> My week and a half wearing an apple watch has taught me one big lesson about watches. A watch is only secondarily used to tell time... Watches are actually social signifiers more than time pieces, fitness trackers, or notification screens, they communicate the wealth and status of the wearer.
I have Pebble and I disagree with this comment being about all watches or even all smart watches. The Pebble is comparatively inexpensive compared to the Apple Watch and, for me, that is one of the biggest selling features. I'm much happier strapping a $200 smart device to my wrist than a $450 one. The Pebble also has a very hacker-friendly SDK. If it's a social signifier, it basically tells everyone that I'm a big geek.
That being said, I don't disagree with this comment as applied to the Apple Watch -- it seems exactly what Apple is going for.
I was commenting that a large percentage of men feel uncomfortable wearing jewellery, but they make an exception for watches.
Watches have always been about tech - mechanical tech, but one of the things about wearing a traditional watch is you get to carry around a tiny piece of amazing engineering. That it can also be used to tell the time is just a bonus :)
I think male jewellery is in a similar situation to male cosmetics. Businesses have been trying to figure out how to get men to wear cosmetics for sometime (generally without much success). If someone works out how to convince men to wear cosmetics they will make a fortune.
Yeah, I'm in mixed agreement regarding my Moto360. On one hand, like the author states, sometimes using it is "just OK". It's not something I couldn't live without but it's essentially a fun gadget that has some moderately useful features. Like you, I see any social connotations more along the lines of "hey, that guy likes tech and stuff".
I like the fact that I can easily design my own watch faces to look like just about anything (within the dimensions of the screen at least) and that appeals to my "graphics enthusiast" side. With a few minutes in Photoshop and Watchmaker I can make my watch look like a Fallout PipBoy, or something minimalist and artsy, or something classic, or something flashy and animated. You aren't just limited to the background image but can add different hands, different info displays, and several other things. If you don't feel like doing that, you can just download one of the hundreds that other users have shared online.
None of that stuff is life changing but it definitely appeals to me. Still, as you also mentioned, cost has a lot to do with it. The author mentions strapping $600 of tech on his wrist and on my budget I agree that this would be awfully extravagant. But my Moto was only $175 on sale which brings it a lot closer to the sort of minor luxury I like to splurge on every now and then. $175 for a watch may be a little redundant in this day of ubiquitous cell phones but having a little customizable info display on my wrist is pretty neat and won't break the bank.
"Watches tell the world about us, about what we find important and I am not sure my life is aligned with what the Apple Watch says about me."
That sounds like a joke from a bad sitcom. The writer used to be a circus clown, after all. That whole site is a running joke. See his other articles, such as "How I have been missing my commute". He seems to be satirizing the mindset of people who think that the Apple Watch is important.
I didn't get that at all, it sounded like a genuine review from a self-aware (or self-conscious) individual who used some introspection for context.
I definitely agree with the idea that there is social status/baggage that goes along with wearing a watch. I got a nice Citizen as a graduation present a long time ago and I used to wear it regularly, but was always uncomfortable when people would comment on it or ask to see it because I got the sense that the assumption was that I was showing off some status and to me it was just the watch my grandfather gave me.
I don't come from the performance side of life, but I've had a similar life experience growing up and becoming friendly with a set of people that cross-cuts a wide range of income levels, so I can understand how one group of friends may find it interesting, while another could find it pretentious and alienating.
In any case, I thought it was a though-provoking piece. My only criticism would be that it could use some proof-reading.
> I definitely agree with the idea that there is social status/baggage that goes along with wearing a watch. I got a nice Citizen as a graduation present a long time ago and I used to wear it regularly, but was always uncomfortable when people would comment on it or ask to see it because I got the sense that the assumption was that I was showing off some status and to me it was just the watch my grandfather gave me.
I don't understand why that would be uncomfortable? When someone would comment about it or ask to see it, you could just have responded "it's a watch my grandfather gave me as a graduation gift who has since passed away". Why would that cause social status/baggage issues?
Cause different people experience different situations differently?
Sure, I could have responded like that, or punched them in the face or just stared at them until they walked away or given them the watch as a gift since they liked it so much...
You're you and I'm me, you maybe you get uncomfortable when you see people making out in public, maybe you don't. Maybe you get angry when you see people litter, maybe you don't. Maybe you get uncomfortable when people compliment you, maybe not.
