimum Viable Phone (or communications device) that I can wear on my wrist when doing thing, and have some casual interactions with text messaging, and glancing at emails)...
The problem's these require extensive radio interaction/SoC, without a phone support (which can stream the information via bluetooth LE) you have to carry that in the watch itself.
Considering that they can't even get the battery life up without that requirement, it might be a while unless we make significant scientific breakthroughs in battery or wireless technology.
"Both the Samsung Gear S and the Gear Circle will be available in global markets in phases through Samsung’s retail channels, e-commerce websites and via carriers beginning October."
http://fr.aliexpress.com/item/Intelligent-Bluetooth-watch-mo...
http://www.samsungmobilepress.com/2014/08/28/Samsung-Gear-S-...
Edit: replaced link
I fear that you might be representing too small a fragment of the market to get your desired product.
1. Battery life. The initial reviews complaining about battery life are simply inaccurate. I have ambient mode on (always-on screen) which is supposed to kill battery, and am easily getting a day out of this watch (ending 16 hour days with 20-30% remaining). I'm using the watch all the time to read emails, respond to messages, etc. If you don't believe me, check /r/moto360, you'll find a bunch of people who actually have the watch corroborating that the battery life is perfectly fine.
2. Size. I have tiny wrists and it looks great on my arm. Not too thick or too big at all, and very much on par with typical men's watches. The fact that it's very light helps too.
It's a fantastic device and I'm really enjoying it.
If the battery life is indeed a lot better than the vast majority of reviews are stating then Motorola really needs to get ahead of this message, because it would be foolish for them to expect most people to spend $250 just to try the device out when there is such a clear consensus of a major problem in the published reviews.
The size was never an issue for me because that's an easily measurable spec and I'm okay with the size as specced, but buying the device when almost all the reviews are telling me the watch will be dead in 12 hours represents a pretty big leap of faith, so if it really isn't an issue (other than PR), I do hope Motorola finds a way to get past it.
http://nothingjustworks.com/android-may-have-just-won-the-sm...
I disagree with you on this. For me, this smartwatch, like all the other recent ones, is everything but geeky. They look like they're designed for everyone except the techies (they probably are). I for one would love a smartwatch that gives the vibe of advanced, "hackery" technology.
I'm a nerd, and I'm sorry to be crude but NERD ALERT. A smart watch today starts at Geeky and works, laboring and awkwardly, towards generally acceptable.
If you think a smart watch by any manufacturer, at this early point, is everything but geeky you gotta get out of the office.
That's exactly why the watch faces aren't fashionable. As with other forms of art, fashion isn't as trivial as many people, including geeks, seem to think it is. I don't believe it's as easy as picking what the default background should be for each OSX release, however I wouldn't be surprised if they were given closely equivalent development times.
What I find most telling of the abdication of design here though is that they offer so many options and seem to expect you to choose what goes on your home and mash up lots of different features in some sort of customised design - sounds great, but in practice you'll have just enough choice to do something mediocre, and not enough flexibility to do something you love, unless you're a developer and can make an app.
This sort of interface needs to be designed, and this is something Apple should have absolutely nailed on something they called the Apple Watch, not left as an afterthought.
The interface looks interesting. The ridiculous draw pictures to each other bit, though -- what a gimmick.
FIFY. At $349 a pop, I doubt you want to cruise in college with this on the wrist.
Headphones are different because (until Beats) they were mostly about function and not form. You can get very good sounding headphones for under $100, which is why people whine about Beats being so expensive. Beats's innovation wasn't making good headphones, it was making headphones into a fashion (so they could charge a lot).
MP3 Players are different because (until Apple iPod) they were mostly about function and not form.
Phones are different because (until Apple iPhone) they were mostly about function and not form.
Tablets are different because (until Apple iPad) they were mostly about function and not form.
Smart watches are different because (until Apple Watch) they were mostly about function and not form.
It's not hyperbolic to say that the company redefines categories.
With Apple, they appear to present things differently. Perhaps it is because you can't hear Jony Ive smiling when he talks? He sounds like a robot, so it must be a logical thing to do?
Maybe they will start using Watches instead of doing this:
https://www.google.es/search?q=bridge+padlocks&newwindow=1&h...
Seriously, I can see it being used, but it's still very gimmicky.
But the fact is, she has a Nexus 5, I have an iphone. Considering so many of the watch's features are dependent on the iphone, it makes a lot of sense to say that you're unlikely going to see anyone have an apple watch if they don't also have an apple phone. It's not a truly standalone product, it's very much an accessory working in sync with your phone. That means that the apple watch is a niche (smartwatches) within a niche (iphone owners, are relatively few) and so I doubt this will really take off. Like facetime. I've used it every now and then, but compared to skype, facebook calling, viber or indeed just text on whatsapp, it's a tiny tiny tiny part of my usage.
That's why I think this thing is gimmicky. Until every watch has it and it's just a third-party app that allows you to send messages between any platform, apple or android watches or anything else.
Suddenly, hundreds of millions of people have it.
(If they don't do this, how is it going to deal with sending a message to someone who doesn't have an Apple Watch? Just show "(!) Message not delivered"?)
I could see this as being popular with teens though, especially with the haptic feedback aspect.
It's time to bring it back.
I sold my Palm 3 the other month. Not sure why anyone wanted that thing, but it was a sad day nonetheless.
I've always wished there was some sort of one bit communication for "want to get a drink?" or "want to go for a bike ride?" or "want to watch the redskins game?"
How cool would it be to vibrate someone's wrist with a martini glass saying implying that I haven't seen you in a while and want to go get a drink. No need for email, calling, texting anything. Just so simple, ping someone and say that I want to see them.
I think it's a bigger deal than you realize.
I've done the drawn picture thing. It isn't new, and many messaging clients have supported it for literally years (ICQ supported it in the 90s). And when it was added everyone sent pictures around, and quickly (very quickly) it was completely forgotten.
It's a gimmick through and through.
At best, "cool" is all it is. It certainly isn't useful. If you haven't seen me in a while and I get a poorly drawn martini glass picture, I'm not going to think, "Cool. Drinks with AlwaysBeCoding." I'm going to think, "what the hell is this picture of an ice cream cone with a marble in it?"
In comparison, texting "Drinks tonight?" is faster to type, faster to understand, and has some vague hope of conveying the intended message. And both show up on the watch.
Pictures might be acceptable to your significant other. If one of my friends sent me one, I and the rest of the group would spend the next 10 minutes brainstorming unflattering nicknames to forever annoint him with.
Isn't useful to you? Personally, I find this immensely useful. I don't know of any other device to communicate with the significant other in such an intimate way. This is precisely what I wanted. You might understand it better when you're in a relationship but spend a lot of time away from each other. Of course pictures and taps mean much more than texting. Of course it's fun to invent your own sign language. If you don't have a use case for this watch, it doesn't mean it's not “useful”.
Only because this isn't currently a common type of communication. You'd instantly understand it if it were more standard.
> If one of my friends sent me one, I and the rest of the group would spend the next 10 minutes brainstorming unflattering nicknames to forever annoint him with.
Whether you're into smartwatches or not, this doesn't seem like a very friendly personality. You're really going to get this up in arms because a friend sent you a picture-based message?
How do you know? I couldn't find that on Apple's iWatch page. (Not doubting it, everyone is saying it, but I'm just wondering where it is or if it's just an assumption.)