The Apple Watch

501 points by benigeri 11 years ago | 836 comments

While someone else already made the reference to this quote, it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments.

Personally I don't know that there's any watch that would really get me to start wearing watches at all again -- I never liked them that much to begin with. But this knocks down an awful lot of the criticisms I've had of existing smartwatches. The smaller Apple Watch is 38mm, certainly not small but by no means an irrationally huge behemoth. (Even the larger is only 42mm, I believe.) When you consider the three lines, two sizes, and multiple bands, there's dozens of combinations available. You may personally not like the fashion sense, but other than the Moto 360 this is the first smartwatch that's had a fashion sense to criticize. (And guys, the Moto 360 is 46mm, so let's not pretend it's svelte, either.)

But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. Yes, I'm sure every single component has an antecedent you can point to, just like the iPhone's interaction model. Except that nobody put it all together like that before the iPhone. And nobody put it all together like this before the Apple Watch.

I'm not so glib as to say that catcalls when Apple introduces a new product are a sure sign of success (I remember the iPod Hifi, thanks). But again, it's hard not to see a few recurring patterns in the responses: oh, look, it doesn't do everything that it could (or that competitors already do!) and it's too expensive. If it sells well, it'll only because of the Apple faithful buying everything.

And, of course, if it sells well, than within a year all smartwatches will adapt its interaction model. Other manufacturers will come out with variants that Apple isn't making, and we can move onto the evergreen phase of dismissing Apple as a company that just copies everybody else.

dkulchenko 11 years ago | |

But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else.

I strongly disagree.

I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here - they seemed to have approached the problem as "how can we make iOS usable on a smaller screen" and came up with interfaces like the crown and the (albeit pretty) circle-based homescreen UI to access apps to tackle those issues. Which is interesting, because they started off their presentation explicitly saying they didn't want to just scale down iOS.

Google, on the other hand, approached the problem of "how can we make wearables useful as a platform" rather than "how can we scale down Android" and created the intuitive cards interface (which, as a Moto 360 user, is remarkably convenient) and Google Now-based contextual awareness of info you need when you need it. Android Wear doesn't even have an app selector easily accessible, because they don't want you to use the watch that way - it's hard to hunt for apps on a tiny screen, so instead they push contextual information at you as you need it in an easy-to-use way.

I have high hopes for both platforms in the years to come, but I don't find Apple's watch design to be smarter or better thought-out as it is right now (and I'm typing this on a Macbook Air, so I have an appreciation for Apple).

DCKing 11 years ago | | |

These were my thoughts too when watching the presentation.

The ironic thing here is that Android Wear seems to be the simpler solution. Android Wear is an extension of your phone - a way to process information on your wrist.

Apple Watch seems to be another way to interact. They mentioned glanceable information as somewhat of a footnone during the presentation (although their implementation seems pretty good). They mostly seemed to focus on additional communication tools, an image viewer, setting up navigation on your watch, having "apps" on your watch. With Apple Watch there is a lot more going on than just contextual information.

Because of that Apple Watch seems to have more features. Those features may make it more useful, but they also might not. Those features do seem to make Apple Watch a more complicated solution. It's hard to see which of these properties make one better over the other, but it's interesting to see the approaches are really quite different.

MCRed 11 years ago | | |

I am old enough to remember when the first Mac came out. There was a response to it very much like you see here (only it happened on BBSes because there wasn't much of an "internet") then.

It's been the same way for every major product- iMac was chastised for lacking a floppy drive, the iPod, iPhone and iPad were all poo-poohed.

In every case someone has said "X is better!" And in every case so far that X has turned out to maybe have some particular features, or better stats for some particular stat, but not to be engineered to the level of the Apple product.

Particularly with the android example- the only way they were able to compete was to change from a blackberry copy to an counterfeit iOS interface. Which they did very quickly. I haven't seen anything innovative from Google since 2001 (unless you count gmail as innovative, which I would so, that's the exception.) Android is still a terrible, clunky piece of junk, even with so many years to copy Apple.

We'll see when the Apple watch is on the market - but really, Samsung and Googles watches so far have appeared to be basically copies of guesses of what apple was going to make (given that the Apple watch has been rumored so long) rather than genuinely well considered and innovative devices.

Kinda the way HP put out a "slate" computer at Comdex the year the iPad was announced, Balmer something to go up on stage and brag about and "beat Apple to market with".

I do really wish, if Google wants to compete with Apple, they did something innovative (Microsoft did with their Metro UI) or if not innovative, something really good.

But it seems that in the way that Apple doesn't quite "get" web services, Google doesn't quite get operating systems.

----

Edit: Use android regularly, unfortunately. Google maps in JS was pretty innovative, but I think that's part of the Gmail invention- e.g.: web 2.0. I give google credit for inventing Web 2.0. Or at least pushing it forward quite a bit.

roc 11 years ago | | |

> "I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here"

They took the "Microsoft" route.

They refused to make hard decisions about what was right for users and use of this unique platform and it's all pointed in a bad direction for that lack of focus, attention to detail and execution.

Smart Watches -- particularly those that require a smart phone -- have about 2 seconds before you hit the "stylus moment". [1] But the watch demo was oddly fixated on long interactions (the most difficult way to text emoji to date) and stupid interactions (browsing pictures on a 1" screen?).

The cases where watch-interaction makes more (or primary) sense [2] were given very little screen time, or mere lip service. And, oddly enough, those cases seem to have been given more thought and have more obvious, natural, direct, and thus better interactions [3].

Enabling those complex interactions, that are going to be inefficient and annoying, is going to lead to an avalanche of apps that similarly invite users to do things fundamentally ill-suited to a watch. Poorly conceived apps, lazily-ported apps -- The ecosystem as a whole is going to suffer for having that around. [4]

And then there's the interaction methods. iOS was a boon for computer use because it's so obvious, direct and natural. Many/most people never really got the hang of click vs double-click vs right-click. Many struggled with the core indirection of pushing the pointer around the screen with their mouse and the whole "scroll down to push the page up" mess (that only makes sense if you grew up on keyboard-only interaction and the also-awkwardly-named "page up"/down keys).

Apple sweated the details, stripped away the distractions and non-essentials, and they nailed it.

But what does the watch bring? Quick-tap vs long-tap vs force-tap? Are they kidding? Undiscoverable hidden interaction zones in corner(s?) or off-screen-swipes to execute features with no articulated conceptual logic as to "what goes where" or how the (in)existence of those features is even conveyed? Those demo controls showed more arcane gestures than a Harry Potter movie.

And the crown? It zooms the screen, except when it doesn't. It scrolls lists, except when it doesn't. It manipulates input controls, except when it doesn't -- and only if you apply the appropriate tap to successfully shift focus to the desired input. This is a mode-switching UX nightmare.

Stated plainly -- that watch, that demo? -- they blew it.

They've got a few months where they could course-correct. They've got a review step where they could filter out "bad" apps to protect the ecosystem from what they accidentally enabled (and encouraged by focusing the demo on it).

But I am not optimistic that a group who could green-light that demo is capable of discerning the difference. I think Apple's fundamental "taste" is in question. [5]

[1] Jobs famously stated "if you see a stylus, they blew it." The key here is that "blew it" doesn't mean "they made a bad tablet". It means "they never understood mobile or touch." They never understood that the use cases and ergonomics require a fundamental re-thinking of interaction. They never understood that you can't just port over things that worked somewhere else and only make sense given prior experience with something else.

[2] e.g. when the phone itself is less accessible (while exercising, while in-bed, while hands are collecting purchased items), thus giving you longer than 2 seconds before the "I might as well have pulled out my phone" moment. e.g. when direct use of the phone would defeat the feature (to use the watch as remote viewfinder/shutter release for the phone's camera).

[3] notification triage; workout/stopwatch/timer start/stop; simple location-based interactions like payments, unlocking a hotel room door, etc. It all looked far more sane/natural/straightforward.

[4] We all just saw what happened with Microsoft's odd mode-shifting app circus on their Surface tablets. If you enable the "conceptually new, thus more difficult, but right" interaction method and "conceptually familiar, thus easier, and wrong" interaction method, how many devs are really going to put in the work to get it right? Recent experience suggests enough devs will take shortcuts that your users will become frustrated and your ecosystem stained.

[5] I don't think Apple's taste is definitely gone. But the notion that Apple might be "coasting on momentum" is no longer something I can laugh off. Not on a core design level.

And an alternative explanation to "they're coasting" on momentum, is that the Watch is pushing iphone/ipad interactions where they don't belong because Apple's captured by their own momentum. And that's far, far worse.

msabalau 11 years ago | |

"Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work"

What's interesting to me is the extent to which the Apple Watch is designed to be interacted with, which contrasts strongly with Google's vision of wearables (both Android Wear and Glass) as assistants that are there when you need them, but which otherwise disappear so you can stay immersed in life.

grey-area 11 years ago | |

Taco's criticism of the iPod was that it didn't do enough - didn't have enough features, didn't have enough storage etc, and he was rightly panned for getting it wrong. Criticisms of the price or lack of features of Apple products historically have been proved unfounded (it's easy to lower the price and add more features). So I agree if someone says 'but it doesn't do x', they can easily be satisfied by later models.

