iWatch - why do I want this...

[Chakravartin]

> Re: iWatch - why do I want this...

It does the same stuff as the popular Android watches, but has the advantages of:

A strong sapphire screen;

A popular app store;

An Apple interface; And...

A seemingly secure NFC purchasing ecosystem to replace all of the credit cards in your wallet.

The last one is the most interesting to me. Pulling out my iPhone to make a purchase is hardly any better than pulling out a credit card, but waving my wrist over a terminal to invoke to Apple Pay system is an intriguing option.

[Rick-o]

As a life long left handed person, I always wore wristwatches on my right wrist. Whenever I wore them on my left wrist, I would inadvertently scratch the surface of the watch, if not breaking it outright. With the digital crown positioned as it is, I wouldn't be able to wear it on my right wrist without difficulty using my left hand to control it.

*Sigh*

This is why I couldn't play catcher in little league when I was a kid.

[Lew Zealand]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
It is unclear from today's presentation whether the software that runs this device is upgradable; whether it is or it isn't, however, obsolescence is guaranteed:

• If the software is upgradable, than eventually the computing power required to run the upgraded software will outstrip the ability of the hardware built into the watch to run the software, just as it has with every PC, Mac, iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad ever sold
  
• If the software is not upgradable, than eventually the watch will be rendered obsolete as advances in technology and standards leave the watch and its capabilities behind
  

EIther way, this translates into the purchase of a new AppleWatch every few years if you want to use it for anything more than telling time - good for Apple's bottom line, expensive for the collective bottom line of its customers.

The Apple Watch is not a watch, the Apple iPhone is not a phone. They are computers.

If they were watches or phones, they would tell time and make calls, respectively. That's it.

These things are computers and as such have built in obsolescence as they are hideously complicated and part of a sector of rapid technological improvement. They just happen to fit in your pocket and on your wrist where those other one-use devices also can live. They build in those basic functions (to eliminate redundancy) into the computer, whose computing functions you're really buying.

If you don't need a computer and it's associated drawbacks in your pocket or on your wrist, then don't buy these things.

[graylocks]

Lew Zealand wrote:
[quote=N-OS X-tasy!]
It is unclear from today's presentation whether the software that runs this device is upgradable; whether it is or it isn't, however, obsolescence is guaranteed:

• If the software is upgradable, than eventually the computing power required to run the upgraded software will outstrip the ability of the hardware built into the watch to run the software, just as it has with every PC, Mac, iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad ever sold
  
• If the software is not upgradable, than eventually the watch will be rendered obsolete as advances in technology and standards leave the watch and its capabilities behind
  

EIther way, this translates into the purchase of a new AppleWatch every few years if you want to use it for anything more than telling time - good for Apple's bottom line, expensive for the collective bottom line of its customers.

The Apple Watch is not a watch, the Apple iPhone is not a phone. They are computers.

If they were watches or phones, they would tell time and make calls, respectively. That's it.
i concur. Apple did not set out to make a masterpiece watch any more than it makes a phone that lasts forever. if that's what you expect from a watch or phone the smartphone/smart watch is not for you. if you want a computer in your pocket and/or on your person - game on.

[mrlynn]

Lew Zealand wrote:
The Apple Watch is not a watch, the Apple iPhone is not a phone. They are computers.

If they were watches or phones, they would tell time and make calls, respectively. That's it.

These things are computers and as such have built in obsolescence as they are hideously complicated and part of a sector of rapid technological improvement. They just happen to fit in your pocket and on your wrist where those other one-use devices also can live. They build in those basic functions (to eliminate redundancy) into the computer, whose computing functions you're really buying.

If you don't need a computer and it's associated drawbacks in your pocket or on your wrist, then don't buy these things.

This sums it up very well. I just watched the Apple video, with Jony Ives silkily leading us through futuristic images of this device. I must say, it is pretty cool. First of all, it is a watch, maybe more accurate than my radio-atomic Maximilian, with your favorite display style. But it is also a computer, like the iPhone is.

The main question is: Can replace the iPhone? If so, I might well get one when my iPhone contract is up. If not, then I'm not sure of the point.

