11 ms·

Impressive hardware engineering, exaggerated touch interface aside, it's interesting how apple is able to apply great leaps in engineering to its phone yoy whi

Impressive hardware engineering, exaggerated touch interface aside, it's interesting how apple is able to apply great leaps in engineering to its phone yoy while at the same time not applying the same pace to the iwatch. You'd think that if they wanted to compete with LG/Moto/etc they'd get a better product out this year.

objclxt 11y ago
The watch has only been out for just over five months, so I'm not totally sure what you mean by "not applying the same pace" as the iPhone.
superdude 11y ago
The watch has only been out for like 5 months...
- Someone1234 11y ago
  True but you can hardly blame people for being confused. The Apple Watch was announced on September 9, 2014, but did not ship until April 24, 2015. So the Watch feels a year old even if it has technically only been selling for half that time. Even when it was announced it was behind the competition. By April 2015 (when they shipped the first units) the competition had moved on again. The only reason it is selling at all is because of the little Apple logo. Moto 360 2 and Huawei Watch are watches that actually look like watches, same thickness, shape, and with a longer battery life. Why anyone purchased an Apple Watch is still beyond me. It is one of their weakest new product launches ever.
  - threeseed 11y ago
    I agree it is their weakest product launch. However there are a number of innovations e.g. digital crown, force touch, haptic feedback and the excellent Fitness capabilities that do put in far ahead of the competition in day to day usability. It's really the software that is letting it down. And I don't know if you have seen a Moto 360/Huawei Watch in person but they are ridiculously large and tacky. They are nothing like a normal watch you would see around especially not for females which the Apple Watch's smaller size is an excellent match for.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      > And I don't know if you have seen a Moto 360/Huawei Watch in person but they are ridiculously large and tacky. I have. The 360 looks like a traditional watch, and the Apple Watch looks far bigger[0], and unusual. Have you seen them in real life? We have people in the building who own the 360 and others with the Apple Watch, I see them daily. The Apple Watch stands out as being a "box on the wrist" the 360 is invisible unless brought up or shown off. > However there are a number of innovations e.g. digital crown, force touch, haptic feedback and the excellent Fitness capabilities that do put in far ahead of the competition in day to day usability. This is so typical of Apple fans. Ignore everything on the market then claim Apple innovated/created every major product feature. Almost everything on your list pre-existed ahead of the Apple Watch announcement (let alone launch). The crown is a watch feature which is over fifty years old. It has appeared on digital watches for at least twenty years before Apple "invented it." I myself owned a digital watch in the mid 1990s with a crown (which allowed you to set the time, change the date, etc all on a completely digital watch). Apple was not the first watch to contain a vibrator ("haptic feedback"), IBM and Citizen Watch created the horrifying "WatchPad" in 2000(!) which had it. Since then many (most?) smartwatches have contained it as standard. It is absurd to call it an Apple innovation for a product released in 2015. It is laughable to point at the fitness stuff. Even stepping away from smartwatches for a second, there is an entire market of fitness trackers around, many of which have incredible usability and are extremely popular. Fitbit, Garmin, iFit, heck even Microsoft have been producing products in this field for literally years ahead. Then there is the smartwatch competition from Samsung, LG, Garmin, Moto, etc all have fitness tracking capabilities. It is like you either haven't been following technology at all or are just trolling. There's no other explanation for anyone claiming that Apple "innovated" most of the stuff on your list. I half expected you to claim that Apple invented the LCD screen on a smartwatch, or the wrist strap, it would be no more absurd than your other claims... [0] http://www.modernhoot.com/372/moto-360-and-apple-watch-side-by-side/ http://www.modernhoot.com/372/moto-360-and-apple-watch-side-...