In contrast, many of the criticisms of this watch centre on the incoherent design, awkward interaction with a physical scroll-wheel AND touch interface (which Apple are not even allowing people to try out in the demos), and the grab-bag of features added to it, apparently without thought about how they all interact. It looks like it does too much, and none of it well.

They can possibly rescue this mess in the time they have before launch by polishing the software, but I'm hesitant about the concept of this scroll wheel (what they call a digital crown), which they have now committed to for the long term, and sounds like it is going to be very awkward when combined with physical touches and on the wrist, and pointless if you also require users to touch the screen. It would have been far nicer just to keep this simpler and use swipes and taps, and not try to hobble it with a traditional 'watch' shape.

It really does feel as if no-one was in charge of the design here, and lots of different teams worked on different features, which were mashed together at the last minute, without someone to force them all to integrate properly. I do believe Apple is entering a new era now - becoming a larger more stable company, and is now led by an operations person (Cook), not someone obsessed with design and willing to take massive risks in pursuit of perfection (Jobs). That is starting to have an effect on the products they make.

Intermernet 11 years ago | |

I'll make this clear from the start. I'm not an Apple fan (for complex reasons... call it a falling out.)

That said, this is a beautiful piece of design. I think they've outdone themselves with this one, it's a truly wonderful device. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that it will only be a matter of time before we see the usual Samsung vs. Apple patent violation claims being thrown around again (despite any possible prior art etc.).

Personally, I still think the tech isn't quite compact enough yet, but we're only one or two generations away from a slim-line, waterproof, and functionally integrated piece of kit that will actually complement the existing tech. The integration with dive computers / cycling computers / sports cameras / personal drones :-) etc. could be incredible!

Hopefully Apple's entry onto the smart-watch scene doesn't end up mired in too many patent battles... I'd like to see these devices progress as fast as possible!

Bravo Apple design team!

pms 11 years ago | | |

This sounds like a comment from the Apple design team itself.

The Apple watch looks very common and cheap; the only good thing about its look is that it is highly personalizable.

MCRed 11 years ago | |

I believe the iPod HiFi was a success. The purpose of that product was to create a market for iPod docks. At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them. I bet Apple has made more money from "Made for iPod" licensing as a result of the iPod HiFi (which kickstarted that industry) than their gross revenues from the iPod HiFi.

So, maybe a failure as a product, because it stimulated competition that, if it hadn't come about would have left Apple with a %100 share of iPod docks.

But given how many iPod docks have sold, I'm sure that market would have been viable, even if only Apple were making them.

duskwuff 11 years ago | | |

There were already a lot of other iPod docks on the market when the iPod HiFi came out in 2006. Keep in mind that the dock connector was introduced with the 3rd-generation iPod in 2003 -- it's hardly as though third parties failed to notice the connector for those three years! The Bose SoundDock came out in late 2004, and it was hardly unique, either; this review compares it to several other similar products on the market at the time:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/bose-sounddoc...

threeseed 11 years ago | | |

Exactly. The iPod HiFi did its job perfectly. It was designed to stick a rocket up the likes of Bose, Pioneer etc to show that Apple could easily and successfully move into their markets.

scep12 11 years ago | | |

> At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them.

What?? The Bose SoundDock was product of the year in 2004 -- 2 years before the iPod HiFi came out. Apple was behind the times and completely missed the mark with the HiFi.

drzaiusapelord 11 years ago | |

>Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device

How are we measuring "more thought" now? Mega-Turings?

I think this statement is very unfair to Android Wear. A non-biased look shows some pretty innovative aspects at work and a usable design. Its also really unfair to claim that you know all about the Apple Watch when no one has one yet people have been using AW for months.

Spooky23 11 years ago | |

I think you're on the right track here.

The idea that Apple is putting out a vision where you can communicate with people nearby in non-verbal ways is really powerful.

You have a company that has managed to deliver an awesome mobile experience on for consumer and enterprise shipping a device that can do everything from payments to health monitoring to door access. That's a ridiculously powerful thing.

What android can or can't do technically doesn't matter. Google, samsung, etc can't make the relationships that Apple can right now.

deong 11 years ago | | |

The good thing is that we all should benefit. I've had NFC on at least my last two phones (maybe 3?), but the hardware is not ubiquitous enough to matter. I'm assuming that there's nothing locking the POS hardware into Apple Pay, and so NFC payments become a thing everyone can use.

untog 11 years ago | |

I've seen a lot of people bring up that infamous comment, but I don't think it proves much - if we say it applies to everything Apple does then it means that Apple are never wrong. They can be, and inevitably one day they will be.

baddox 11 years ago | |

The main difference between dismissing an iPod and an Apple Watch is that, disregarding cost, the latter asks for the fairly significant "lifestyle change" if you don't already wear a watch.

warfangle 11 years ago | |

Moto360 may not be svelte, but the attachment of the band is not at the edges - which make it fit better on smaller wrists like mine.

personZ 11 years ago | |

it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments

You should also remember that he was hardly in the majority with those comments. Further he was technically correct, and the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire (notably iTunes).

But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else.

How so? Google put, it seems, enormous thought and effort into Android Wear. It is a whole interaction and ecosystem built specifically for smart watches. Because Tim Cook gives some trite speech about not using a smartphone OS on a watch (this was, it is worth noting, not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet")?

You've tried to cover every possible Apple defense, so you seem pretty committed, but you have to understand that a lot of people are derisive because we've been hearing the Apple faithful railing about these same attributes of competitor devices for months. Announcing before availability, large and bulky, needs to be tethered to a device, square, and so on...I have to imagine all of those once liabilities will suddenly turn into strengths.

I love my Apple products, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach.

2xlbuds 11 years ago | | |

I completely agree, having watched this year's Google I/O panel on smartwatch interaction design, it is very obvious that Google has put an enormous amount of thought into their watch platform. They came to a fundamentally different conclusion for what a smartwatch should do, and I really enjoy the experience. The contextual information from Google Now is incredibly useful and it feels like my watch tells me not only what time it is, but information personally tailored to my lifestyle. For example, I always go out after work on Tuesdays, and right now my watch is telling me that there is lots of traffic on the way to my favorite bar. In the morning, it tells me how long my commute will be and what the weather will be that day. I can start navigation from my watch with my voice and get every direction as I need it. I can control any music player with notification support. I don't run any interaction-heavy apps on my watch, and I can't imagine ever wanting to do so. The thought of browsing a photo library or sending my heartbeat to someone seem like features for the sake of having features but in reality are completely unnecessary.

Eric_WVGG 11 years ago | | |

“the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire”

That is absolute crap. iTunes had no foothold to speak of in the marketplace. The notion of Apple having an "empire" at the time of the iPod’s release (or even at the time of the iPod’s mainstream success) was laughable.

chipotle_coyote 11 years ago | | |

Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." Both of these are trivially demonstrated false. And I'm sure Google has put thought and effort into Android Wear, but what you dismiss as a "trite speech from Tim Cook" looks to me like a stake in the ground. Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. This informs a whole lot of things about the way the UX works. The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way.

Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. As a general rule, everything everyone ever gets enthusiastic about can be safely dismissed as having first appeared in a Nokia product that all 27 Finns who bought it are still fanatical about. Also, it was probably implemented in Lisp.

girvo 11 years ago | | |

> but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach.

Its... it's a consumer electronics brand. I'll truly never understand how this stuff gets people so riled up. I mean, I used to get all hot and bothered when I followed smartphones (2006 represent!), but nowadays we're at a point where every gadget is just a riff on another gadget, and that's fine. Now no matter what brand I'm using, things just work they way I want them too, and that makes me happy.

wdr1 11 years ago | | |

> You should also remember that he was hardly in the majority with those comments. Further he was technically correct, and the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire (notably iTunes).

I think that's a very weak argument, as iTunes wasn't available for the PC market for years. The Mac market at that point was nascent and lots of people were buying iPods w/o the ability to use iTunes.

klausa 11 years ago | | |

>not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet"

The way Xcode (and iOS8) support dynamic layouts is nothing like Android.

Xcode 6 allows you to have multiple designs/constaints within the same UI file, for different screen sizes.

Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits all", which is no way similar to what's Apple doing.

___

Since I'm getting heavily downvoted, I'd like at least a chance to clarify.

I'm perfectly aware that it is technically possible to create universal tablet/phone Android app, with separate layouts for each. However, that's not what's usually being done.

I believe reasons for this for two-fold:

1. Google's initial message after introducing tablets didn't push hard enough for separate UI (or didn't at all) 2. Developers mentality

@2: I think it's just a different way that the two ecosystem operates. When Apple tells developers to jump, devs ask how high. When Google tells developers to jump, they go "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man".