I'm sure you get the point... or maybe you don't? Assumptions are stupid and using them to make other people defend their subjective experiences of situations you have little insight into seems self-righteous and arrogant to me.
> The Apple watch is a reverse iPod, it is beautiful but not obviously more useful. When the first iPod appeared on apple.com in 2001 it was a completely new thing. It looked strange and people didn’t get it at first, but it was something I grokked almost immediately. Driving around the midwest in the 90s usually began with figuring out what I wanted to listen to before hand. My friends were good at this, they had huge books of CDs that we would swap out and listen to straight through; I ended up leaving a single Blur CD in the stereo for months. But with an iPod I could shuffle all of the music I had all the time. The device itself was kind of dorky and white, but what it did was amazing. I had been a apple fan for years at that point, but the iPod turned me into an apple fanboi.
I haven't bought the Watch but this describes my feelings as a consumer pretty well...so many people are afraid of looking like CmdrTaco on the iPod launch [1] that they don't want to doubt Apple...but the iPod, iPhone, and iPad launches were completely different...yes, you could doubt (like CmdrTaco did) that the products were worth the price, but they all aimed at ubiquitous use cases established by precedent (e.g. the Walkman vs the iPod). But with the Watch, Apple is taking a preexisting use-case -- basically, telling time and being an ornament of status -- and trying to turn it into a completely new usecase/need in our lives. If they struggle/fail, it's not so much out of incompetence or poor design as it is trying to win a not-worth-winning battle. I frankly hope it doesn't succeed here (and I say that as someone who currently owns 6 active Apple devices/machines) as I think the phone is enough of a portable notification hub/interruption in our lives.
It's not that no one has aired their doubts, it's that the mainstream has accepted that Apple, one way or another, is just right on this. Take a look at the New York Times tech review:
> Apple Watch Review: Bliss, but Only After a Steep Learning Curve
That review is filled with so many caveats and yet ends up being glowing because, I believe, of a strong faith in Apple's vision...if this had been the product of anyone else's, I think the reviewer would've been more confident in calling out the emperor's new clothes. Also, what I have in mind, are the press releases such as, by the NYT, touting that they've already built Watch-specific news delivery...as slow as the NYT moves on many things and untested markets, the Watch was not one of them: http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/31/new-york-times-will-deliver...
I don't know if that's the case in US or Western Europe, but that's exactly what iPhone does here in Eastern Europe.
It's a "hey look at me, I'm rich" signal more than anything. Most people can't afford it, given that there are no carrier subsidies in Europe and current generation iPhone costs between two and four monthly wages, depending on which part of Eastern Europe you are in. It can also fall and break at any moment, making it rather risky thing to own - you can't just have to afford it once, you have to afford it repeatedly.
I guess Apple learned it's lesson here and is now trying to do the same in the US with different device.
Well the Apple Watch doesn't cost 2-4 months wage for most US workers. At $500, even for someone on minimum wage it's not even 1 month wage after taxes. You have to get a pretty fancy one before it starts getting expensive.
Wealthy people DO use really expensive watches to show off, and the Apple Watch Edition serves that purpose. But for most watch buyers in the US, their watch is more of a fashion statement than a wealth statement. It's saying "Look at my great taste and sense of style." That's part of what the iPhone and MacBooks do in the US, and that's the goal of the Apple Watch here as well.
I think overall, though, the Apple Watch is failing at that goal in the US. Most people I know think it's only slightly less dorky and useless than Google Glass.
As are all gold watches. Apple's challenge in creating the Apple Watch is that a lot of their best customers already have fancy show-offy watches they prefer to wear, and for Apple to crack that market, they have to produce a version of Apple Watch for people who won't go out in public wearing a watch that costs less than $10,000. Yes, it's ugly, but even $17,000 is relatively cheap in the world of watches for the top 1%.
> At $500, even for someone on minimum wage it's not even 1 month wage after taxes.
If you ignore rent, utilities, food, that unexpected medical emergency, this months car repairs because you can't get to work without it, and you can't afford to save up to get a nicer car that doesn't always break down because of these constant repairs...
Dude. Come on. Reading comprehension. We were talking about cost vs. total monthly wages. Not about whether it's affordable for people on minimum wage. Obviously nothing is affordable on minimum wage.