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - threeseed 11y ago
  - superdude 11y ago
    "The only reason it is selling at all is because of the little Apple logo." Statements like that are not productive.
    - Someone1234 11y ago
      Neither are statements that claim something isn't productive without saying why.
      - astrodust 11y ago
        Your hand-waving dismissal ("It's the logo, duh") shows a profound lack of understanding of how products are developed, marketed and sold. If it was as simple as slapping a logo on something then companies would be able to do this with impunity. Every brand that's lost focus on what it does and instead seeks to monetize its brand has failed. Eventually your reputation goes from being valuable to being associated with cheap junk. Maybe you can try and explain why the Moto watch isn't selling very well and Apple's is. Maybe there's more to it than a logo. Maybe Apple is a company focused on engaging with customers and delivering products they want rather than what Motorola is doing by launching a watch just because. Apple was very concerned with making the watch relevant to people. Motorola was very concerned with getting to market first. So what we have is watches for early adopters (Motorola, etc.) and watches for ordinary people (Apple Watch). I don't think choice is a bad thing here, and I wouldn't think less of someone for making a decision between the two.
        Someone1234 11y ago
        > Maybe you can try and explain why the Moto watch isn't selling very well and Apple's is. The Apple brand. Nothing more. That was my point. Apple released a watch which when announced had year old specs and technology, and when shipped was older yet still. But just because of the brand every major news outlet had a piece about it, every major tech blog had several articles about it, and people drolled over what is essentially a "me too!" product. > Maybe Apple is a company focused on engaging with customers and delivering products they want rather than what Motorola is doing by launching a watch just because. Do you have any basis at all for this? Other companies release stuff "just because" but when Apple releases stuff it is to "engage customers?" That comes across so bias/clouded it is incredible. > Apple was very concerned with making the watch relevant to people. Motorola was very concerned with getting to market first. Motorola wasn't first to market, smartwatches are years old at this point. This is third generation tech'. Apple entered the market late, nobody was racing to beat them. You could literally go into any major electronics retailer and buy six or more different smartwatches on the day Apple announced the Watch (and that was six months before it shipped). So, no, nobody was racing to take Apple's toys. Apple was racing to get into a preexisting market last of any major manufacturer. > So what we have is watches for early adopters (Motorola, etc.) and watches for ordinary people (Apple Watch). I don't think choice is a bad thing here, and I wouldn't think less of someone for making a decision between the two. Early adopters are 2011. It is 2014-15 we're talking about. Unless the Pebble (1), Galaxy Gear (1), LG Watch, etc didn't ship for the last three or four years... There's nothing "ordinary" about Apple's brick-shaped watch. Circular watches blend in. They appear like normal watches. Apple's Watch is for tech geeks who wish to stand out. I think categorising three years and three generations of smart watches as "early adopters" and anything post-Apple as a copycat product is incredible.
LeoNatan25 11y ago
Is there are point really to a new hardware so soon, when the software is still not there? I mean, we haven't even received proper "native" apps in wOS2. Apps are still watered-down middleman apps, instead of opening full PepperUICore framework, or even better, UIKit (flavored, like they did with the tvOS version). Hacks have demonstrated full UIKit apps running smoothly on the existing hardware. I think the limiting factor is not the hardware.
- potatolicious 11y ago