DAddYE 11 years ago | | |

> How so? Google put, it seems, enormous thought and effort into Android Wear. It is a whole interaction and ecosystem built specifically for smart watches. Because Tim Cook gives some trite speech about not using a smartphone OS on a watch (this was, it is worth noting, not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet")?

Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing.

Don't get me wrong, I have an android phone (and the only one) however, I really don't get it. Seems to me that the only intent of google is avoid an Apple monopoly without trying to bring something on the table.

Android itself is barely okay, however if you add custom OEM modifications + carrier modifications (really carriers allowed to write software???) to me the matter become just about "flag".

morbius 11 years ago | | |

I think that it's too premature to judge whether this effort is more justified technically and subjectively than Android Wear or any other competing efforts from independent vendors. Apple's device won't be shipping for another several months, and the demo given at the keynote today hardly scratches the surface of what the product could potentially do.

There needs to be an identifiable niche that these smartwatches could work with, and they ought to be marketed to that niche to really sell the idea of wearing a screen on your wrist. Similar to how Microsoft is positing that the Surface is intended to be an artist's easel, it's perfectly plausible for Google to market Android Wear to musicians, athletes, and early adopters -- but I haven't seen that effort from them yet. I get glimpses of this marketing approach from Apple's newfound moxie, but it still feels like everyone who makes a smartwatch is trying to sell it to everyone, which seems short-sighted given most people do not wear physical timepieces anymore.

There is potential -- but not now. Early smartphones were hollow and unfinished (yes, even the iPhone). Form and function will get better as time goes on, and there might be a legitimate use-case for devices such as these.

megablast 11 years ago | | |

> but you have to understand that a lot of people are derisive because we've been hearing the Apple faithful railing about these same attributes of competitor devices for months

I think this is unfair, it isn't Apple people railing against this, it is everybody. And they will be again, in a couple of days. A lot more was expected of Apple in this arena, and it looks like they have not delivered the watch everybody was after.

EGreg 11 years ago | | |

Do you think that voice and language will ultimately be the main way to interact with a watch, given the limited screen real estate?

moogleii 11 years ago | | |

I'm curious what your defense is to their success with the non-Apple faithful, though. That always seems to be left unsaid. The good ol' common "marketing" play from the Android diehards may have accounted for some of its success, but I think it's immensely dense to attribute a large proportion of Apple's current (and recent past) success to it (you might get to fortune 500 with that, but getting to #1 wealthiest company in the world solely on marketing is a bit of a stretch, at a certain crossover point you'll need actual good product). In fact, I would call that the counter-distortion field among the "Android faithful." Somehow, as people love to point out, on paper, Apple devices are underspec compared to the competition. But they do well anyway. "MARKETING! The zombie sheeple faithful!" Of course, I'm not saying you believe it's purely marketing, but I raise that just to give example of the other distortion field.

As you have pointed out, the iPod succeeded because of synergy with iTunes (though many of the replies to your comment raise excellent counterpoints, and I think it's revisionism to call what Apple had back then as an empire - like many others back then, we were 90% dismissively sure Apple was going to file for bankruptcy soon). I partly agree with you, but I disagree it was due to iTunes as software, because, quite frankly, iTunes has and still sucks. The iPod succeeded because Apple made sure to have business deals in place with the big dogs of music and to offer individual tracks for (at the time) very cheap prices. You may recall, but CDs were kind of a rip off at that point, and the music industry wanted to charge quite a bit more per track.

The iPhone itself succeeded because Apple coordinated with carrier(s) while requiring certain conditions - no pre-installed apps, and design autonomy. Recently, it's been trying to coordinate with the cable networks to get Apple TV some traction (though I believe they failed). With Apple Pay, it coordinated with all the major credit card carriers. To me, it is that kind of planning that shows Apple's commitment to polish. I could be wrong, but Google seems to be more on the "here's our plan, we'll open it up, and hopefully people (and other corporations) flock to it. But if not...well, we have our bread-and-butter search to subsist on." It's worked with some things, and it hasn't for others. Google Wallet and Google NFC payments may have come out first, but they seem to be dead in the water. But hey, my swiss army knife has more attachments than yours, right?

> but you have to understand that a lot of people are derisive because we've been hearing the Apple faithful railing about these same attributes of competitor devices for months.

My experience is pretty different. I don't really hear the "Apple faithful" very often, short of online journalists. In terms of actual end-users, the Android house seems way more vocal, and usually in two buckets: "we had it way before!" or some kind of flock of sheep comment. Take a visit to r/technology on reddit, and do a search on Apple, then do a search on Android. The negativity is no where near 1:1.

For all that noise, I must cite my favorite tech blog: http://anandtech.com/show/8414/a-month-with-the-iphone-5s/. I believe this is far fairer than most of the vitriol you'll find out there.

As for the watch? I think it looks bulky, just like all the other smartwatches. I'm skeptical about its battery life, which they seemed to have not mentioned. But I gotta admit, the feature set looks pretty polished to me.

krisgenre 11 years ago | | |

Very true. Look at iOS - it never had home screen, no widgets and no home screen pages. Apple watch seems like its trying to include all these, it would have never made sense to put iOS on a watch.

Android on the other hand has had all of these and has been working on various kinds of devices for quite long ( guess fragmentation has a brighter side too ). It does make sense to put it on a watch ( obviously with some design changes ).

yalogin 11 years ago | | |

Hard to stomach? That's a curious choice of words. Do you think Google or Amazon would not do the same marketing and try to create the same kind of hype around their products if they can? You are saying you can see through the clutter but it looks more like you are biased against company that was successful in their execution.

n09n 11 years ago | | |

The reality distortion field and the ability to spin those negatives as positives are features, though.

A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. How well it tells the time or does other things is much less important than how fashionable it is. Branding is one of Apple's strong suits, and you can't take that away by adding features as if consumer purchasing decisions are based on some kind of checklist-like RFPs like corporate drones are used to.

antr 11 years ago |

My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS. A sports watch without GPS, IMHO is a no go at $350. For <$300 I can get GPS, HR, ANT+, waterproof* and +20h battery life. e.g. Garmin Forerunner 910xt.

(I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance).

*Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.

wlesieutre 11 years ago |

"Maybe if we don't mention lefties, everyone will forget they exist"

Righty watches aren't a big deal for us to use because you only use the crown to set them, and you only set them twice a year. On the Apple Watch, you're going to use it all the time.

It's not even that I couldn't use my right hand, it's that I don't want a bulky $350 gadget permanently strapped to my left hand, which I frequently use for doing things. Great recipe for (best case) being irritating, or (worst case) getting smashed into stuff.

Maybe it can be rotated 180° to go on a right arm? It'd mean the button and crown positions are backward, but it'd be better than nothing. I see no mention of that option anywhere, so for now I assume you can't.

Either way, doesn't support the 4S, costs more than I'm willing to spend, and will hopefully get thinner in future releases. I'll jump on the smartwatch train eventually, but not with this one.

grumblestumble 11 years ago | |

I don't see why the face wouldn't be reversible - it detaches completely from the strap, and it's not like the software UI is going to be upside down - your phone can already handle that. The only difference will be that the crown is below the button.

wlesieutre 11 years ago | | |

Agreed, it just seems like something that Apple ought to mention. Can't find it anywhere on their website. And orientation changing makes sense for a phone feature because people switch between portrait and landscape, while this is a permanent setting that 90% of people would never touch.

It'd be a giant oversight for Apple though, and I'd be surprised if nobody on their design team is left handed.

fudged71 11 years ago | | |

NFC might also be tricky. It looked like you use the top/front of the watch to pay. I'm not sure if this would work in reverse.

pinaceae 11 years ago | |

it can be reversed, as mentioned by a couple of attendees of the event by now.

antimagic 11 years ago | |

ArsTechnica is reporting that lefties will be accomodated, but the strategy to be used was not clear.

georgemcbay 11 years ago |

Who would have thunk that of all the end-of-2014 smartwatches, the one that would make you look the least like a dork would be the one from Motorola?

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.

rebel 11 years ago |

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.

zmmmmm 11 years ago |

My biggest take away is that Apple has failed to advance the state of the art in any meaningful way here. I guess hype is always hype, but people really expected that Apple would do something that would knock this out of the park - a week long battery life, a flexible watch face, or a bracelet style 360 degree screen or something else that would just reset the whole space. It didn't happen. This device may sell well (or not) but it's basically a peer to the current entrants in this space, not a generation ahead like many people expected.

Kequc 11 years ago | |

I think you're overestimating the technology which is available today. These watches, while not my taste, are an incredible feat of engineering.

jamesrom 11 years ago | |

It's exactly one generation ahead.

markild 11 years ago | | |

How so? Genuine answer.