At $500, even for someone on minimum wage it's not even 1 month wage after taxes. You have to get a pretty fancy one before it starts getting expensive.
This betrays a misunderstanding of how disposable income works. For monthly wages below some n (where is n is determined by the cost of living in your city), a person's disposable income is effectively $0. In other words, someone making $1200/month doesn't have twice as much disposable income as somebody making $0/month. They both have zero disposable income.
> current generation iPhone costs between two and four monthly wages
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"wage: a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis, made by an employer to an employee, especially to a manual or unskilled worker."
Thanks for the correction. However, the initial statement still seems off. According to http://www.ceepharma.com/data/2/average-monthly-gross-wage-i..., the average wage (I couldn't find stats on minimum wage) in Eastern Europe ranges from ~250 USD in Ukraine to ~1050 USD in Czech Republic, so the cost of a ~650 USD iPhone is between 2.5 weeks and 2.5 months of wages.
In Romania, the cheapest iPhone 6 is 736 euro, which is 4.5 times more than the minimum salary after tax or 2 times more than the average salary. But the average salary is skewed because we have a big income disparity. There are a few fields, like IT, that earn way more than the other fields.
Now, depending on his location, he'll have a different definition of Eastern Europe. If you're west of Romania, you'll probably say you're in Central Europe, that's usually the geographic definition. From what I can understand, for many people outside Europe, Eastern Europe means countries that were in the URSS' sphere of influence.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Europe, "The United Nations Statistics Division developed a selection of geographical regions and groupings of countries and areas, which are or may be used in compilation of statistics. In this collection, the following ten countries were classified as Eastern Europe: Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine."
I think a lot of the social stigma will go away as smartwatches proliferate. And the wondering of "what are these things for?" will get easier to answer as the Internet of Things builds out.
(To say nothing of weirdness like required phones, maybe-a-day battery life and not-always-on-screens -- those will be gone in a generation or three.)
But at the end of the day, all wearables will be primarily about fashion, for most people. Just as every other thing people wear is chosen, primarily, for fashion.
I think it's reasonable to be concerned about how others will perceive you when you wear an Apple watch, but this is a shallow and slightly breathless article.
I had similar concerns about having the watch be so conspicuous a signifier so I went for the space grey/black one. I've worn it in a lot of non-techie places and not that many people have even recognized it as an Apple watch, and those that do have been generally positively interested. I will also say that I mix with people at all economic levels (at least by U.S. standards).
I would be curious to hear the author deconstruct their experience more:
Is is other people's reactions they fear?
Is it having more money than some other people that embarrasses them?
Do they judge others for their choice of what to spend $600 on?
Have they actually received negative feedback? If so, have they checked it out to make sure they're understanding it?
The watch is pure utility for me. When I ride my bike I get turn by turn directions now, with many other side benefits. I went with the apple watch because I'm already entrenched in the apple ecosystem, otherwise I would consider android gear. I have never thought apple as a status thing. But that may be because most everyone around me has apple gear. (I live in the Bay Area and NYC)
> The Apple watch is a reverse iPod, it is beautiful but not obviously more useful.
As long as there have been watches, there have been watches that are beautiful but not obviously more useful.
This watch tells time, and it's beautiful. That's an excellent start for a watch-- and that's where most other watches end. I understand the Apple watch does a thing or two in addition to that.
Think of this as a watch, something beautiful that tells time, and shows excellent craftsmanship. Don't expect it to change your life.
Most watches I've seen have been extremely reliable in their operation. Most computers I've used have not, and Apple machines are no exception.
Which leaves me with the feeling that, if I wanted a watch for telling time, I wouldn't get one as complicated as an Apple watch, and if I wanted the extra utility, I wouldn't expect it to be as reliable as the alternative. I think it's the same bloat-avoidance instinct that drives people away from IDEs: don't get more than you will actually use, because you will probably end up paying for it in money, time, and frustration.
The reason I wear a watch is because it constantly sits on my arm reminding me about what great engineering is. And that is everything the Apple Watch is not.
