The killer app is WOMEN who do not have pockets in their freaking clothes and want a phone/texting device they can wear that doesn’t look clunky.
1 Like
3 Likes
1 Like
Hey @crenquis -
That comment reminded of this Gigaom article I read back in 2013. It just now clicked.
"Why I stopped wearing my iPod nano as a watch"
The article is full of helpful suggestions to Apple on what they should do to enter the wearables market by not trying to make your watch into a smartphone (recognize it’s a different device). From a person who did use his iPod nano for various functions on his wrist, downfalls and proper uses of wearable tech are discussed.
1 Like
Interesting article.
She just uses the watchband when flying so that she doesn’t forget it, drop it, etc.
1 Like
I’m not entirely sure what that had to do with my post. I don’t really care how useful they are if they can’t stand up to a well-chosen traditional watch, aesthetically. Phones are normally hidden, so it doesn’t matter much what they look like, fashion-wise. Watches double as fashion accessories, whether you’ve got a utilitarian motive for wearing one or not. Moderate usefulness is not a good enough reason to dork up and otherwise sharp outfit. North Americans dress trashy enough as it is, and (so far) smart watches won’t help.
[quote=“iragsdale, post:96, topic:40762, full:true”]
The point is that sometimes it’s easier to look at your wrist.[/quote]
Obviously that’s the intended point, functionally. I question them more generally than that. Devices like these can only exist in cultures where technology is treated uncritically or as intrinsically neutral, and where “neat” and “might be useful” are good enough reasons to drop a few hundred bucks.
And yes, for some people it will be a status symbol or a fashion statement.
Not optional. If you choose to wear it, it makes a fashion statement.
That’s OK too - there’s nothing wrong with that, and their money spends just as well.
Well, yeah. That’s how money works. I just hope you’re not trying to imply (by this and some earlier comments) that popularity or profitability justify something’s existence.
Ok, I suppose if if your point is that for a technology to exist, it has to fulfill some greater purpose than “enough people will pay for it to justify producing it”, then I suppose there isn’t much of a point. I suppose I actually would argue that in the absence of some specific harm done to others, popularity or profitability absolutely justify something’s existence.
If somebody has $350, and exchanging that $350 for something Apple makes gives them more satisfaction than keeping the $350 (or using it for something some thing else) would, then who the hell are you or I to tell them they are wrong to do so? Does there have to be some greater point than that?
I’m hearing reports that you can switch which way you connect the band to turn it over and put the crown on the opposite side, and that it functions as you would expect it to. Obviously then the “quick connect” button is in a different spot relative to the crown, but that doesn’t seem like a big deal.
The existence of left handed people is not a detail I’d generally expect Apple to overlook. 
Left hander here. I really wasn’t worried, and it looks like I shouldn’t be.
I ran a quick search (first time I’ve bothered - because they’ve considered it before) and Mac Observer states this:
Also of note is that Apple Watch does support left-handed use. Apple didn’t offer specifics, but it appears as if left-handed use will be supported via a setting. This was a concern because of the amount of interaction via “Digital Crown”, the crown on the watch which is usually on the right of the face, making it difficult for left-handed users.
I’d guess that it functions by just flipping the display upside down, and reconnecting to the correct points on your wrist.
In the same article, they discuss recharging - which is intended to be done daily. However, it’s through induction, not plugged points. This is a nice feature, because chargers from Apple (I’m an Apple user) tend to be one of their weak points. Having the charger be magnetic, and require little force for attachment-detachment should prolong the life. It should also help with any watch bugs that could crop up from broken charger stems on tiny chargers.
We want a smaller phone with MORE pixels and a magnifying loupe.
Not optional. If you choose to wear it, it makes a fashion statement.
From a fashion standpoint, it’s just a watch. With long sleeves, how often is it going to be visible? It’ll turn a few heads from novelty at first and then fade into the background like any other accessory.
Like smartphones.
Well, yeah. That’s how money works. I just hope you’re not trying to imply (by this and some earlier comments) that popularity or profitability justify something’s existence.
It helps?