I fail to see what this offers that the other products in this space doesn't have. At least hardware-wise.

josefresco 11 years ago | | |

More like half a generation (if that). And by the time it ships, the lead in tech will be all but gone.

fidotron 11 years ago |

This is an intriguing situation because while the "No wireless, less space than a Nomad. Lame." comment will always haunt those that criticise Apple product launches this is the first one in years where the product looks more like it's actually the Nomad being mentioned, and the iPod has yet to arrive.

I'm going so far as to say that smartwatches and VR represent the desperate flailing of a tech industry that's run out of ideas that will connect with people. We had a good boom post iPhone, but this kind of thing just doesn't look like there's any point to it.

wiremine 11 years ago |

I spent about 20 minutes reading through some of the now 650+ comments, and I'm a bit surprised how common the arguments are on both sides. It feels like the entire tech community has the same basic argument every time a new 1.0 apple product is released:

Those who don't like the product:

- it is feature incomplete

- the hype doesn't match the actual product

- it doesn't actually look that great

- there are other, better products already on the market

- it is overpriced

- one or two interesting feature doesn't equate to "innovation"

And those who like the product (or love Apple) tend to have counter-points for each argument.

I'm curious if anyone has compiled a list of day zero critiques over the years for Apple successes (Mac, iPod, iPhone) or failures (Mac toaster, hifi, etc.)? It would be fun (and maybe a bit informative) for the community to review.

Edit: fixed spacing and wording.

gaoshan 11 years ago | |

I think you are spot on with this comment. The reaction to this watch is not substantially different from every other reaction to a major Apple product (or OS version or whatever else they announce).

It can be entertaining to read (got me interested in the Garmin Forerunner that was mentioned) but it's just people at a bar chatting about the topic of the day.

saturdaysaint 11 years ago | |

"I'm curious if anyone has compiled a list of day zero critiques over the years for Apple successes (Mac, iPod, iPhone) or failures (Mac toaster, hifi, etc.)? It would be fun (and maybe a bit informative) for the community to review."

As someone that's followed HN and gadget-news blog comments far too closely since the late 90's, I promise you won't find a single thread too unlike this one. The only exceptions, oddly, might be the iPod nano and the iPod touch, which caught the competition completely flat-footed.

The iPhone announcement brought out everyone that owned a Nokia N95 to tell us how backward we were for being mildly impressed. The iPad brought out yawns. Every iPod model was an overpriced Archos or iRiver.

presumeaway 11 years ago | |

You read 32.5 comments/minute?

That's a skill I'd like to have...

leoc 11 years ago |

Two small things:

* The product pages for the individual Watch lines, especially http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-sport/ , are the first time I can recall Apple using sex or (literal) sexiness in its advertising. (We'll pass over the "Rip. Mix. Burn." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECN4ZE9-Mo cringefest ...)

* I await Gruber's reaction with considerable interest...

eslaught 11 years ago | |

Regarding your first point, see:

http://adcontrarian.blogspot.com/2011/08/advertising-and-fut...

leonroy 11 years ago | | |

Don’t necessarily agree with everything in that article but it's remarkably prescient.

state 11 years ago | |

I found this really surprising too. Seemed quite out of character, really.

phirschybar 11 years ago |

To those who are concerned about mainstream adoption of a watch like this, I remind you of the Pebble Kickstarter which was one of the most successful in Kickstarter history. And all those contributors had no guarantee that the Pebble would see the light of day. There is serious demand for a watch that does even what the Pebble originally promised, which is still far far less than what the Apple Watch has now proposed to do.

I have been a Pebble watch owner for over a year, after having given up wearing watches around the time I owned my first cellphone. I have come to feel the same NEED of having my Pebble on as I, and everybody else, has with their phone in their pocket. All of the quirks of the Pebble and everything that I have come to realize is missing with the Pebble, is addressed elegantly with the Apple Watch. 'Canned' and voice responses to messages... Huge. A non-obvious alternative to the classic vibration (which is obvious to people nearby when using the Pebble) in the 'tap' technology... also clever and smart.

shrikant 11 years ago | |

Just fyi (happy Pebble owner since the Kickstarter), Pebble Glance now gives you the ability for canned responses to texts straight from the watch.

julianpye 11 years ago |

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 :)

crwll 11 years ago | |

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.

julianpye 11 years ago | | |

Unfortunately it is only a passive tag for pairing. You can't to do anything else with it, so it cannot read other tags itself.

tomelders 11 years ago | |

No touch ID though, that's still on the phone so.... I'm guessing payments won't be as useful on the watch, if present at all.

nardi 11 years ago | | |

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.

3pt14159 11 years ago |

Super disappointed with this. I was hoping for a bunch of sensors that fed my iPhone. Not something to discretely take meetings during a meeting.

Here is what is missing for me:

1. Sweat sensor.

2. Insulin sensor.

3. Smarter/more accelerometers to intelligently automatically detect what I'm doing. For example, if I start lifting 50 lbs in a dumbell bench press it should know that! My iPhone should auto update a fitness tracking app. If I start biking my normal "track" here in Toronto, it should automatically know that! So underwhelmed here.

4. No mention of emergency assistance "stuff", (like detection of heart attacks, or spiking insulin levels).

5. Some really stupid / weird features, although I do kinda like the shared heartbeat one. Would be fun on exercises / first date makeouts :)

arihant 11 years ago |

Here are my first thoughts (I kind of won't be doing device specific nitpicking as this is the first iteration. We are sure the concept will evolve with time):

Good things:

1.) The Tap-talk feature is an absolute genius for me. This, exactly this, is the perfect non-intrusive yet hyper connected way to intimately stay in touch with someone. Just tap on their wrist, so simple. Make a little scribble to show emotion, so beautiful.

2.) The digital crown seems very interesting. I know the concerns on this thread, but if you see the demo again, the nob is bigger and is fluid enough to rotate by rolling just one finger on it. We hate crowns on our watches not because we have to rotate them, but because they are hard to rotate. This one might be different.

3.) The built. It starts at $349, while Android Wear is at $250-300 range. But then this is sapphire glass with at least steel body. And their is mention of actually how a watch is accurate with time, something 3 other companies didn't do.

4.) Multiple sizes is a good thing. Small people, petite ladies don't like to wear big sizes. I like how adaptive this watch is with the sizes, materials, straps.

Now on to the awkward parts:

1.) They gave developers at least 4-5 months time to implement the tap-talk on Android Wear. By the time this watch actually comes to stores, it would be beaten down concept.

2.) They gave Android Wear manufacturers all the time to step up their game.

3.) The killer app, even in on-stage demos, seems to be the maps app. The Apple maps, unfortunately. That makes it profoundly useless wrist weight for anybody living outside of handful countries it actually works in. That gives Android Wear a terrible advantage.

4.) No GPS on watch. So basically I have to carry my phone in pocket during runs. There is already GPS apps which do that. So that makes this watch essentially a display.

5.) No word on battery.

6.) Apple launched a watch today. A week earlier Moto launched a better looking watch. This is a sentence I never thought I'd say.

Would I have bought it today if Apple launched it? Yes.

Will I now that Apple has given me months to think it over? No.

DominikR 11 years ago |

Even though I am an Android developer, I played with the thought of buying the iPhone 6 (the big one) and an Apple Watch, because Swift is kind of a reset for developers and I am very happy with my MacBook.

But now that I've seen the keynote, I've got some issues with the watch:

First of all, I feel it's too expensive, because those smartwatches are basically obsolete after a year. (at least to me)

It would have been good if Apple would allow those watches to be sent in and upgraded, especially for the version that uses a gold casing, which I suspect will be extremely expensive. (probably > $1000)

The design of the watch is not bad, but not good either. I would have no problem wearing it, but I don't like that rectangle look. (the Moto 360 looks better to me)

But on the other hand I like the navigation wheel a lot. I'm pretty sure that this alone will allow for more complex apps than what we see on Android Wear at the moment.

The new types of messages that Apple presented isn't interesting to me, but I can see the younger audience using it a lot.

wil421 11 years ago | |

>First of all, I feel it's too expensive, because those smart watches are basically obsolete after a year.

I felt the same way when introduced rMBP but the prices are going down. Hopefully, they will go down in the next couple years. Personally $200 would be perfect but $350 is too much especially when I can get a new iphone for less (with a subsidy from my carrier).

robmcm 11 years ago | |

Apple has a trade in option for iPhones, perhaps this will extend to watches, or perhaps the second hand market will be strong.

If not you can send it to cash4gold.com ;)

jroseattle 11 years ago |

I haven't worn a watch in at least 15 years. A good chunk of my friends and colleagues as well.

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.