  > "I think the limiting factor is not the hardware." Well, not CPU/GPU hardware, but battery life is still a major concern. That said, I think the Apple Watch's battery life has proven to be better than advertised (~2 full days for me before it gets critically low, better than the ~1 day advertised) so there's definitely some room to play there. I also picked up a Pebble Time Steel, and have been mildly disappointed. It definitely lasts longer than the Apple Watch, but the margin is not nearly as wide as you'd hope. The marketing copy says ~7 days, but in reality it's been more like ~4 days, and between the Apple Watch @ 2 day battery life vs. Pebble @ 4 day battery life, I know which I'd pick.
  - LeoNatan25 11y ago
    I agree about the battery, but has battery technology advanced so much in the year since development of the current hardware? I doubt it is such that would warrant another hardware cycle.
kbenson 11y ago
The outsider's perspective (I own no Apple products and don't follow announcements from them that closely) is that when their product is obviously outclassed (as opposed to slightly outclasses as the normal phone leap-frogging entails) they quietly wait long enough to have a major performance and/or feature drop and then release it all of a sudden. It helps that their media relations are second to none and can use this time to eviscerate the competition. Say what you will about Apple, but they are very savvy when it comes to product development and marketplaces.
- lostlogin 11y ago
  They release a phone at the same time each year and have done so for a fair while now. The marketing aside, the schedule is pretty predictable.
  - kbenson 11y ago
    We aren't talking about phones though, so I'm not sure how this applies.
threeseed 11y ago
Don't know what you are talking about on any points. a) 3D touch is not exaggerated. I have spent a few days with the iPhone 6s and it is a game changer for future mobile interaction. It is very reminiscent of contextual menus and in a year once all developers get on board (and they will thanks to Apple's excellent iOS9 adoption rate) it will be hard to use any phone that doesn't have it. b) There is no need for new hardware for the Apple Watch. I have one. Every problem with it is software related. Many animations are superfluous, the app strategy is misguided, native apps are still too slow (yet Apple's apps are fast), the watch faces are not nearly customisable enough and it is not situation aware enough.
- ohitsdom 11y ago
  Mostly good points, but one gripe: > they will thanks to Apple's excellent iOS9 adoption rate Adoption rate does not matter when discussing 3D Touch because it requires hardware and is only available on the latest models. But I still think devs get on board quickly because Apple sells a lot of phones, and it's a cool feature (and a bummer when not implemented).
  - JohnBooty 11y ago
    If iOS9 adoption is fast, developers can start building iOS 9 apps that include 3D Touch features. The 3D Touch support will obviously only work on the 6S series for now, and there may be different code paths involved but it's easily do-able. If a majority of users stuck with iOS8 for some reason, developers would need to target that, iOS8 apps couldn't support Touch 3D features even optionally since none of the relevant APIs would be available.
    - JimDabell 11y ago
      You don't need to drop iOS 8 support to include 3D Touch support in your applications.
  - LeoNatan25 11y ago
    OS adoption rate helps with the incentive to support new API, regardless of the hardware. You support it, and the hardware will catch up. Since we are already at 50% at least, implementing support is an easy decision. What more, the API here is very easy to implement, so even more incentive to implement.
saturdaysaint 11y ago
"How is apple able to apply great leaps in engineering to its phone while at the same time not applying the same pace to the iwatch?" "How dare apple release a new iwatch after less than six months? Shouldn't they give everyone a new watch?" Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
mmmBacon 11y ago
This Watch release isn't new internal hardware. It's simply an increase in the options you can buy in terms of case colors/materials and bands. As a watch is something you wear, it makes sense to give people more options to customize it to their personal tastes. Also you don't just slap a faster more power hungry processor into Watch. Watch is highly power optimized so you can't add something that's more power hungry without touching everything else in the system. It's just not correct to think of Watch as an iPhone on your wrist. It's selling point will not be that it just has an improved processor.