(You can see the MacBook through the watch itself in the video. Yes, I know, it's not as technically amazing of an engineering accomplishment as the iWatch or whatever it's called - but it's got its own weight impressiveness. The iPhone Watch doesn't evoke the same feelings of awe and grandeur nor aspire towards the same emotions of perfection and regularity that a traditional watch would. Of course, the iWatch keeps better time than my automatic skeleton watch does, but who uses the iWatch to tell time, anyway? ;-)
To me the Apple Watch is over engineered. Good engineering is like ergonomics for your mind. When you find the most beautiful solution to a problem, you know it in your guts. But with the Apple Watch, looking at it I don't know what problem it solves, and I don't see anything in the design that intuitively maps to its function.
Try out a plastic pebble watch for a few weeks, you'll quickly understand the value of what a smart watch can do for you. At which point, you have to ask if it's worth the extra $300 or so to upgrade the features.
What I found a smartwatch does for me:
- More reliable notification of messages and alerts
- Tells time (!)
- Simple tools (like a countdown timer) which doesn't require pulling out, unlocking, and navigating the phone.
The first one is the only feature which isn't available in your average $20 watch, but it's such a useful feature that it's well worth the extra money to me. So many fewer missed messages, calls, and notifications, all without having to annoy those around me with my ringer.
I have to agree with his view point for the most part. I'm not a watch guy either and I think therein lies the hurdle for people like us. The watch has to introduce something really beneficial for us to want to try and get comfortable with wearing one and so far the current feature set doesn't have anything earth shattering... yet. I think there is much more to come but until then I don't think it makes much sense for current non watch wearers. Shameless blog link on my thoughts (http://macnotes.com/apple-watch-first-impressions/).
I have LG Watch (company gave it to us for Christmas), and I'm not a watch guy, but found it's purpose - It vibrates and tells me that someone's been calling me, I can also see the name right away and decide not to answer. Also it's kind of cool to tell you how much steps you've done, and obviously the time.
But it's far from perfect device. I would've been much happier with device that can last a month without charging using e-ink display (I'm very happy with my kindle paperwhite). I don't need colors, and can deal with slow screen refresh rate. But I can see it!
I have't worn a watch for at least 20 years. I can't remember a single case of wishing I had one to tell time or date. If your life revolves around computers the time is right in front of you constantly. With any kind of phone the time is also readily available. If you are watching TV you are one button click away from seeing time and date. Heck, even when I am swimming at the local olympic pool time is right there on the wall for everyone to see. I wear a swim watch while swimming but it stays in my gym bag when not in the pool.
To me this is conclusive proof that watches are jewelry rather than a necessary device. All the other uses are simply "toy grade". Now, if someone is into toys, that's OK, whatever floats your boat.
The same could be said for any flagship smartphone that arrived in last couple years - it's a couple hundred $/€ device in your pocket, while someone has a smaller monthly salary compared to that.
I would love a watch that can do what an IPod nano can; but the standard watch UI is just uncomfortable for that.
Why not have a screen that is flat to the underside of your wrist. You would use it with your hand held vertically swiping with the thumb on your other hand (preferably using the skin as a touch surface to keep the screen free). Then it could also be used for taking photos and selfies.
Many people that have tried wearing a watch that way - oriented with the face under the wrist (next to the palm), instead of above the wrist (next to the back of the hand) - have found the watch face comes into direct contact with all kinds of counters, tables, desks, and other hard surfaces that could scratch the watch's sapphire crystal face.
If you wear long-sleeve shirts then using the social signifier "feature" of a watch is entirely up to you. I've had a stainless steel Apple Watch for over a week now, and very very few people have actually seen it. I've made it a game to keep it hidden and as unobtrusive as possible, and it's surprisingly doable thanks to the Taptic Engine. In fact, that's one of the best "features" about it - the ability to reduce the negative social impact of digital devices (if that's your choice).
it doesn't do much stuff
it lasts less than 24hours
it is expensive. Don't tell me it's expensive for a watch because a watch is timeless whereas the iwatch will fade out of trendy in a few years when the new iwatch will come out.
I know the thing is going to be a success anyway, but I would never buy that for myself and I don't understand why people would, except for short trend.
I think we'll see the low-end price come down somewhat in future revisions of the watch. When it hits $199 or $149 or $99, it will stop signifying wealth.