Cthulhu_ 11 years ago | |

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.

nardi 11 years ago | |

This is an "iPod with a wristband" in the same way an iPad is a "really big iPod touch": not very much.

jroseattle 11 years ago | | |

Actually, wouldn't the iPad be a really big iPhone without a phone app?

oldmanjay 11 years ago |

i can't imagine this selling well, but i also couldn't imagine the ipad selling well and history showed i don't know what i'm talking about, so it'll probably be a huge hit.

tdicola 11 years ago | |

I'm with you--I thought the iPad was dumb and happily ate crow after using one. Looking at the Apple Watch today I'm scratching my head wondering what's the point and who really wants to be even more distracted by their devices.

themoonbus 11 years ago | | |

I had the same reaction to the iPad as you, and now am a very happy owner. Because of this, I now withhold my opinions until I can try out products in person, although I personally could never see myself owning a smart watch.

agscala 11 years ago |

The watch looks very nice indeed but starting at $350 is ominously steep especially since it requires an iPhone

kreutz 11 years ago | |

Watches aren't subsidized and there are thousands of dumb watches that people pay well over $350 for already.

Zikes 11 years ago | | |

The top three right now are:

* 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

darkstar999 11 years ago | | |

Those "dumb" watches will still work in 5 years. Hell, they will still be nice in 100 years. Smart watches won't hold up for 5 years.

xienze 11 years ago | |

This is why you don't buy v1 of Apple products. Guaranteed that the next version will be at least $50 cheaper... which still makes it too expensive.

MBCook 11 years ago | | |

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.

josefresco 11 years ago | | |

iPad? First gen was awesome, and they kept the price the same even to this day.

Price generally doesn't go down with Apple devices, but they'll gladly sell you an older gen device for a discount.

stock_toaster 11 years ago | |

Have you seen the price of higher end (fashion) watches? Even relatively "plain" ones without gold/jewels are not cheap.

TheOtherHobbes 11 years ago | | |

But this product isn't ostentatious enough or pretty enough for the fashion market, and it's way too expensive for the functional geek watch market.

$199 might fly. $350 is too damn high.

psbp 11 years ago |

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.

kayone 11 years ago | |

> preemptively responding to the Apple Watch

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?

nevi-me 11 years ago | | |

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')

NathanCH 11 years ago | | |

Every company copies Apple, even when Apple makes it afterwards. Didn't you know that?

ebbv 11 years ago |

The fact that this requires me to bring my iPhone on a run kills it as a sport watch. I can get a high quality GPS watch for $150 that doesn't require me to bring my iPhone.

Or if I am OK with bringing my iPhone I can just use it.

Dumb, dumb move on Apple's part.

greedo 11 years ago | |

Hopefully it won't require the iPhone to be present all the time. Perhaps there's a sync function to send the running/sports metrics to the iPhone. Today's presentation left a lot to speculation.

ebbv 11 years ago | | |

It doesn't have its own GPS, so it cannot be a functional running watch without your phone. It's really dumb.

k-mcgrady 11 years ago | |

Sure it might not be for serious runners but about half the people I see running have a phone strapped to their arm. If they also have the watch it means they can see the display while running and get more accurate data. For those people it's not a big deal. If you're the sort of person who buys a GPS watch of course it won't be for you. When has Apple ever catered to niche markets?

ebbv 11 years ago | | |

Yeah, that's exactly my point. I used my iPhone 3G for 2 years of running when I first started. Why would I blow $350 on an Apple Watch to get marginal gains that a $150 GPS watch can also give AND let me ditch carrying the phone. Which, arm strap or no, is bulky and at risk of destruction.

MatthiasP 11 years ago | | |

"When has Apple ever catered to niche markets?"

-Today, with the presentation of the Apple Watch.

pingec 11 years ago | |

Perhaps the sport version will be iphone-independent at least that's what I'd assume...

ebbv 11 years ago | | |

Nothing they've released so far indicates that it would be. You'd certainly hope so, though.

mladenkovacevic 11 years ago |

It's a little thick isn't it? But it's got a design that I can see evolving over time. Not bad for a square-ish watch.

Except I don't see any features that I need to plop over $350 for. In terms of health-related metrics the Basis watch is more feature-complete, and over half the price http://www.mybasis.com/

In terms of personal assistant features, Google Now takes the lead along with any smart-watch that takes advantage of it and Android-wear.

When the iPhone released, I believe the market was primed for a next-generation smartphone. I don't think this is true for wearables now. The Apple Watch will have a much touger climb than the iPhone ever did.

snowwrestler 11 years ago | |

I think the value proposition for the watch will build as the sum of many parts: style + health sensor + payment token + presence token + wrist comms + apps(?).

Think of it as sort of a persistent "me key" in a smart-connected world. But that world is still in its infancy, so the watch doesn't seem very valuable yet.

I think it's similar to the iPad in that there is not really a built-in value proposition. The iPad's value is 100% in its apps...but when it launched, there were not a ton of iPad apps.

In contrast, the iPhone was bringing a clear value prop from day one: phone calls, email, and iPod. But even then the real value prop took a long time to develop. Remember the keynote, when Jobs said "a phone... an iPod... an Internet communicator"? The first two got huge applause, the last one not so much. That term clearly confused a lot of people.

But if you look at how people use their smartphones now, it is by far the biggest portion of the value of an iPhone. Both phone and iPod functionality is being eaten by Internet services (VoIP and Spotify/Pandora).

rwhitman 11 years ago |

I started wearing watches on a regular basis about a year ago and it has become an addictive new hobby, I'm up to 4 now and feel naked without one.

The primary use-case for a wristwatch - being able to glance at your wrist to tell the time - is actually very underrated in it's usefulness. We forget that watches started out as a pocket device until the military started strapping them onto the wrist for practical purposes.

When the cellphone came around we abandoned 100+ years of natural design evolution in favor of the more powerful new technology, but when that tech starts to fit comfortably in the same place that was so natural for the last century it will be a sea-change in the way we look at wireless tech...

na85 11 years ago |

For me it's now official: Apple has ceded its position as an industry leader/innovator, and become a follower.

This is a really, really lame product.

terhechte 11 years ago | |

"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

http://beta.slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releas...

leoc 11 years ago | | |

I think the analogy probably doesn't stand up: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8293961 A better analogy may be what things would have been like if Apple had kept slogging it out in the handheld-computer market between '98 and '07.

lifeformed 11 years ago | | |

Yes, all Apple products are infallible now.

bhartzer 11 years ago |

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).

robmcm 11 years ago | |

This is very usefull for those people that keep our phones in bags rather than pockets.

The more I think about it it more I think this watch isn't aimed at me...

scj 11 years ago |

I wear a watch, but I think about it as jewelry, and incidentally as a time piece. And until there is a killer app for a watch, I will continue to do so.

Originally, I posed myself the question _if_ I would wear a smartwatch if there is no such thing as a killer app. The answer is yes, but _when_ is a better question. And the partial answer isn't about it being a smartwatch or dumbwatch, but about being an uglywatch or not.

I think this watch fails the uglywatch criteria. Which is an odd thought to combine with Apple.

chrissnell 11 years ago | |

This Apple watch is clearly not intended for people like you and me. You won't see James Bond wearing an Apple Watch and you won't see NASA strapping them around the sleeves of space suits like an Omega Speedmaster. This is another piece of electronics that will look as dated as a CueCat or dot-matrix printer fifteen years from now. A classic timepiece, on the other hand, will retain or gain value over time. I bought my Rolex Submariner for about $6000 in 2009. Just five years later, a new Sub costs close to $9000. The value of used Rolexes is even higher. I wouldn't be surprised if my watch has doubled in value.

The Apple Watch has its place: it's an alternative to a Suunto or Garmin training watch, or an everyday watch for people who wouldn't spend more than $500 on a timepiece. It's a fashion item but it's not jewelry. Like the original iPhone, its scarcity may create an initial aura of exclusivity but things will die down once you see a 14 year-old on the bus wearing one.

jawngee 11 years ago | | |

Rolex's are the worst investments in watch collecting. Rolex is highly susceptible to overshadowing, so even though a new one is more expensive than when you bought it, it doesn't mean your watch is worth that. It's worth even less if you didn't service it in 2013 and didn't keep the paperwork (Rolex's must be serviced every 3-4 years to maintain value).

Of course, that doesn't mean you can't find someone dumb enough to unload it on for more than you paid it, but a collector isn't going to give you that value for it.

The Rolex Daytona is the exception to this rule though, but Submariners are mass-produced and common for luxury watches.

Source: I collect watches.

ryanmarsh 11 years ago | |

This. It's a piece of jewelry first and a timepiece second. Until it appeals to the Breitling/Tag/Rolex crowd I'm not the target market.

computerjunkie 11 years ago |

My Two Cents : I love watches, but a smart watch is just not for me. I prefer the craftsmanship it takes to create a watch that is delicately engineered to give you the exact time and makes sure the timekeeping is always accurate.

This is what a watch is supposed to do, keep time.

I feel smart watches are somewhat a novelty at the moment. There is simply too much functionality involved in smart watches, although they say its been dumbed own. When I look at my wrist, I want a quick glance of the time and a small moment to appreciate what is sitting on my wrist.

The idea around of smart watches brings so many possibilities.But I don't feel they are solving actual problems.