objclxt 11y ago

The watch has only been out for just over five months, so I'm not totally sure what you mean by "not applying the same pace" as the iPhone.

superdude 11y ago

The watch has only been out for like 5 months...

Someone1234 11y ago
True but you can hardly blame people for being confused. The Apple Watch was announced on September 9, 2014, but did not ship until April 24, 2015. So the Watch feels a year old even if it has technically only been selling for half that time. Even when it was announced it was behind the competition. By April 2015 (when they shipped the first units) the competition had moved on again. The only reason it is selling at all is because of the little Apple logo. Moto 360 2 and Huawei Watch are watches that actually look like watches, same thickness, shape, and with a longer battery life. Why anyone purchased an Apple Watch is still beyond me. It is one of their weakest new product launches ever.
- threeseed 11y ago
  I agree it is their weakest product launch. However there are a number of innovations e.g. digital crown, force touch, haptic feedback and the excellent Fitness capabilities that do put in far ahead of the competition in day to day usability. It's really the software that is letting it down. And I don't know if you have seen a Moto 360/Huawei Watch in person but they are ridiculously large and tacky. They are nothing like a normal watch you would see around especially not for females which the Apple Watch's smaller size is an excellent match for.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    > And I don't know if you have seen a Moto 360/Huawei Watch in person but they are ridiculously large and tacky. I have. The 360 looks like a traditional watch, and the Apple Watch looks far bigger[0], and unusual. Have you seen them in real life? We have people in the building who own the 360 and others with the Apple Watch, I see them daily. The Apple Watch stands out as being a "box on the wrist" the 360 is invisible unless brought up or shown off. > However there are a number of innovations e.g. digital crown, force touch, haptic feedback and the excellent Fitness capabilities that do put in far ahead of the competition in day to day usability. This is so typical of Apple fans. Ignore everything on the market then claim Apple innovated/created every major product feature. Almost everything on your list pre-existed ahead of the Apple Watch announcement (let alone launch). The crown is a watch feature which is over fifty years old. It has appeared on digital watches for at least twenty years before Apple "invented it." I myself owned a digital watch in the mid 1990s with a crown (which allowed you to set the time, change the date, etc all on a completely digital watch). Apple was not the first watch to contain a vibrator ("haptic feedback"), IBM and Citizen Watch created the horrifying "WatchPad" in 2000(!) which had it. Since then many (most?) smartwatches have contained it as standard. It is absurd to call it an Apple innovation for a product released in 2015. It is laughable to point at the fitness stuff. Even stepping away from smartwatches for a second, there is an entire market of fitness trackers around, many of which have incredible usability and are extremely popular. Fitbit, Garmin, iFit, heck even Microsoft have been producing products in this field for literally years ahead. Then there is the smartwatch competition from Samsung, LG, Garmin, Moto, etc all have fitness tracking capabilities. It is like you either haven't been following technology at all or are just trolling. There's no other explanation for anyone claiming that Apple "innovated" most of the stuff on your list. I half expected you to claim that Apple invented the LCD screen on a smartwatch, or the wrist strap, it would be no more absurd than your other claims... [0] http://www.modernhoot.com/372/moto-360-and-apple-watch-side-by-side/ http://www.modernhoot.com/372/moto-360-and-apple-watch-side-...
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - threeseed 11y ago
- superdude 11y ago
  "The only reason it is selling at all is because of the little Apple logo." Statements like that are not productive.
  - Someone1234 11y ago
    Neither are statements that claim something isn't productive without saying why.
    - astrodust 11y ago
      Your hand-waving dismissal ("It's the logo, duh") shows a profound lack of understanding of how products are developed, marketed and sold. If it was as simple as slapping a logo on something then companies would be able to do this with impunity. Every brand that's lost focus on what it does and instead seeks to monetize its brand has failed. Eventually your reputation goes from being valuable to being associated with cheap junk. Maybe you can try and explain why the Moto watch isn't selling very well and Apple's is. Maybe there's more to it than a logo. Maybe Apple is a company focused on engaging with customers and delivering products they want rather than what Motorola is doing by launching a watch just because. Apple was very concerned with making the watch relevant to people. Motorola was very concerned with getting to market first. So what we have is watches for early adopters (Motorola, etc.) and watches for ordinary people (Apple Watch). I don't think choice is a bad thing here, and I wouldn't think less of someone for making a decision between the two.
      - Someone1234 11y ago
        > Maybe you can try and explain why the Moto watch isn't selling very well and Apple's is. The Apple brand. Nothing more. That was my point. Apple released a watch which when announced had year old specs and technology, and when shipped was older yet still. But just because of the brand every major news outlet had a piece about it, every major tech blog had several articles about it, and people drolled over what is essentially a "me too!" product. > Maybe Apple is a company focused on engaging with customers and delivering products they want rather than what Motorola is doing by launching a watch just because. Do you have any basis at all for this? Other companies release stuff "just because" but when Apple releases stuff it is to "engage customers?" That comes across so bias/clouded it is incredible. > Apple was very concerned with making the watch relevant to people. Motorola was very concerned with getting to market first. Motorola wasn't first to market, smartwatches are years old at this point. This is third generation tech'. Apple entered the market late, nobody was racing to beat them. You could literally go into any major electronics retailer and buy six or more different smartwatches on the day Apple announced the Watch (and that was six months before it shipped). So, no, nobody was racing to take Apple's toys. Apple was racing to get into a preexisting market last of any major manufacturer. > So what we have is watches for early adopters (Motorola, etc.) and watches for ordinary people (Apple Watch). I don't think choice is a bad thing here, and I wouldn't think less of someone for making a decision between the two. Early adopters are 2011. It is 2014-15 we're talking about. Unless the Pebble (1), Galaxy Gear (1), LG Watch, etc didn't ship for the last three or four years... There's nothing "ordinary" about Apple's brick-shaped watch. Circular watches blend in. They appear like normal watches. Apple's Watch is for tech geeks who wish to stand out. I think categorising three years and three generations of smart watches as "early adopters" and anything post-Apple as a copycat product is incredible.

