I'll...
...pass!
No, this isn’t the first Apple Watch review you’ve seen. Cupertino supplied review units to a few selected journalists at the start of April; the rest of us had to order our own. I almost ignored mine arriving because I was looking out for a watch. It came in a box more suitable for a truncheon. Apple Watch Sport No, we're …
A year in the future.
'iOS 8 wiii no longer support the Apple Watch, but by then, your watch battery will be dead, so hey guys, just support us by throwing more of your cash our way. Just buy the latest one! Apple's gratitude to you, our valued mark, is unlimited!'
I recommend checking the repair plans, FFS, talk about gouging.
For a tech website it's amazing how many of the commenters seem to hate technology.
Seemed like a good idea to me to get the first version to see how it evolves and then get a new one in about three years when the battery lasts a week and it's a lot slimmer. I'm going to find the heart rate monitor useful and it'll be nice to reduce the cacophony of dings and dongs from my phone. Not to mention reducing the possibility of being robbed every time I pull out my iSchlong in public.
"For a tech website it's amazing how many of the commenters seem to hate technology."
Just because you are interested in technology and/or generally like technology, you don't have to like every single piece of technology that's put out there.
You can be an ice cream enthusiast and still not see the point in the latest creation from, say, B&Js.
It's a new paradigm. I tend to find most of them at least mildly interesting even if I don't intend to buy one. I found the original iPad interesting and promising but I didn't buy one as it lacked things like a camera for video conferencing etc. There seem to be way too many folk claiming not to see the point which seems to me to be displaying a staggering lack of imagination.
"I'm going to find the heart rate monitor useful"
Another one of those things - you can then monitor your heartrate 24/7 if you so wish. But what does that heart rate (and/or blood pressure) even tell you? "Look - I've just walked up the stairs at a leisurely pace, I'm out of breath and my heart is at 110bpm. I'm out of shape." "Wow, I just lay on the couch for an hour, and I'm down to 20bpm - way lower than my mate who can only get down to 40bpm."
"it'll be nice to reduce the cacophony of dings and dongs from my phone."
Ever heard of silent mode?
"Not to mention reducing the possibility of being robbed every time I pull out my iSchlong in public."
Wow, where do you live where an iPhone still (this is 2015!) gets robbed off you whenever you take it out?
I'll be able to tell if my heart rate is within the necessary range to improve my cardiovascular health when I'm walking and it'll record improvements over time without any hassle unlike some of my previous heart rate monitors.
I don't tend to find silent mode much use when I'm out and about walking in the streets. I usually miss calls because I can't feel the vibrations as I'm not a hipster wearing skinny jeans. YMMV.
East London.
This post has been deleted by its author
No it is not. The people at Apple have finally developed a truly grand sense of humour and provided the majority of us the opportunity to snicker at anyone foolish and gullible enough to put one one after paying for it. Victims of marketing on parade. Fad products, to keep the scam going eventually they jump the shark and in this case the shark is public derision at crass classless consumerism and people who think they can buy poseur status by obeying marketing, well, you can but no one thinks much of poseurs.
How about this reason: "Because I do not want a browser and on-screen keyboard".
It is rank raving lunacy to stick a browser on it (and a keyboard) when you have a 5in + slab to type and read on.
The value of the watch (or any other wearable that does not interfere directly with your field of vision) is in unobtrusive notifications, sensors and a set of simple UI tasks which specifically relate to these two categories. If you need to use a keyboard on a wearable, that means that the UI design for that wearable is a failure. This bit Apple got right (and so does Pebble and most of its apps). The current crop of Android smartware has this wrong. The level of wrongness is different - from Sony which tried, but failed to get it right (it was on the right track, just too early on) to Samsung whose Smart Watches are a complete idiocy as they are effectively a second phone - one you wear.
In any case, when you give it a thought, let's suppose we have the next wearable gadget - a wearable ring or an earing (there are use cases where making either of these smart may make sense). So, what's next - having a keyboard and browser on that too? Mobile radio? Wifi?
"and a very rapid and cynical cycle of planned obsolescence."
That's pretty much how the billions were made. Make sure the hipsters wouldn't be seen dead with last year's model. Sell them one nearly the same, but 'better' in a couple of tiny areas technically, and make it look a bit different. Make sure there's room for improvement though : if it's too good the fanbois wont want the next iteration. The perfect business model in a lot of ways, and massed ranks of media / advertising / telesales people (basically the vain and stupid) ready and willing to part with fat pile of cash every 18 months. Even if they don't actually have it. I'd be fascinated to see if there's any kind of correlation between peaks in payday loans and apple releases.
