I see all the articles and news reports buzzing about the Apple Watch coming out.
What features or uses does it have that makes it a must have?
I see all the articles and news reports buzzing about the Apple Watch coming out.
What features or uses does it have that makes it a must have?
Well, if you buy one you can tell us about your digital crown.
Eye Watch wrote:
I see all the articles and news reports buzzing about the Apple Watch coming out.
What features or uses does it have that makes it a must have?
I'm personally not too interested - especially given that it's a first generation product. The argument would be that it's decently sharp, a good phone companion if you have an iPhone, and would be a nice fitness tracker. It's hard to know how good it is at any of those until some detailed reviews come out - which won't be for a while. As phones continue to get bigger, there may be an advantage of being able to see information from it without needed to lug the whole thing out? Who knows?
Eye Watch wrote:
I see all the articles and news reports buzzing about the Apple Watch coming out.
What features or uses does it have that makes it a must have?
I can think of zero reason to have it. The ironic thing is cell phones have reduced the need for many people to wear a watch. Now apple wants everyone to pay $350 for a watch that I'm assuming only works with your phone.
That being said, I would wear a watch that I could use as a heart/rate monitor, stopwatch and could stream music from it without being paired to the phone.
An ipod shuffle with streaming that could take my heart rate and work as a stopwatch.
The only reason this would be cool is if you could listen to music. And listening to music from your watch is only cool if you have wireless headphones that aren't the size of a brick.
Not to mention, the battery life supposedly is not very good.
In both cases, a better (both longer lasting and smaller) battery is needed. I think Apple likes the idea that with each "new release" they can market "extended battery life."
rojo wrote:
I can think of zero reason to have it. The ironic thing is cell phones have reduced the need for many people to wear a watch. Now apple wants everyone to pay $350 for a watch that I'm assuming only works with your phone.
That being said, I would wear a watch that I could use as a heart/rate monitor, stopwatch and could stream music from it without being paired to the phone.
An ipod shuffle with streaming that could take my heart rate and work as a stopwatch.
It appears you can listen to your music directly from the watch. Though it's not clear if it has bluetooth, so I'm not sure exactly how this would work:
"Music. Control the music on your iPhone without taking it out of your pocket. And when you leave iPhone at home to go for a jog, listen to music directly on Apple Watch"
It also acts as a stop watch:
"Stopwatch. Apple Watch presents this popular watch function in digital, analog, or hybrid view. It can even show you a real-time average of your lap times on a graph — something you won’t find on other watches"
And has a heart rate tracker:
"It has a custom sensor that can measure intensity by tracking your heart rate."
http://www.apple.com/watch/features/The functions already present actually look quite impressive, even if it does have to work with an iphone, and it does say that you can use it as a phone (in conjunction with the iphone), which gives it that dick tracy function. But do you have to have the iphone with you to do that? not sure. The thing about this too is that the functions are infinitely expandable because there'll always be new apps. I sure would not spend $350 on it though.
Get a Nike + iPod Sensor ($19) that works iPod.
https://secure-nikeplus.nike.com/plus/products/ipod_nano/
Get a wristband for your iPod.
iPod Shuffle:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ipod+shuffle+wristband&safe=on&tbm=isch
iPod Nano:
https://www.google.com/search?q=ipod+nano+wristband&safe=on&tbm=isch
I haven't found a solid reason to get the watch. I'd hoped the watch would have GPS instead it uses the iphone's GPS chip. It will be interesting to see what apps are developed between now and the release early next year. I do give Apple credit for making it a nice looking watch with lots of options.
The Timex One GPS is coming out and won't require a phone. I'd pick that over anything else.
The $400 Timex One GPS+ requires a cellular data plan (an extra $40 per year). Timex claims the watch has satellite based GPS. Why is a cellular data required?
If you buy one you will not have to make this request again.
As a result you will become significantly less annoying.
Data Plan wrote:
The $400 Timex One GPS+ requires a cellular data plan (an extra $40 per year). Timex claims the watch has satellite based GPS. Why is a cellular data required?
It's free for the first year and would simply be an add-on to a mobile share plan (like you do with a tablet).
You see, this is the difference between Jobs and Cook.
The iPod touch came out, people went nuts.
The iPhone came out, people literally called it the Jesus Phone.
When the iPad came out, it wasn't so hardcore, but still redefined the category.
Now they're trying to convince the CONSUMER that they need something instead of letting the hype do the talking.
So, it actually uses cell towers for accurate GPS. On trails the GPS is iffy at best?
Data Plan wrote:
So, it actually uses cell towers for accurate GPS. On trails the GPS is iffy at best?
Do you not know how GPS works?
The cellular data is because it's an independent smartwatch.
I know exactly how GPS works. I know that many GPS devices rely on cellular connects to simulate high accuracy. Small GPS units give iffy-position data information when they work with satellites.
Get an iWatch, dammit!!!
Crazedseepies wrote:
You see, this is the difference between Jobs and Cook.
The iPod touch came out, people went nuts.
The iPhone came out, people literally called it the Jesus Phone.
When the iPad came out, it wasn't so hardcore, but still redefined the category.
Now they're trying to convince the CONSUMER that they need something instead of letting the hype do the talking.
I think that's some revisionist history on your part. Steve Ballmer literally laughed at the iPhone. Others were highly skeptical of it's utility (can it print?, only 4 GB?, that price! where's the keyboard?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_Uhttp://www.tunequest.org/initial-reactions-to-the-iphone/20070110/http://www.charleshudson.net/initial-reaction-to-the-iphone-mildly-skeptical-but-impressedAnd the iPad (it's just a giant iPhone, who would use that?)
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/editorial-engadget-on-the-ipad/Even the iPod had very mixed reactions:
"Clearly Apple is following Sony's lead by integrating consumer electronics devices into its marketing strategy, but Apple lacks the richness of Sony's product offering. And introducing new consumer products right now is risky, especially if they cannot be priced attractively,"
http://news.cnet.com/2100-1040-274821.htmlApple Investor wrote:
And the iPad (it's just a giant iPhone, who would use that?)
http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/editorial-engadget-on-the-ipad/
Interesting reading those opinions prior to the release. I felt the same way then and still do -- tablet has little use for me. But, they have a hit, so clearly others find it very useful. I use a chromebook for about 90% of my computing needs, giving up the keyboard for a touch screen does nothing for me..
I can't really see the iWatch thing taking off, but I tend to be a poor prognosticator of these things since I'm a neo-luddite who still doesn't have a smartphone.