As for its utility, meh, it's not for everyone. I'm on the fence about it. I expect I'll get one eventually, but I don't expect it to change my life. However, being able to track my steps without my phone in my pocket while also being able to get reminders and texts without having to get my phone out will be a nice benefit for me. When I'm mowing the lawn or doing renovation work on my house or riding my bike, it's a real pain to pull my phone out to silence an alarm or check that the text I just got isn't a server going down. The idea that the wrist-taps might be less likely to be missed than silent-mode buzzes from my phone in my pocket would be a big win. So I can see the watch being really useful for me personally, and probably not for everyone.
In the end, it's never going to be as functional as a phone (unless/until it can beam images directly into our brains). I'm glad the author pointed out the review that sums it up for me. This thing is a watch. It just happens to be a watch that can do a few more things, but you probably are going to want to use it about the same as you would a regular old watch. So, if you think paying $350 for a nice-quality watch that will likely last a few years is too much, then the Apple Watch will not be your thing.
I'm glad there are a lot of people who aren't on board with smart watches. I'm not one of them (I love my pebble and I would love an apple watch too) but to me it's a sign the computing revolution is maturing beyond device classes that target everyone to specializing into niches. Personally, I want an arm band to replace both my watch and phone, a device that actually has a chance of existing now as we cater to smaller and smaller markets.
Give it time. While the number of watch supporting apps is large, the apps designed specifically for watch have just barely started to appear. So judging its usefulness now is making a premature call with insufficient information.
65 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 132 ms ] threadI have Pebble and I disagree with this comment being about all watches or even all smart watches. The Pebble is comparatively inexpensive compared to the Apple Watch and, for me, that is one of the biggest selling features. I'm much happier strapping a $200 smart device to my wrist than a $450 one. The Pebble also has a very hacker-friendly SDK. If it's a social signifier, it basically tells everyone that I'm a big geek.
That being said, I don't disagree with this comment as applied to the Apple Watch -- it seems exactly what Apple is going for.
Watches have always been about tech - mechanical tech, but one of the things about wearing a traditional watch is you get to carry around a tiny piece of amazing engineering. That it can also be used to tell the time is just a bonus :)
I like the fact that I can easily design my own watch faces to look like just about anything (within the dimensions of the screen at least) and that appeals to my "graphics enthusiast" side. With a few minutes in Photoshop and Watchmaker I can make my watch look like a Fallout PipBoy, or something minimalist and artsy, or something classic, or something flashy and animated. You aren't just limited to the background image but can add different hands, different info displays, and several other things. If you don't feel like doing that, you can just download one of the hundreds that other users have shared online.
None of that stuff is life changing but it definitely appeals to me. Still, as you also mentioned, cost has a lot to do with it. The author mentions strapping $600 of tech on his wrist and on my budget I agree that this would be awfully extravagant. But my Moto was only $175 on sale which brings it a lot closer to the sort of minor luxury I like to splurge on every now and then. $175 for a watch may be a little redundant in this day of ubiquitous cell phones but having a little customizable info display on my wrist is pretty neat and won't break the bank.
That sounds like a joke from a bad sitcom. The writer used to be a circus clown, after all. That whole site is a running joke. See his other articles, such as "How I have been missing my commute". He seems to be satirizing the mindset of people who think that the Apple Watch is important.
I definitely agree with the idea that there is social status/baggage that goes along with wearing a watch. I got a nice Citizen as a graduation present a long time ago and I used to wear it regularly, but was always uncomfortable when people would comment on it or ask to see it because I got the sense that the assumption was that I was showing off some status and to me it was just the watch my grandfather gave me.
I don't come from the performance side of life, but I've had a similar life experience growing up and becoming friendly with a set of people that cross-cuts a wide range of income levels, so I can understand how one group of friends may find it interesting, while another could find it pretentious and alienating.
In any case, I thought it was a though-provoking piece. My only criticism would be that it could use some proof-reading.
I don't understand why that would be uncomfortable? When someone would comment about it or ask to see it, you could just have responded "it's a watch my grandfather gave me as a graduation gift who has since passed away". Why would that cause social status/baggage issues?
Sure, I could have responded like that, or punched them in the face or just stared at them until they walked away or given them the watch as a gift since they liked it so much...
You're you and I'm me, you maybe you get uncomfortable when you see people making out in public, maybe you don't. Maybe you get angry when you see people litter, maybe you don't. Maybe you get uncomfortable when people compliment you, maybe not.