I've been an owner of several apple products, iPhone 3GS, 4S and 5S skipped the rest. Bought my first iPad a couple of weeks bad (iPad Air 2) and have a Macbook Pro from 2009. So yes, I'm very much in the apple camp, but I do have other things (my desktop is a self build windows box for a start)
On my phone front, I didn't want the iPhone until after it had enough features - hence waiting for the 3GS, prior to that I was using a Nokia S something or other. That phone gave me everththing that I needed, and could do a whole lot more than anything I'd had before. Skipped the 4 as it wasn't a big enough upgrade, went to the 4S as I wanted more storage, my 3GS was given to my brother, so didn't go in the bin. Again I skipped the 5 (and 5C) as it wasn't a big enough upgrade for me to be bothered with. Wasn't planning on upgrading from my 4S to the 5S, but did this as I changed to a better data plan at the same time. If it wasn't for the data plan change, I'd probably have kept with the same handset, and been happy with it. I'm not bothering with the 6's at all, will look at the features they bring in on the next model, but I'm not expecting there to be a killer reason to upgrade from my 5S, so will probably end up staying as I am for another year.
My Macbook Pro is getting old, but it's not ready to be replaced, far from it, there's probably a good few years life left in that machine, also as my main machine is a windows desktop, there isn't a compelling reason to upgrade. The laptop does everything that I want my laptop to do, upgrading will mean a smaller screen (I've got a 17" screen at the moment) so, that's a compromise before we even begin.
I finally bought an iPad a couple of weeks ago and can see why people love tablets - the extra screen space makes things so much more convenient, and less squished. Again, I'm not expecting huge upgrades, and frankley I don't think I'll be missing any features. It'll be interesting to see how long until I decide to upgrade this things. At the moment, I'm not even thinking about it, in a couple of years, will there be enough of an upgrade for it to be worth it?
In all the upgrades that I've done, there have been huge improvements in the performance of the devices. Adding extra sensors, screen size is about all that's happened - but that covers the real differences. The software has changed a huge amount, I can see why apple stop supporting older devices - sometimes it looks like it's just plain they want to make us spend money, and I won't argue against it, sometime's it's also that the hardware simply will fall of the cliff if it tries to do it.
Yes, I freely admit that I like my apple products. I've looked at the android versions, and at the time of my iPhone 3GS, my opinion was that the apple product was better, since then, I have kept an eye on the Android stuff, it's good, but I haven't seen a compelling reason to migrate away from the Apple stuff. Those that know me, know that I was looking at the Nexus before I decided on the iPad. That was one of the reasons that I didn't have a tablet for a long time - couldn't decide between iOS or android - and that was whilst owning an iPhone and a MacBook pro. I know that I made the right choice for me, but it wasn't a blind decision.
In short, I'm sure sure that I'll be upgrading any of my iDevices over the next 12 months. Don't think there will be enough of a reason to do so.
I don't disagree with you - I'm sure there are definite advantages to having no browser or on screen keyboard, but the point is that it would have been nice for the article to at least mention the Android watches available, and let us know how the Apple watch differs - and possibly even which is better (or which the writer prefers)
>So basically after many pages we all find out what we knew anyway. That its a piece of overpriced cr@p
Is that genuinely what you understood the bottom line of the review to be? You have an opinion and that's fine, but misrepresenting the views of someone else is disrespectful. A normal person would parse the review as being more like:
Useful for some people, comes across as a version 0.9 product, software needs some tuning and that will probably happen... if it's your sort of thing then maybe wait until hardware MKII, and even then it won't suit everybody - and that's fine.
Really, no iDevice ever came into its own until at least version 2.
In the traditional watch market, watches have got a lot bigger in the last 20-odd years... 38 mm used to be the norm, but now 43 mm and bigger is common. Partly it is to do with the resurgence of the mechanical watch market in the late eighties - as it was a given that quartz was more accurate, functional and cheaper, it meant that mechanical watches were largely status symbols, so may as well be large.
What's that about never a truer word than is spoken in jest…? It isn't, seriously. The Second Law of Thermodynamics doesn't apply to Homo sapiens, and overdoing things - cardio I'm referring to here - will cause the catabolism of lean muscle, rather than flab, because muscle is more readily turned into an energy source, a process known as 'gluconeogenesis', this happens with all forms of protein, not just your own muscle (which is technically meat, after all…).