Note: Mr Ives says, in his presentation, that for exercise monitoring, the AW will need to connect with your iPhone for some data. So that says it is not independent. Will it make calls without the iPhone?

Corallary question: Will this leave all us old folks with aging eyes out in the cold?

/Mr Lynn

[davester]

Lew Zealand wrote: The Apple Watch is not a watch, the Apple iPhone is not a phone. They are computers.

That's not the point we were making. The watch seems to be dependent upon the iPhone, and so appears to be largely an extension of the iPhone, without any obvious functions other than a heartbeat monitor that distinguish it from or make it better than the phone. To me, it appears to be a very small iPhone with an added heartrate monitor but without the phone, wifi, gps, and other stuff. I get that it is not currently possible to get this stuff into such a small package, but without that stuff, what exactly is the point? The few things the watch can do are not compelling.

[decay]

here you go, non-Apple smart watch
http://www.amazon.com/Tw530-Smart-Watch-...B00HYUUPJK

no reviews? really?

[mrlynn]

Does this thing have to be tethered to the iPhone by Bluetooth for time, calendar, phone, etc.? BT's range is limited to—what, 15' or something? So if you go out without your iPhone, the AW will be useless.

Unless. . .

/Mr Lynn

[davester]

mrlynn wrote:
Does this thing have to be tethered to the iPhone by Bluetooth for time, calendar, phone, etc.? BT's range is limited to—what, 15' or something? So if you go out without your iPhone, the AW will be useless.

You got it! It won't be completely useless as it'll have some functions (timekeeping for example) that can work without the phone, but it can't communicate and it doesn't know where it is (i.e. no maps, no phone, no internet, etc).

[RAMd®d]

I have no reason to believe the software is not upgradeable and won't be upgraded.

The Keynote clearly mentioned developers making apps for this watch.

It makes perfect sense that the 'Phone would absolutely be required for the watches many features.

But I hope that, if not now, at some point the watch will be able to do the same functions as the Gen6 nano, without a 'Phone.

Obviously Apple wants to use the watch to sell 'Phones and vice versa. But I'd like just a teeny, tiny bit of autonomy.


Can replace the iPhone?

No.

Not now, maybe down the road. The Watch would be HUGE. Probably ok of you were a hip-hopper.

I love watches. Always have.

My first pricey watch was an Omega Speed Master Professional, the watch that "went to the moon". I've got a few digitals mainly because I needed quickly note times of events and digitally displayed time was easier to remember until I could write it down. But analogs have always been my favorite. For me, it's about the graceful blend of style and substance. That it's possible to make something with so many very small moving parts to work so precisely… It still amazes me after all these years.

I don't begrudge people for preferring the cheapest Casio or Timex (I have a few that aren't quite entry level) but I don't abide the shallow, arrogant idiot who looks at one of my watches and says "I've got a $20 Timex that works just fine!" as though it's the utmost of temerity and consumerism to wear a nice watch.

So it's still a bit of a shock and a lot of disappointment when somebody can't look at a new product, especially in the tech category, and say "Not for me, but nice tech."



There is a major disconnect in dealing with this particular paradigm. The wristwatch has historically been a standalone tool or fashion statement, or a combination of both. It's obsolescence is limited to wear or falling out of fashion. Or changing the number of hours in a night/day cycle.

In this case the Watch is more a peripheral than a wristwatch. It's an extension of the 'Phone, not a replacement. So we have to change our way of thinking to accept that in a few years this could become obsolete (as in non-functional) where a wristwatch would not.

And that's the problem. It is *not* a watch, but a peripheral, like a VCR, DVD player, or external optical drive. Since they didn't have standalone functionality, becoming obsolete is merely a fact of life/tech. It's inevitable. We don't want that, but we accept it.

It's not so easy to accept this in something that hasn't previously been tethered to another device. I'm hoping that at some point, this *can* have some limited functionality without a 'Phone, something like using an old iPhone as an iPod, when replaced by shiny new iron.

As one might guess, I am not dissuaded.