Design - Motorola is a company that is so underrated in the industry, the [0] Moto 360 was something I expected apple to release.Its actually a nice looking smart watch which seems to complement your lifestyle. Trust LG to follow suit. Square dials are just unpleasant to look at, but that's just my personal taste.

Battery life is another no go for smart watches right now - What if I'm on getaway hike for the weekend where I need to check the time and a watch compass regularly? I can get a Casio G Shock for hiking trip that is solar powered for half the price.

Its still early days to judge from afar. A couple of years, a couple of generations, and the prices falls down as always then maybe I'll check it out.

[0] https://moto360.motorola.com/

jlangenauer 11 years ago | |

I'm with you. I love my iPhone, but it will be a cold day in hell before my wrist sports one of these.

That said, I'm certainly interested to see where it will go - especially, as someone else said - once watchmakers start dealing in tech rather than tech-makers dealing in watches.

computerjunkie 11 years ago | | |

once watchmakers start dealing in tech rather than tech-makers dealing in watches.

This couldn't have been said any better.

LiweiZ 11 years ago |

As the first step in watch market, Apple is in the right direction. Is this watch the ideal one we expect? Maybe not. Unlike others, they have found a path in design, but the logistics weighs more currently. So they are not able to go far at this moment. And the segment has attracted more and more competitors. It is not difficult to see they are struggling to balance the time to enter and their ability to offer an ideal product now. It's just the beginning.

Igglyboo 11 years ago |

really hate the curved look, bringing back memories of the 3GS. I thought we moved on to sharp corners.

laichzeit0 11 years ago | |

I'm so glad I'm not the only one on this. Really dislike the curved / beveled designs.

hatfieej 11 years ago | | |

I think part of the reason for the curve is to give the illusion that it's thinner than it really is.

Igglyboo 11 years ago | | |

The iPhone 6 is meh but I really dislike the look of the watch.

TheCoreh 11 years ago | |

Remember this is supposed to be worn. Sharp corners would hurt your wrist.

paul_f 11 years ago |

The iPhone only seems affordable because it is tied to a 2-year contract. Otherwise it would be $800 and Apple wouldn't sell anywhere near as many as they do.

At $350, I don't see how Apple Watch is going to crack the volume markets. Think 15yo girls.

gurkendoktor 11 years ago | |

I am pretty sure that many contracts will throw in a watch for a few $/month.

taude 11 years ago |

It's really a deal breaker that the watch needs a phone to be tethered. If I'm going to look at a map, I'm just going to use the phone that's in my pocket. Similarly, I don't really need a buzz notification into my wrist to know text messages are coming in.

Not to mention, even though it's an Apple design, it still looks like a nerd-toy.

joesmo 11 years ago |

It seems that the Apple Watch needs an iPhone nearby to do anything useful. This is extremely disappointing and a complete failure from the get-go. Essentially, Apple Watch just becomes a tool for those too lazy to take their iPhone out of their pocket. It's absolutely useless for exercising or other activities where one wouldn't typically carry a phone. That was supposed to be one of the main selling points and one of the main target audiences. As a runner myself, I can't see wasting any money on this unless it gets its own Wifi/LTE/Bluetooth/Storage capabilities and I can leave my phone behind. It seems Apple missed this quintessential requirement.

kumarm 11 years ago |

It is cheaper to tie iPad Mini to wrist than buy an iWatch :).

gpmcadam 11 years ago | |

And that's basically the same thing, too! /s

vermooten 11 years ago |

Also: why the hell do I need to see what the moon's gonna look like 6 days from now?

tdicola 11 years ago | |

Very useful feature for werewolves. This watch will be a hit in the Twilight universe.

leoc 11 years ago | | |

It's essential information when I'm smuggling rum, or planning my escape from lunatic asylums.

paul 11 years ago |

It's surprisingly unattractive, but I think people here may be underestimating the quality of the interaction design. Of course it's impossible to know without trying one, but they've clearly put some thought into it. The video is worth watching: http://www.apple.com/watch/films/#film-design

72deluxe 11 years ago |

I notice in all of the pictures and videos that the "crown" (nub on the side) is a render....? Kind of like all of Behringer's new product announcements: you see them on their website and they may or may not ever actually exist or get released. Does this mean they haven't finished it, or have rushed to get to appear to be in the market before it is swallowed up by Android watches?

mbca 11 years ago | |

Ever since the days of the original Firewire-only iPod, they've done 3D renders for extreme closeups like that. They are usually very accurate but still, it seems like it would be just a bit more honest to use a photo.

72deluxe 11 years ago | | |

I didn't know that - thanks. I suppose it would be difficult to show that rotating nub without animation.

prawn 11 years ago | |

Many of IKEA's catalogue images are renders now too.

blinkingled 11 years ago |

Tim Cook tried to make the Apple Watch his iPhone moment but it came across as off - the Watch really is nothing as revolutionary in any way shape or form as the iPhone was.

It is thick. They had to resort to gimmicks - communicating heart rates, drawing fish, three dots to ask for lunch(!) - to make it sound useful. The price is off by at least $100. They specifically danced around mentioning battery life - with these many features it might not actually be all that better than the competition - an area where Apple habitually shines.

The UI also looked complicated to me - two ways to control it - touch and the unimaginatively named crown thing. Which is again very un-Apple. (When the watch is on your wrist I kept thinking how easily am I going to find the crown. For a normal watch that thing is very rarely used and that too when it is not on the wrist.)

Not that I think SmartWatches are here to stay as a mainstream product but the little hope we had that Apple will knock it out the park with some must have feature - that hasn't panned out with the iWatch for sure.

_pmf_ 11 years ago | |

> the Watch really is nothing as revolutionary in any way shape or form as the iPhone was.

The iPod brought portable digital music collections to the masses.

The iPhone revolutionalized personal computing.

The Watch has exchangeable wrist straps.

jodrellblank 11 years ago | | |

The Watch is Siri, out of your pocket. It's http://www.dailymobile.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Michae...

lukeholder 11 years ago | |

The original iPhone was thick also when it came out. Wait till the 2nd revision.

I agree the price for the low end version is off but the high end versions I expect to be in the 1k-2k range.

blinkingled 11 years ago | | |

Of course the next iteration will be better - but I am not sure about the OG iPhone comparison - the market for SmartWatches seems to be entirely different. Feels like a niche fashion or fitness accessory at that price point. People badly wanted a great SmartPhone. Watches they can live without I think until there is a compelling use case for average consumer.

Those things are all OK compared to what's happening with the overall market but what bugged me is how very un-Apple like this was.

ChuckMcM 11 years ago |

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.

craigching 11 years ago | |

Apple Watch works with 5, 5c, and 5s. And of course 6 and 6+

digikata 11 years ago | | |

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.

fnayr 11 years ago | |

Works on as low as iPhone 5

anmonteiro90 11 years ago |

Main drawback is you need an iPhone in order to have one. Couldn't there be a version that didn't?

Cthulhu_ 11 years ago | |

I was hoping for an iPod Nano evolution myself, i.e. a standalone device that gets extras like GPS and connectivity when near your iphone, but alas.

Actually, was there anything on the ipod product line?

anmonteiro90 11 years ago | | |

Nope, no announcements at least

wvenable 11 years ago | |

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.

brianmcdonough 11 years ago |

It's amazing, the variety of attitudes and opinions on this thread. People don't spend this much energy arguing the fine points of war and yet, it really is just a watch.

The promotion is genius. Not sure about the watch, but if the chatter is any sign, it's already a success.

Rapzid 11 years ago |

My take away from the page is that it is entirely focused on cosmetics and construction. It seems loud and clear they are positioning this as a piece of designer apparel... I think Apple understands the most important thing most people in the market for a watch are interested in; How desirable it is to others. The whole page just talks about how hawt it is.

As others have mentioned, I believe Google has put massive thought into smart-watch interaction and how it integrates within your life as a utility. I'm not saying Apple hasn't. But I am saying Apple's watch sales are going to be crazy nuts. People have room for one watch as a fashion statement. If it's not going to be an Armani who do you think they'll go with?

nilsimsa 11 years ago |

The one thing I like about my current watch is that is is solar charged. I haven't had any issues with replacing batteries for nearly 7 years. I'm not sure if I'm ready to charge yet another device on a regular basis.

adamjs 11 years ago |

Two words: Universal Identity. That's the killer use-case that everyone is missing. The Apple Watch has an NFC-chip, internet connection, and an API-- this is going to happen. (They've already announced a partnership with W Hotels for the Watch to replace keycards in rooms.)

I think this would be super-convenient in the short-term but seems very worrisome in the long-term. My watch/phone/drivers-license is NOT me, and the more we rely on a single-point for authentication, the greater the potential for abuse and theft. More solutions need to be created.

exodust 11 years ago |

But we already know the time, it's on our phones? I don't get why anyone would buy this watch apart from trendy reasons.