However, if you restrict the carbs you eat, and switch your diet from high-carb to high-fat, you can 'reset' your body to burning fat as fuel, rather than glucose, thus forcing it to burn your own fuel reserves.
Doing it the NHS way, eating a LFHC diet and slogging it out at the gym, or on the street, all you're doing is 'burning' off what you've eaten, thus causing a massive drop in blood-sugar, which causes the release of both grehlin (the 'hunger hormone') and insulin (the 'body-fat creation' hormone as it should more accurately be termed). Chronic cardio also causes the release of cortisol (which I'm sure most know as 'the stress hormone') and, because cortisol has no way of knowing what the stressor is, it covers all eventualities - one of those being famine, and so eating after you've been to the gym will cause most of the carbs you've eaten to be converted to body fat. This is the reason why LFHC diets fail 100% of the time (it's IMPOSSIBLE to drop body fat eating LFHC because you're replenishing it the whole time; you may lose WEIGHT, but most of that will be catabolised muscle).
Eating LCHF breaks the chain as fat doesn't cause insulin release. No insulin release = no storage.
Over 24 stone says I'm not talking out my arse. Did it the NHS way, shot from 24 stone to 32. Did it the right way, dropped from 32 to 7.5. Like I've said before, obesity is a food intolerance. Thing is, nobody believes me because the notion of a high-fat diet being even remotely healthy is lunacy.
Sadly, the flab-bags I REALLY wanted to lose are still there, stubbornly attached to my chest. Losing weight unfortunately DOES NOT cause boob-loss. Moob loss is a different matter.
As I can't afford surgery, guess I'm stuck with the useless sacks of shit. Perhaps I could offer them to Katie Price as 'natural silicone'.
I wasn't convinced by the smartwatches on the market.
I'm not conviced by the Apple Watch.
It's just a super expensive remote for a smartphone 40 cm away, hardly useable with such a tiny screen for anything remotely useful. Apple brings features.
Sharing heart rates or horrible doodles, Apple's contribution to the genre as far as I can see, isn't my cup of tea.
If the aim is to wear a gadget that desperately wants to be forgotten for lack of battery, I'd rather keep my wrists free.
If I was into fitness/health, I think I would go with the Microsoft Band, which does have a GPS and is OS agnostic.
I fear you'll learn, sooner than later, that non sapphire glass was not a good compromise on the cheaper Apple watches.
"You can register your trade mark to protect your brand, eg the name of your product or service."
"Your trade mark can’t describe the goods or services it will relate to, eg the word ‘cotton’ can’t be a trade mark for a cotton textile company"
It would seem that the UK government disagrees with you on its website.
It would also seem that US law may be different, based on a few lawyers' websites I looked at. They want to distinguish "trade names" from "trade marks". But if these are correct, they lead to the absurdity of the "Apple Watch (R) watch". I have to say that if I have parsed all this correctly, UK usage is sensible and US law is an ass.
That's an oxymoron. "Gorgeous" is always subjective.
Personally, I don't like the way it looks in photos, but I will reserve judgement until I've seen one in the flesh, as it were.
However, it's a matter of purely academic interest. I can see why some people would find smartwatches useful, but for me, I don't want anything that they do.
GJC
Down-voted, as evidently you've as much knowledge of the meaning of 'tautology' as the person to whom you're responding does of 'oxymoron'.
Tautology = denoting the same - "beautifully gorgeous" would be tautology. Other examples would be 'Gorilla gorilla' the Western Gorilla, and 'Gorilla gorilla gorilla', the Western Lowland Gorilla, although these are more accurately, and correctly, called 'tautonyms'.
Oxymoron = juxtaposition of contradictory words, for example 'creation science'. Oxymoron itself, Late Latin via Ancient Greek, means 'keen-dull' or 'sharp-stupid', making it an oxymoron.
I've responded to 4 threads this morning - and all I've done is be pedantic. Maybe that's all I'm good for…
@Geoff Campbell
, it's a matter of purely academic interest. I can see why some people would find smartwatches useful, but for me, I don't want anything that they do.
No No No, you are not supposed to make balanced intelligent comment in discussions about such things as Apple wearables, it's just not the done thing.