I'm sure you get the point... or maybe you don't? Assumptions are stupid and using them to make other people defend their subjective experiences of situations you have little insight into seems self-righteous and arrogant to me.
I haven't bought the Watch but this describes my feelings as a consumer pretty well...so many people are afraid of looking like CmdrTaco on the iPod launch [1] that they don't want to doubt Apple...but the iPod, iPhone, and iPad launches were completely different...yes, you could doubt (like CmdrTaco did) that the products were worth the price, but they all aimed at ubiquitous use cases established by precedent (e.g. the Walkman vs the iPod). But with the Watch, Apple is taking a preexisting use-case -- basically, telling time and being an ornament of status -- and trying to turn it into a completely new usecase/need in our lives. If they struggle/fail, it's not so much out of incompetence or poor design as it is trying to win a not-worth-winning battle. I frankly hope it doesn't succeed here (and I say that as someone who currently owns 6 active Apple devices/machines) as I think the phone is enough of a portable notification hub/interruption in our lives.
[1] http://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-ip...
http://readwrite.com/2015/03/19/apple-watch-expectations-dis...
http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/2015/mar/11/apple-w...
http://www.fastcodesign.com/3042987/you-guys-realize-the-app...
I too really wish someone would air their doubts.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/technology/personaltech/ap...
> Apple Watch Review: Bliss, but Only After a Steep Learning Curve
That review is filled with so many caveats and yet ends up being glowing because, I believe, of a strong faith in Apple's vision...if this had been the product of anyone else's, I think the reviewer would've been more confident in calling out the emperor's new clothes. Also, what I have in mind, are the press releases such as, by the NYT, touting that they've already built Watch-specific news delivery...as slow as the NYT moves on many things and untested markets, the Watch was not one of them: http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/31/new-york-times-will-deliver...
It's a "hey look at me, I'm rich" signal more than anything. Most people can't afford it, given that there are no carrier subsidies in Europe and current generation iPhone costs between two and four monthly wages, depending on which part of Eastern Europe you are in. It can also fall and break at any moment, making it rather risky thing to own - you can't just have to afford it once, you have to afford it repeatedly.
I guess Apple learned it's lesson here and is now trying to do the same in the US with different device.
Wealthy people DO use really expensive watches to show off, and the Apple Watch Edition serves that purpose. But for most watch buyers in the US, their watch is more of a fashion statement than a wealth statement. It's saying "Look at my great taste and sense of style." That's part of what the iPhone and MacBooks do in the US, and that's the goal of the Apple Watch here as well.
I think overall, though, the Apple Watch is failing at that goal in the US. Most people I know think it's only slightly less dorky and useless than Google Glass.
If you ignore rent, utilities, food, that unexpected medical emergency, this months car repairs because you can't get to work without it, and you can't afford to save up to get a nicer car that doesn't always break down because of these constant repairs...
This betrays a misunderstanding of how disposable income works. For monthly wages below some n (where is n is determined by the cost of living in your city), a person's disposable income is effectively $0. In other words, someone making $1200/month doesn't have twice as much disposable income as somebody making $0/month. They both have zero disposable income.
There's a lot of not expensive things that people on minimum wage can't afford because it's not a living wage.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
"wage: a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a daily or weekly basis, made by an employer to an employee, especially to a manual or unskilled worker."
According to http://www.reinisfischer.com/average-salary-european-union-2..., minimum wage in Europe -- well, EU at least -- ranges from ~230 USD in Bulgaria to ~2600 USD in Luxembourg. An unlocked iPhone 6 costs ~650 USD.
So your lower bound is actually an upper bound: it's actually between 4 days and 2 months of minumum wages.
In Romania, the cheapest iPhone 6 is 736 euro, which is 4.5 times more than the minimum salary after tax or 2 times more than the average salary. But the average salary is skewed because we have a big income disparity. There are a few fields, like IT, that earn way more than the other fields.
Now, depending on his location, he'll have a different definition of Eastern Europe. If you're west of Romania, you'll probably say you're in Central Europe, that's usually the geographic definition. From what I can understand, for many people outside Europe, Eastern Europe means countries that were in the URSS' sphere of influence.
What?! Lies! I always got my phone on contract, there's tons of choices!