I bet sales will be low. Body monitoring sensors are better off hidden I rekon, then you can wear any watch, or no watch, and your phone does all the interfacing with the hidden sensors. All this should be open technology too, compatible with any phone rather than tied down to one system. It's your body after all, our data's fate shouldn't be a corporation's monopoly money.

malbs 11 years ago |

At first I was thinking I had to have one of these. Then I read feature page where it subtly tells you that most of the functionality is based on being tethered to an iphone. What a pity.

LukeWalsh 11 years ago |

Glad they finally got rid of that hideous header on the homepage

wooyi 11 years ago |

I run and occasionally do sprint tris. I carry a phone for both riding and running as I use Strava to track and compete with others. The thing I'm excited about is that this watch has a HR monitor, which is what I would need as you train based on intensity.

Not to mention when you're stranded 50 miles due to a flat tire, you'll need that phone to call for a pickup.

Others have mentioned listening to music,..etc. (I don't)

Look - you're going to carry a phone everywhere you go on land.

paradite 11 years ago |

Any official site for WatchKit? I can't seem to find any.

k-mcgrady 11 years ago | |

I'm assuming it's part of the iOS SDK like GameKit, MapKit etc. So developer.apple.com/ios

edpichler 11 years ago |

This is just the first release of another killer product from Apple. To compare, the first iPhone did not have some basic features found in many cell phones, including stereo Bluetooth support and 3G compatibility.

I really believe that Apple will earn a ton of money, like in the first years of iPod or iPhone era.

And the watches market size, bigger than cell phones, computers and portable music. It's a pity to do not have this company listed here, on stock market of Brazil.

cowardlydragon 11 years ago | |

Seriously?

A killer product from apple innovates on battery life, form factor, materials, and especially software. At least some or all of those come into play to make for a superior product.

This is debatably better than the Moto 360.

Oh, and it's VAPORWARE, not being released until next year after Christmas.

I agree with others. This is a sign that Apple is no longer a leader in innovation. The glow of Jobs is fading from the company, despite how much I hate his beatification.

anmilo 11 years ago | | |

wait, you define vaporware as something that will be released within the next 6 months?

edpichler 11 years ago | | |

I'm sorry, it was just my opinion.

Could you please define innovation to us?

I also don't like beatification, but I know when something is good. The numbers of Apple talk by themselves.

danabramov 11 years ago | | |

I'm not sure you understand what vaporware means.

thomasahle 11 years ago |

Snapchat seems like the best suited form of communication for a device like this. I wonder why Apple didn't fit a camera into that huge black bevel..

gurkendoktor 11 years ago | |

Either Apple has left that for v2 just as with the original iPad, or people do actually find all these semi-hidden cameras creepy. I know I do (not a fan of Glass, either).

LeicaLatte 11 years ago | | |

True that. I find them creepy as fuck!

ars 11 years ago |

Are those actual photos on the home page or computer renderings?

Because I hate how that thing looks - it looks sort of like a cartoon, like something from WALL-E.

craigching 11 years ago | |

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.

deanclatworthy 11 years ago |

I was rather impressed but at 350USD and most likely 350e in Europe it's an expensive purchase. Still no word on battery life either.

MBCook 11 years ago | |

In the keynote they made mention that it's easy to charge each night, which probably means a day or two.

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.

r0fl 11 years ago |

Curious to see how much the solid gold model costs.

brian_cloutier 11 years ago |

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?

boyaka 11 years ago | |

How about paying thousands of engineers/designers $100k+ salaries to work on it for the past year?

taude 11 years ago | |

There's gotta be some expensive parts in there, like that sapphire screen.

asadotzler 11 years ago | | |

Sapphire screens that size are commonplace in real watches. I'm guessing that only added a few dollars to the BOM.

capkutay 11 years ago |

The only reason I want this watch is the exact features they were demo'ing:

Quickly respond to texts without having to pull out and unlock my phone

See who's calling me

Using the map to track where I am in a route

It seems like they nailed the low-hanging fruit and designed a pretty nice looking watch. Apple watch and the moto 360 both deserve credit for making smartwatches that don't look like total nerd gadgets

supernova87a 11 years ago |

Samsung's watch also needed a phone to work, and was just slightly clunkier. Why does Apple get such adulation in comparison?

Shivetya 11 years ago |

My biggest disappointment, they announced a product they cannot ship. I remember the good old days, ITS AVAILABLE TODAY. Now Apple is nothing than just what they used to lampoon, a creator of announcements; not products.

Perhaps we can hope they use the time to take the obvious feedback flowing in and make it right by launch

RyJones 11 years ago | |

This stymies people considering buying competitor watches for this Christmas season, which is the big reason to pre-announce.

__david__ 11 years ago | |

> I remember the good old days, ITS AVAILABLE TODAY.

You mean like the iPhone, which was announced at Macworld in January, 2007 and went on sale only 7 months later?

guywithabike 11 years ago | |

You have an impossibly selective memory. The iPhone was announced 6 months before it shipped, for example.

josefresco 11 years ago | |

As others have pointed out, similar lag times were seen with the original iPhone and iPad launches. Despite this, the small lag time for each iteration since has other people complaining: http://bgr.com/2014/09/10/apple-watch-release-date-analysis/...:

nardi 11 years ago | |

Others noted that the iPhone shipped 6 months after the announcement. The iPad shipped 3 months later.

Your entire comment is premised on a falsehood.

xienze 11 years ago | |

Eh, for the most part they're pretty good about releasing quickly after announcing, but that's because they've been producing the product in question for months overseas. In the case of the watch, clearly they didn't want any leaks and therefore they haven't started production yet.

n72 11 years ago |

For many watches are used as a signaling device. That is, an expensive watch indicates to people that you have money. I assume these people aren't going to downgrade to an apple watch. I don't know what percentage of watch owners this is or whether it could affect uptake, but it could be factor.

nilkn 11 years ago | |

While this might be true on one level, once you get into the realm of $350+ watches it can be very hard (if not impossible) for the casual and uninformed observer to guess whether a watch cost $500 or $5,000.

$350 is already more than most people spend on any watch, and that's only the entry-level price -- I imagine some of the more premium versions of the watch are going to be $500+, though that's just speculation. That's quite expensive for a watch for the vast majority of people I think.

orbifold 11 years ago | | |

I'm fairly sure chronometers start at >1000$ dollars and truly expensive watches use either expensive metals or gems to signal their value. Also there are no Rolex, Patek Phillipe etc. that have that price. Quartz watches are uninteresting as a status symbol.

prawn 11 years ago | | |

I think their premium watches may be more like $1k+ even.

buro9 11 years ago |

I haven't bought into Apple stuff too much, just an iPad and an Air. No iPhone, I have Android instead and my desktop is Linux.

Question: Is the phone a mere accessory to the iPhone, or can it stand alone or with any phone (inc' Android and Windows Phone)?

aianus 11 years ago | |

iPhone only

buro9 11 years ago | | |

Alas, and it looks really gorgeous too.

neil_s 11 years ago |

The linked to page made me wonder whether Apple had released a watch that was literally just a watch, just a fancy time-keeping device. Its not until you go one level up and go to features that it shows what the watch can actually do.

thearn4 11 years ago |

I can't help but think that there really is a hard limit on the number of powered electronics that a person is willing to routinely carry on their person, and that number is one. Am I alone in feeling this way?

ggchappell 11 years ago |

Beautiful page, but kinda worthless IMHO.

When I look at it, I'm wondering: what's the UI like for a computer that isn't much bigger than my finger? (And if it's any good, why isn't it front & center?)

callesgg 11 years ago |

I want a smart clock that looks like a clock not like a small wrist calculator.

Is that so hard?

teyc 11 years ago |

I'm surprised they haven't done a chunky smartwatch. That would provide plenty of battery life, and more room for electronics, while at the same time fill a bigger unmet niche.

72deluxe 11 years ago | |

Which niche would that be? People with bionic arms? Or weight-lifters? :-)

LeicaLatte 11 years ago |

As someone with 5 watches, I can't wait for this to release.

72deluxe 11 years ago | |

Do you have that many arms too?

LeicaLatte 11 years ago | | |

Are you saying you don't wish you had 5 arms? You must be a fool.

But the answer to your question is, I was gifted 4 of them once people saw that I wear a watch. Watches work like that.

72deluxe 11 years ago |

Does anyone else really like the subtle ways to share sketches / heartbeats? It kind of makes it more personal than just a Google Now / cards interface.

Nice touch (literally).

tdicola 11 years ago |

I worry this will be a massive target for theft. If someone sees you wearing an Apple Watch they know you have at least a $350 watch and $400+ phone on your person.

AshFurrow 11 years ago |

Pretty sure the title of this should just be "Apple Watch", which is the title in the browser. Apple considers their products proper nouns.

foobarbecue 11 years ago |

So, it's basically a tiny external screen for your iPhone right? Snore. Wake me up when they put cellular capabilities in there.

72deluxe 11 years ago | |

Won't it feel like you're in Knight Rider if you're talking to your wrist all of the time?