Only supercilious derision is acceptable, that way you are demonstrating your superiority over those that would make a different personal choice than yourself.
Apple watch wouldn't be my choice either, but those who have earned their money may spend it how the f*** they want to.
Wow.... I wondered what you could do with these things but to summarise:
- Must recharge watch every day..
- Needs to be paired with an iphone, which must also be charged every day...
- Can't reply to most notifications unless you use said iphone
- Looks good.
- You'll suddenly discover what your heart rate and blood flow is, but will have no way of actually interpreting this to improve your life in any meaningful way.
- By now, it's probably time to recharge your watch...Hey are you still reading this?
Yup. I’ll stick with my Seiko, which:
- Is recharged by having one off the wrist (so, in my case, never runs out)
- Works perfectly without being pared to anything other than my wrist.
- Can’t reply to notifications
- Looks amazing
- Can tell if I’m dead or not. If it stops working then things aren’t looking too rosy for me either.
- Well, no. I don’t need to recharge it just yet - but, now that you mention it I don’t mind if I do. Where’s the tissues?
Fap fap fap fap fap…
I have an edifice watch by Casio and it keeps great time via the radio atomic time signal. It also recharges itself via light, even by fluorescent tubes. Never needs adjusting. Just wear it and look at it for the correct to the second time. When full the battery will last for 8 months in total darkness by stopping all hand movement and time checks. It spring back to life when it sees the light. The future is now.
Yup, I'll stick with my conventional watch which tells me the time, duplicating the functionality of dozens of other devices within visual range all of the time.
And I look at it now, it's 0946 BST. In approximately half an hour I will expect it to say about 1015 BST, I will look at my watch and confirm that fact.
See how it can work both ways? Damn useful things these watches.
I have a nice perpetual watch too. It looks good, it tells the time and I can go swimming with it on.
It fills EVERY need I have for a watch.
There's no need in my life for a smartwatch of any kind.
As for being dead though - mine can last a good few days without movement so you might get a bit smelly before anyone notices via your watch.
I like the new Shinola advert:- A watch so smart it can tell you the time just by looking at it.
This sort of article is why I started reading the Reg again, well balanced and with a reasonable amount of substance - BBC please take note!
It seems wearables have split the great unwashed masses into two distinct camps "right now" and "never". I suspect this will be much like when mobile phones first came out, early adopters rushed out to buy the latest brick of a phone which the no camp complained bitterly about them speaking too loudly but in the end everyone got one.
I can't help feeling that wearables will have a tougher time that mobile phones though. I'm normally a early adopter but so far I've not seen a single wearable that appeals. Surely I can't be alone in feeling that reaching into my pocket to get my phone out to read a message isn't a chore (especially when that's the only way I can reasonably reply anyway). If I'm perfectly honest I actually want less ways to be notified not more, with a computer, two phones and a tablet near me at the moment when I get a message it's like being in a cuckoo clock shop at midday.
If we can't have fewer notifications, I'd rather the process of finding out whether I can ignore one doesn't involve digging my phone out of my pocket.
The Apple Watch is overkill for me, as is Google Wear and even Pebble. Martian Watch are on the right track, a small functional module that can be incorporated into a traditional analogue watch without too much of an aesthetic compromise.
I don't mind the Reg coverage of the Apple Watch too much, but it would be nice if they gave some time to non Apple, a Google or Pebble watches.
'the right track, a small functional module that can be incorporated into a traditional analogue watch'
You are wrong on so many counts.
Clockwork is not analog. It is digital, just not binary.
Analog timepieces are sundials, sand or liquid~based timers, I am sure there are others.
How do you propose to economically place a digital electronics module in a clockwork watch and leave the beauty of the watch intact?
Granted, it could be done, but can't see the point.
@Bleu Digital means that a device performs its calculations using two discrete states - on or off, 1 or 0 - binary. In the case of a digital watch, the timekeeping is done using a microchip with a quartz oscillator - and, helpfully, the display is set of seven segments, displaying the actual numbers (or digits - satisfying the other, looser, definition of digital).
I suppose that, technically, many 'analogue' watches are digital (in that they use a microchip with a quartz oscillator to perform the actual timekeeping). But they fail to satisfy the other definition of digital in that the time is displayed using sweeping hands, and the numbers that the hands point to are almost vestigial. In fact, many don't have numbers at all - or have pared down the numbers to 12, 3, 6 and 9.
A purely mechanical watch fails to satisfy either definition of digital.