Anyway, I thought this an interesting take: In-Depth: A Watch Guy's Thoughts On The Apple Watch After Seeing It In The Metal (Tons Of Live Photos) - Hodinkee
Apple always engages the early adopter to fund the development of a new product line. At first it is a status object and people who work that kind of thing know how to do it. The iPhone makes a distinct impression in the hand of an ambitious person, and it is designed to do just that. It is sleek and trim and the detailing is precise and refined. The first iPhone was a bit clunky though. As were the early iterations of the iMac, laptop and tower. So, the watch being a bit clumsy fits right in. I don’t know if they do it on purpose. The next version of the watch will show a trimmer appearance and move toward sharper edges and less high polish. This is Apple’s design strategy as seen through out the last 25 years. At first an Apple thing is for the elite and slowly moves to being unavoidable for people who live at desks. Accessories have a big impact even if they are only seen briefly. That is the kind of thing that can make a strong impression.
Last thought; the 6+ is aimed at gamers, teens and those who spend hours staring at a tiny screen. It packs a lot of power and pixels and is a step up from the Touch and a better aspect ratio for that than the iPad mini. That is the one that spoke to me. Watch for it to be adopted by independent filmmakers as the camera of choice for low budget efforts.
1 Like
Like the computers in Brazil?
2 Likes
As a more-ideas-than-money filmmaker myself, I’m curious about how this will play out. In one hand, the optical stabilization and super slow motion are both awesome and nowhere to be found in decent-price video cameras. On the other hand, something like the Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera should appeal more to non-casual creators as it’s much, much more versatile in lens choice, manual controls and offers robust image quality and compression for color treatment and other creative post production.
And last I heard, it’s both smaller (sans lens) AND cheaper than the iPhone 6 Mega Gigantor, at a discounted $500 down from the original $1000. No, I’m not counting ‘two year contract’ prices because I live outside the US and that sweet lie is not my reality. And yes, you have to add the costs (and weight, and size) of a bunch of other stuff like batteries and memory cards and tripods to be able to use the thing so it’s not as ‘the camera you have with you’ as any phone. That and instagram video.
I can’t say I’ve seen much iPhone/iPad filmmaking outside of “you’ll never guess what this was shot on” gimmicks and Apple ads. Citizen journalism being an important exception.
1 Like
In all seriousness, not really, since I am not under the compulsion to get the Hot New Thing’s latest generation. (The new phones look nice, but the 4S that I have is still working fine, and I have a bunch of accessories that aren’t compatible with Lightning and/or the size of the new phones, and unless you need the new phone to work with the Watch, well…)
[quote=“coherent_light, post:113, topic:40762, full:true”]With long sleeves, how often is it going to be visible?[/quote]With proper-length sleeves on a shirt and jacket that fit, it should be at least partially visible any time your arm isn’t hanging at your side.
…then fade into the background like any other accessory. Like smartphones.
Smartphones were/are, at best, an accessory in the way a nice pen or a wallet might be; only visible when you pulled them out to use them. Wristwear is on the level of jewellery, belts and tie clips; not critical, like a tie or shoes, but certainly disruptive if chosen poorly.
As for the Hodinkee article (thanks, btw), I think he nailed most points. I hoped he would better address how personal watches can be, and how limiting the one available shape is on that front. Every bracelet and face app needs to address the shape and material of the body. Long term, assuming smart watches truly take off, I’d expect Android’s openness will allow a range of prices and quality comparable to the current watch market.
It sounds quite a bit as though you’ve recently viewed American Psycho.
Are you sure? I can tell the difference between Otter Box and Lifeproof cases, even if I couldn’t tell the diff between a smartphone running android or iOS at the same distance. I see them more frequently out in public after hours than I’ve ever seen pens. Or possibly jewelry. Wallets I could see as being even more closely held.
[quote=“Treefingers, post:118, topic:40762”]
I hoped he would better address how personal watches can be, and how limiting the one available shape is on that front. Every bracelet and face app needs to address the shape and material of the body.[/quote]
Needs is possibly a strong word to use in conjunction with fashion accessory, but I note that people do surprising things with their devices. Smartphones are an excellent example of this. Objectively, they are all virtually alike, but everyone does something different with theirs.
And fashion changes through time (even when it’s not being arbitrary). If the Apple watch does take off, how it looks on the wrist now may become less relevant (or more irrelevant; though you should possibly be aware that I only buy watches like this).