"Hey Kit! Prepare to meet me round the back of the house!" "MICHAEL. MICHAEL."

EGreg 11 years ago |

The Apple watch looks hot, but will it use a different store than the iOS store? Where is the info on registering apps for it etc?

robmcm 11 years ago | |

I expect there will be no stand alone apps, they will be extension to iPhone apps. Therefore you need an iPhone app with a watchKit module in it to use it on the phone.

cdnsteve 11 years ago |

My perspective is that the majority of the market already owns a smartphone. Companies are trying to get new gadgets out there in peoples hands to increase sales and keep the corporate machine rolling. The problem is, people are happy with just their phones. I think wearables will have a very very slow uptake, especially since they require you to have a smartphone in your pocket.

Someone call me when they get holograms to mass market, then I'll be interested.

T-zex 11 years ago |

Does it have an SDK for the third party apps?

jaredtking 11 years ago | |

Yes, it's called WatchKit. Supposedly you can create third-party apps, glances, and notifications.

doczoidberg 11 years ago |

serious question: Does this watch anything do what my phone in my pocket doesn't?

I can't see a benefit of using a smartwatch.

72deluxe 11 years ago | |

I think it complements your phone. So it is more convenient to glance at your wrist than rooting around in your pocket and getting your phone out, something some people find quite rude.

If the trends reversed and they shrunk phones (like they did in the 90s) and put a strap on them, then they could easily replace the watch. But then battery life would be abysmal.

guardian5x 11 years ago | |

You can quickly see notifications. I also cannot see myself using Maps or looking at photos on the tiny screen. I would pull out my phone to do that, which i would have to wear with me anyway.

gurkendoktor 11 years ago | |

Not for you and me, I guess, but most women have a large, crowded bag instead of pockets. Which also explains how anyone could ever carry a Note around.

ForFreedom 11 years ago |

Why do I have to buy a watch for my fitness, I can arm-band my iphone and have all the details.

cpursley 11 years ago |

This makes me want.... a regular watch with good battery life.

nodesocket 11 years ago |

There is even an 18 karat gold edition. Sapphire crystal, waterproof, imported leather from the Netherlands. It goes behind the technology, to also embrace some of the finer things that make a quality watch... Quality.

dheer01 11 years ago |

Steve jobs would have kept the configurations to only one.

darkstar999 11 years ago | |

Steve Jobs is dead.

pinaceae 11 years ago |

ths is using a system on a chip designed by Apple themselves - what the hell. they're going all in on chips. intel quo vadis?

fvdessen 11 years ago |

I would have been nice to have real photographs.

pasiaj 11 years ago |

Does anyone know what the lower button does?

thomasahle 11 years ago | |

They said it 'opens a view of friends that you can click on'. They only showed it briefly.

anant 11 years ago | |

It brings up a list of contacts that you can customize, to call, message or use the drawing thing with.

bg0 11 years ago |

I just wanted to swim with it... :(

vermooten 11 years ago |

I don't want my heart rate and other health data getting uploaded to Apple and anyone else. Big blocker for me.

freekh 11 years ago |

Was expecting something more than this from Apple - the vision seems to be the same as what google had for google wear. Hardware wise it is not much of an increment either (my opinion only of course). Then again, I didn't really get excited over the iPad either and that was a huge success.

Setting that expectation aside, I would be fine with something simpler if it:

- it was classy looking: thin and round, steel and real/sapphire glass - ideally something that looks like one of those simple swiss clocks from the 1960s

- had an e-ink screen

- had a gps, which I can turn on and off

- had bluetooth notifications in case my phone is near

- had bluetooth audio support; and

- had spotify support. And here I mean that I want to be able to play music which has been synced to my watch over bluetooth, a cable or while docked.

- had heart-rate monitor would also be a plus of course.

- has enough battery for at least about a week, unless I am using the gps (for 2-3 hours), in which case it is fine if I have to charge it afterwards.

Want to use it as a regular watch (with the occasional message/calendar notification and perhaps even daily weather updates), and as a music player and as a gps for when I am running/biking.

Pebble almost have it, but their watches are way too ugly (my view only of course), too large for my wrists (so says my partner at least) and they don't have the extras that would make me really want one. I guess Spotify would have to be a partner as well, but I have Spotify on my radio so I guess it is only a small step to something like this as well.

Should be possible with todays technology though I am not really into HW. In terms of processor-power it really only needs to keep track of time, draw the watch face every second, draw the notifications/menu/..., handle user input (could be buttons not capacitive) and play music (which probably is the most resource intensive thing, but an easy match for any modern SOC). So for processing, battery shouldn't be a problem. An e-ink screen is thin and does not require much power either. Bluetooth 4 LE chipsets are very power friendly I think, so I would imagine that should be fine as well. They are also fast enough (1 mbp/s) for syncing notifications and even for the occasional sound track sync (I don't mind waiting 5-10 minutes for an album). The gps doesn't really have to give me directions, only log my position and would be used only when I am running/biking, and as I said, should be possible to switch it completely off.

The battery could be in the (detachable) wristband - I think I have seen quite thin and flexible polymer batteries around on the internet (though I am not sure if they are thin/flexible enough). Could also have different looks on the wristbands so you get one leathery-looking (for normal usage) and one plastic looking (for sports) like apple did (liked that part though it is hardly innovative).

aikah 11 years ago |

meta : I'm glad the product pages dont involve using JS to fuck up scrolling,for once. This fad needs to go.

JustinBlaird 11 years ago |

Broken link

smackfu 11 years ago | |

Just CDN issues.

anmonteiro90 11 years ago | |

Up now

sremani 11 years ago |

Does it come with a kill-switch ?

personZ 11 years ago |

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.

freeasinfree 11 years ago |

I expect muggings for jewelery to be making a comeback.

photojosh 11 years ago | |

This will probably use Activation Lock as well.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/06/20/police-say-ios-7-a...

notastartup 11 years ago |

It would be nice if there was a watch which could do everything a smartphone can do. make calls, take photos and videos, instantly teach me how to fight like Jason Bourne on demand etc.

mgarfias 11 years ago |

The thought of the thing buzzing when one of serveral very talkative/verbose friends starts spamming me with SMSes drives me into a rage. And thats just thinking about it.

cowardlydragon 11 years ago |

To all of you criticizing the features, just remember:

It's vaporware.

__david__ 11 years ago | |

Vaporware does not merely mean "announced but not released".

drinchev 11 years ago |

Yeah okay, blah blah. I was at IFA Berlin 2014 and asked the SONY lady: "Hey what's the killer feature of your watch?". She said "It shows the time and tracks your steps!".

IMHO Apple Watch did a great job. I couldn't find any smart watch that have navigation ( although with a paired smartphone ) and a possible ecosystem of apps that can use it. The whole IFA ... nobody could offer this.

Althought, Of course it might be better, but Apple did a good job agains other tech companies in this field. Period.

disclaimer: I'm not that big apple fan boy.

cowardlydragon 11 years ago | |

Moto 360 is supposed to do navigation.

antidamage 11 years ago |

I've taken a hard look at every single smartwatch that's come out to date and found them wanting. I couldn't at any point bring myself to wear a device that needs to be charged every night and isn't "always on" yet doesn't have all the features I wanted. Little by little they got closer, but nobody had nailed it until Apple did.

I think it'll initially be seen as a superficial luxury, much like a smartphone. Then without much effort and without anyone noticing it'll become a device that's at first convenient to have and then inconvenient not to have.

I'm definitely getting an Apple watch and it'll take some amazing competition to steer me in another direction. I guess this means I'll have to get a Mac some time too.

marknutter 11 years ago |

I always measure the future success of a new Apple product by both the number and volume of negative comments related to. The greater the volume, the more likely it is to be successful. By all accounts, Apple Watch is going to be a smash hit.

wfjackson 11 years ago | |

How did that work out for Ping ?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1659306

marknutter 11 years ago | | |

Hardware

Crito 11 years ago | |

Do positive comments signify that the product will be a failure?

Or do both positive and negative comments suggest to you that a product will be a success? If that is the case, are you actually factoring in whether comments or positive/negative, or are you merely basing your predictions off of the volume of comments?

thomasahle 11 years ago |

The Apple fans [1] impress me with their non-fanaticism on this one. If this is a general trend across religions, I like where we are heading. Props!

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...

Shivetya 11 years ago | |

it is just so, square.

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

thomasahle 11 years ago | | |

Yes, I bet they wanted to announce it this early (half a year in advance?), because they felt they were missing the train.

You can only wonder if Steve Jobs would have allowed this to be released as well.

thomasahle 11 years ago | |

Why the down voting? For praising non-religiousness? Or for being excited about a faster developing market?

mg74 11 years ago | |

"all parties"

Cue poor Microsoft sobbing in a corner

Cthulhu_ 11 years ago | | |

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).

thomasahle 11 years ago | | |

I don't think there are any rumors of Microsoft going into this market, is there? I don't know if they have anything to bring to the table.