We think of clockwork as analogue, but it really is not. The hands may all appear to sweep smoothly, but that is artifice, they are driven by a mechanical oscillator (pendulum, spring recoil, etc.) that pulses at a certain rate.
I liked programming assembler most of all, it is just like clockwork.
Some of the earlier electronic methods (out of use) might more aptly be described as analogue.
All this talk of watches, I have two at hand, but it really makes me want to find my old Seiko (battery, not Kinetic) and Swiss self-winder.
Still have them.
Never buying a 'smart-watch', like to read a map and ask people instead of staring at a display and living in a bubble.
>"...I'm normally a early adopter but so far I've not seen a single wearable that appeals... "
I've seen a few that nearly appeal, largely because they look like standard analogue watches. Casio, Citizen and a company called Martian make some in this form-factor.
The thing is, since my traditional watch was chosen by me from a selection of thousands, I'm not likely to find a smart-watch from a selection of dozens that looks as good to me as my current watch does.
I also like my handed-down watch, a 1968 Omega Chronostop with the Milanese strap... Apple have got that right, at least.
This text:
"When on, Apple Watch will play a prominent haptic to pre-announce certain events"
... is complete and utter garbage. For a start, what is "a haptic"? Haptic is an adjective, and not exactly a well-known one either, but as a message that's supposed to explain a function, it is utterly meaningless unless you know what the function does already.
Apple used to have a department called "Instructional Products", one of whose tasks was to review and correct the sub-literate jargon that developers put in their apps and turn it into English. Obviously, using plain language doesn't convey the necessary mystique anymore (" ... will tap your wrist..." would have been much clearer about what's happening). Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if IP went the same way as the groups that did third-party integration testing... (i.e., out the door, P45/pink-slip in hand).
... and I'd love to see how you'll get that a translation of that text into Portuguese to fit on the display.
Article - "Apple has answered the critics who doubted a computer company could make a wearable that people wanted to wear: the hardware is objectively gorgeous"
Based on your subjective viewpoint that it is gorgeous you could assume that most people would consider it gorgeous. Nothing is objectively gorgeous.
I did not read unstinting praise in the article - I felt the writer bought it for himself because he wanted to get one and try it out. I did not feel this article 'sells' it much at all, in fact I cam away thinking the reviewer felt it was 'not that great'. I was a doubter about the watch before and I still am.
Seems to have liked it too much to have sold it.
14 down-votes (so far). Must have been a recruiting drive on Apple fan fora. Although, interestingly, this is the second time I've made a very negative comment about an article, and the first also got an instant 14 Down's syndromers. Perhaps it is an automated function.
A further quibble, the claim of a 'hirsute wrist'. Are the photos of the magical device being worn all taken with it worn by someone else, or just altered to remove any evidence of hair?
>14 down-votes (so far). Must have been a recruiting drive on Apple fan fora.
You don't have to be an Apple fan to down-vote someone who is quite obviously misrepresenting the article, and making themselves a hypocrite at the same time.
And shit, if you really thick this Reg thread is a Apple fan forum then you really have lost your powers of reading comprehension. The pattern has been roughly:
Commentards who say its not for them: Upvoted a lot.
Commentards who seem not to have read or understood the review: Downvoted a lot.
Commentards who express cautious interest: Upvoted a bit.
That article wasn't unstinting praise.
THIS is unstinting praise.
For example:-
...raw specifications (18% thinner than last year's 4S, 20% lighter, 12% less volume) don't explain how it seems to float in the hand, and how typing or swiping feels like touching the very pixels.
El Reg - learn from a master!
"The iPhone version of Procreate, an excellent drawing app, is a case in point. It uses the Watch not as a canvas but as a tool palette. A nice thought, but once you’re wearing it, it’s amusingly obvious that you can’t use the Watch and iPhone at the same time. It’s anatomically impossible."
I've got no intention of buying a Watch but it occurs to me that by holding an iPhone in one hand and having the Watch rotated around my wrist 180 degrees (as I usually wear my watch) on the same arm I can make this very anatomically possible. You could quite easily go from tapping on the iPhone screen to moving your finger a couple of inches to the side for a tap on the tool palette and back to the iPhone screen.
…It’s beautifully made, but ultimately shit. Promising shit, but shit nonetheless. So a bit like the first iteration of every other Apple product.