I agree about "Look at me, I'm rich!" part though.
(To say nothing of weirdness like required phones, maybe-a-day battery life and not-always-on-screens -- those will be gone in a generation or three.)
But at the end of the day, all wearables will be primarily about fashion, for most people. Just as every other thing people wear is chosen, primarily, for fashion.
I had similar concerns about having the watch be so conspicuous a signifier so I went for the space grey/black one. I've worn it in a lot of non-techie places and not that many people have even recognized it as an Apple watch, and those that do have been generally positively interested. I will also say that I mix with people at all economic levels (at least by U.S. standards).
I would be curious to hear the author deconstruct their experience more:
Is is other people's reactions they fear?
Is it having more money than some other people that embarrasses them?
Do they judge others for their choice of what to spend $600 on?
Have they actually received negative feedback? If so, have they checked it out to make sure they're understanding it?
As long as there have been watches, there have been watches that are beautiful but not obviously more useful.
This watch tells time, and it's beautiful. That's an excellent start for a watch-- and that's where most other watches end. I understand the Apple watch does a thing or two in addition to that.
Think of this as a watch, something beautiful that tells time, and shows excellent craftsmanship. Don't expect it to change your life.
Which leaves me with the feeling that, if I wanted a watch for telling time, I wouldn't get one as complicated as an Apple watch, and if I wanted the extra utility, I wouldn't expect it to be as reliable as the alternative. I think it's the same bloat-avoidance instinct that drives people away from IDEs: don't get more than you will actually use, because you will probably end up paying for it in money, time, and frustration.
http://imgur.com/nIPkSDm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQoskFuM_VU
(You can see the MacBook through the watch itself in the video. Yes, I know, it's not as technically amazing of an engineering accomplishment as the iWatch or whatever it's called - but it's got its own weight impressiveness. The iPhone Watch doesn't evoke the same feelings of awe and grandeur nor aspire towards the same emotions of perfection and regularity that a traditional watch would. Of course, the iWatch keeps better time than my automatic skeleton watch does, but who uses the iWatch to tell time, anyway? ;-)
What I found a smartwatch does for me:
- More reliable notification of messages and alerts
- Tells time (!)
- Simple tools (like a countdown timer) which doesn't require pulling out, unlocking, and navigating the phone.
The first one is the only feature which isn't available in your average $20 watch, but it's such a useful feature that it's well worth the extra money to me. So many fewer missed messages, calls, and notifications, all without having to annoy those around me with my ringer.
But it's far from perfect device. I would've been much happier with device that can last a month without charging using e-ink display (I'm very happy with my kindle paperwhite). I don't need colors, and can deal with slow screen refresh rate. But I can see it!
This page says CTO of Monsoonco is a different person: http://www.monsoonco.com/featured-article-in-infoworld-is-an...
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-hunzekerhesed/1a/361/320
To me this is conclusive proof that watches are jewelry rather than a necessary device. All the other uses are simply "toy grade". Now, if someone is into toys, that's OK, whatever floats your boat.
Why not have a screen that is flat to the underside of your wrist. You would use it with your hand held vertically swiping with the thumb on your other hand (preferably using the skin as a touch surface to keep the screen free). Then it could also be used for taking photos and selfies.
I know the thing is going to be a success anyway, but I would never buy that for myself and I don't understand why people would, except for short trend.
As for its utility, meh, it's not for everyone. I'm on the fence about it. I expect I'll get one eventually, but I don't expect it to change my life. However, being able to track my steps without my phone in my pocket while also being able to get reminders and texts without having to get my phone out will be a nice benefit for me. When I'm mowing the lawn or doing renovation work on my house or riding my bike, it's a real pain to pull my phone out to silence an alarm or check that the text I just got isn't a server going down. The idea that the wrist-taps might be less likely to be missed than silent-mode buzzes from my phone in my pocket would be a big win. So I can see the watch being really useful for me personally, and probably not for everyone.
In the end, it's never going to be as functional as a phone (unless/until it can beam images directly into our brains). I'm glad the author pointed out the review that sums it up for me. This thing is a watch. It just happens to be a watch that can do a few more things, but you probably are going to want to use it about the same as you would a regular old watch. So, if you think paying $350 for a nice-quality watch that will likely last a few years is too much, then the Apple Watch will not be your thing.