That’s the thing about Apple. Unfashionable as it is to say it, they do make some amazing products - both hardware and software. It’s just that the first, and often second and sometimes third, versions are crap. Once they get into their stride, amazingness is the result. Honestly, and having seen the latest versions of Windows, I’d say the same of Microsoft too - it’s just that it took them a little longer to reach tech nirvana.
Um. What comes after nirvana? I think that sentence might need a little rework.
What comes after nirvana?
Well, technically, "nirvana" means "the cessation of turnings". The only time that a software or hardware product doesn't have any more "turnings" (which I guess would be an update cycle) is when it's end-of-lifed and not supported any more. Not quite "nirvana". I guess you could use the expression "ne plus ultra" instead, but really we all know that technology never arrives at perfection (since in fact, "all composite things decay") and comparisons or metaphors like this are just hyperbole.
Nirvana isn't the same as enlightenment (and you're not really asking what comes after), but you can get the flavour from this saying:
Before Enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water;
After Enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water
I agree. The whole point of Apple purchasers is that they do not want to be liberated from the Wheel of Existence. It's a materialistic culture.
It is also an amusing paradox that Zen principles of design and manufacture underpin the Apple approach, and thus enable its employees and shareholders, as well as its customers, to lead a materialistic, acquisitive lifestyle completely in contrast to the spirit of Zen.
Some are always rubbish:
Pippin
Lisa
The idea of a mouse with only one button that is round, only the cable to show orientation.
Disk drives on an Apple II, which was over rated. I fitted 8" floppies, 80 column card, full keyboard and Z80 card on mine. I'd have been better buying something else.
Some get canned just as they are getting good
Newton.
Apple Servers.
Some just look "clean" when new.
"the hardware is objectively gorgeous"
Eh no... it's 'subjectively' gorgeous maybe. IMO it's a horrible looking, 70s style abomination. I won't be taking my Omega off for one of those ugly things any time soon. I don't doubt I'll see loads of slavish, fashion victims sporting them soon enough though.
Not to mention the idea that some of Omega's best known watches (besides the Speedmaster) boast a very 1970s design.
Take this Seamaster, for example:
http://41.media.tumblr.com/4389014dc8c8b6c8c48c28d78fe27cf7/tumblr_mmjyw4Dvyu1royoxho1_1280.png
Or Omega's Project Alaska, for those who just need more anodised aluminium iun their life:
http://www.watchlinks.net/Basel08/Basel08/omega11.jpg
Or this, based on a 1969 design (or based on a Cylon's head, it would appear):
http://www.ablogtowatch.com/omega-spacemaster-z-33-watch-review/
It's not hypocrisy (learn to spell) as my Omega isn't in the least fashionable. It's just a very nice watch that is still as good as the day I bought it 15 years ago. That's more than I can say for any of these so called smart watches which will be landfill in a couple of years, Apple watch included.
> Douglas Adams imagined a genetically engineered food animal that wanted you to eat it.
He also rather scathingly described "an utterly insignificant little blue green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea."
To be honest, for all it's fit an finish it still looks like an iPod nano with a wrist strap. I think I'll wait and see how these things evolve before giving up my trusty automatic.
This is all well and good, but can the 'taptic' thingumjig restart your heart like James Coburn's?
I just read that whole review thinking I would find something in it that described a point to a smartwatch and you know what there's nothing, really it doesn't even seem that much use for a quick glance at the time.
I am not interested in smartwatches but I was at least expecting something that would make me think hmmn that's pretty groovy, but it does naff all.
Also if you think that's nice design then go look at something by IWC that's how nice watches should look.
Plus if you are worried about the glass getting cracked on the bedpost whilst sleeping then how do you wear it outdoors without worrying about it getting broken?
That's a good point. It may be that it is selective about the axis and magnitude of rotation / translation that turns it on. Otherwise, it could be mitigated in software - i.e if the master phone is connected to a car system, it won't turn on.
The concept is far from new, some Casio G-Shocks could have their electroluminescent back-lights activated by a twist/jerk in the late '90s - and it could well pre-date that.
Off topic:
Check out the Citizen Scientific Calculator Watch:
http://www.digital-watch.com/DWL/1work/citizen-scientific-calculator-watch/
...scratches like crazy.
I've had stainless steel watches that went years without a single scratch.
The aluminium case sports version is tougher. Seems the Sports version is the best combination of case and screen materials. Well let's rephrase that, it's the best of a bad bunch.
This post has been deleted by its author
I keep my phone in a shirt pocket and with a coat on I sometimes don't hear or feel notifications. Some people have a similar problem with phones in bags.
I can see a use case for a proper watch that has a simple vibrate feedback and is linked to a phone, so it vibrates one way for a message, another for a voice call, and a third for other notifications. It would also help if it had the phone unlock function of the LG. It really doesn't need a display (other than the obvious one) or a blinkenlicht. Even the Pebble is overkill.
OK call me stupid - but I just don't get it.
I wear a watch, but it's not digital, as it's job is to tell the time and occasionally what date it is when writing cheques - why would I want a watch to do anything else?
I already have 2x phones that I have to carry (1x work and then my personal) and am trying to avoid having to check those more than absolutely blooming necessary. Both phones can make noise and/or vibrate to notify me of messages/calendar appointments/phone calls.
Health monitoring I'm not interested in - I consider most forms of exercise to be evil incarnate having heard FAR too many times "did you hear about Bob dropping down dead of a heart attack? The strangest thing, he was always out jogging".
Seriously what am I missing, or is it purely about spending far more money than I have?
In response to your question, I shall refer to the post that immediately pre-dates yours:
Arnaut the less
Silver badge
What do we actually need?
I keep my phone in a shirt pocket and with a coat on I sometimes don't hear or feel notifications. Some people have a similar problem with phones in bags.
I can see a use case for a proper watch that has a simple vibrate feedback and is linked to a phone, so it vibrates one way for a message, another for a voice call, and a third for other notifications. It would also help if it had the phone unlock function of the LG. It really doesn't need a display (other than the obvious one) or a blinkenlicht. Even the Pebble is overkill.
Don't get precious about downvotes or upvotes, they are there only for the under 12 readers to play with.
I often wonder about golfers, why the f*** do they waste time doing that? I have no idea, but I accept that my preferences are not universal for everyone on the planet.
Now, I am wondering why people wear watches to tell the time? The time is available on my car dash and it gets announced on my car radio. It's on my TV, it's on my cooker, it's on my office PC screen and office wall. If I go out it's on church clocks and various other public places. In fact I am rarely so far away from a time readout that I can't judge the approximate time. So a watch to have the time available every second is slightly useful but not all that.
However, the elimination of ringing and alert tones sounds pretty good to me. As does the observation of personalised and pertinent information in a discreet and timely manner. There are loads of ways that I've found a Pebble watch useful (despite their pointless weather apps) that I never imagined when I backed the Kickstarter on a curious whim years ago. I could describe them, but there are many, and although I personally find them very useful I do realise that my requirements and preferences are not universal.
Hello werdsmith, to answer your questions in order:
I often wonder about golfers, why the f*** do they waste time doing that?
They enjoy the game, find it relaxing, or perhaps are using it to escape an unhappy domestic situation.
Now, I am wondering why people wear watches to tell the time?
Well watches are generally quite good at telling the time. Some people just like watches and like having the time on their wrist, always available. They like the different styles of watch, allowing something to suit their aesthetics. Some people appreciate the skill that has gone into making a good watch. Perhaps their watch may have been handed down, so having sentimental value. There may be more reasons than this, but these will get you started.
Finally - not a question, but:
I do realise that my requirements and preferences are not universal.
Nice of you to acknowledge this, but it doesn't really come across in your writing.
RELAXING…?! Not the way my dad and his mates play it ain't! Eventually someone's gonna get clobbered to death with a four wood and buried in a bunker - they're all 70+ now, so it's the usual arguments.
People have been shot for slow play in the States, y'know* - you don't fuck with golfers.
*my mum has a pen-friend in AZ, and an argument over slow play at her hubby's club turned nasty when a one of the agitators pulled out a pistol and shot the other in both legs.
>>Now, I am wondering why people wear watches to tell the time? The time is available on my car dash and it gets announced on my car radio. It's on my TV, it's on my cooker, it's on my office PC screen and office wall.
It's not a big mystery. It's obviously more convenient to tell the time when a clock is always in the same place (your wrist) and always has the same visual format.
1) Battery life - I already have a couple of tablets & an Android phone that get charged regularly, I not in a hurry to get another electronic mouth to feed
2) I'd have to start wearing glasses again, I can cope with my phone but anything smaller wouldn't be nice to try and use on a regular basis
.
The Techmoan guy owns an Omate 'smartwatch' he got from a Kickstarter last July, a full blown Android phone with a capacitive touchscreen, he discovered it's far more useful as a consumption device (reading news etc.) rather than a feedback device (writing emails etc.).
Check out his short review video of it, even going as far as browsing his own website and viewing a YouTube video on it:
http://www.techmoan.com/blog/2014/7/23/first-the-omate-truesmart-3g-smartwatch.html
Curious if anyone over the age of 50 has given this a shot. My near vision has been so compromised by presbyopia as has the vision of most folks hitting middle age that I just can't imaging using this for much more than telling time assuming I used a large clock face or numbers. I'm not an iPhone person but I can't believe how small all of the earlier generation iphones are. Just getting so tired of small text everywhere.
"...the first screen after setup animates hundreds of swirling particles; it’s vertiginous, like staring at the Pleiades."
If you find the Pleiades look like a vertiginous cloud of swirling particles I suggest you get to an optician. Or a doctor.
"There are alarms and stopwatches and timers, handier than on your phone."
As, indeed, there are on my £23 Casio watch. As a bonus it has a 5 year battery life and doesn't look like it should only be worn by a 1980s gym bunny.
I was so busy barfing at the "Live a better day" message on the watch on the second page photo that I initially missed the string of beans (or whatever) and manky bit of leather or string also wrapped around that wrist.
I wondered what they were for then realised they they must be the same as the watch - to mark the owner of that wrist (or stager of the photograph) as a complete tosser.
As has been pointed out, "objectively gorgeous" is a contradiction in itself.
Taking an article seriously that postulates such a thing in the first paragraph or two is not an easy thing for me.
I saw an actual Apple watch today in an Apple store. The circumstances were distracting. The watches were bolted (well, that's what it felt like - you couldn't move them even a micron) to the table, with their straps half-submerged in said table. You couldn't bring your hand/wrist underneath them to check what they'd look like on you. There were three watches along a ~3 metre (10ft) stretch of table. And there was a large sign on the table telling you the area was video-monitored.
Now, as for the watch - it's definitely not gorgeous.
It's also not quite as hideous/clunky as I thought it looked in the first photos I saw.
But it's still a far cry from pretty.
Looking at it, it's always 100% clear that it's (just) another electronic gadget.
Even sitting across from somebody at a table I couldn't be sure to tell whether they were wearing the Apple watch or an Android Wear equivalent.
As for the software - I was befuddled, and going by some reviews I've seen, I'm not the only one. There are multiple interactions, like crown-double-clicks, crown-single-clicks, pressing the home button (or whatever it's called - it sits on the same side as the crown), normal touch screen pushes and "force" pushes that do different things, and you never really get a clear, consistent behaviour that gives you any sense of "oh - this is what happens when I do X, and this is where I am".
Which is a bit of a surprise. I switched my iPhone for an Android phone for a bunch of reasons, but always thought Apple did a pretty good job of hiding complexity so as to not overwhelm new users. Not so with the Apple Watch.
Might be the double task as head of software AND hardware design might be a bit too much for Ivy - or maybe it's generally a bad idea to have HW and SW design headed by one person with more experience with different techniques of milling aluminium than with software UI design beyond (allegedly) using his private jet's leather upholstery as a template for the look of an app icon.
There's of course also the matter of only having a tiny screen and trying to cram too many things onto it. In that sense, nothing much has changed since the days of the iPod Nano 6th generation.
That - to me - is probably the biggest surprise here. Whatever somebody's misgivings about Apple - too expensive, too much of a walled garden, not enough control over what you can do, etc. etc. - they were always really very good at making the OS of their mobile devices feel easy, flawless, and smooth. Usually in a way that would make you forget your misgivings about, say, owning a keyboard-less miniature laptop screen in a fancy casing.
Not this time.
..is that I won't buy any smart watch or "watch device" that you have to recharge every frickin' day. A watch is for convenience. Remembering to recharge my watch is not convenient. Even a windup watch you have to wind every day is more convenient than this.
Maybe once battery life reaches a week between charges, or charging options are more convenient, such as inductive charging while you wear it but without giving you cancer or waking up soft boiled, but nah, probably not even then.
Ugh. I met a beautiful girl with a tattoo of "Find quality in life", which I really liked and that was a much more profound slogan than the sappy "Live a better day", which sounds like a poorly translated Bond movie title. Unfortunately, she decided I wasn't high enough quality for her. But I still liked the tattoo.