LeoNatan25 11y ago

Is there are point really to a new hardware so soon, when the software is still not there? I mean, we haven't even received proper "native" apps in wOS2. Apps are still watered-down middleman apps, instead of opening full PepperUICore framework, or even better, UIKit (flavored, like they did with the tvOS version). Hacks have demonstrated full UIKit apps running smoothly on the existing hardware. I think the limiting factor is not the hardware.

potatolicious 11y ago
> "I think the limiting factor is not the hardware." Well, not CPU/GPU hardware, but battery life is still a major concern. That said, I think the Apple Watch's battery life has proven to be better than advertised (~2 full days for me before it gets critically low, better than the ~1 day advertised) so there's definitely some room to play there. I also picked up a Pebble Time Steel, and have been mildly disappointed. It definitely lasts longer than the Apple Watch, but the margin is not nearly as wide as you'd hope. The marketing copy says ~7 days, but in reality it's been more like ~4 days, and between the Apple Watch @ 2 day battery life vs. Pebble @ 4 day battery life, I know which I'd pick.
- LeoNatan25 11y ago
  I agree about the battery, but has battery technology advanced so much in the year since development of the current hardware? I doubt it is such that would warrant another hardware cycle.

kbenson 11y ago

The outsider's perspective (I own no Apple products and don't follow announcements from them that closely) is that when their product is obviously outclassed (as opposed to slightly outclasses as the normal phone leap-frogging entails) they quietly wait long enough to have a major performance and/or feature drop and then release it all of a sudden. It helps that their media relations are second to none and can use this time to eviscerate the competition. Say what you will about Apple, but they are very savvy when it comes to product development and marketplaces.

lostlogin 11y ago
They release a phone at the same time each year and have done so for a fair while now. The marketing aside, the schedule is pretty predictable.
- kbenson 11y ago
  We aren't talking about phones though, so I'm not sure how this applies.

threeseed 11y ago

Don't know what you are talking about on any points. a) 3D touch is not exaggerated. I have spent a few days with the iPhone 6s and it is a game changer for future mobile interaction. It is very reminiscent of contextual menus and in a year once all developers get on board (and they will thanks to Apple's excellent iOS9 adoption rate) it will be hard to use any phone that doesn't have it. b) There is no need for new hardware for the Apple Watch. I have one. Every problem with it is software related. Many animations are superfluous, the app strategy is misguided, native apps are still too slow (yet Apple's apps are fast), the watch faces are not nearly customisable enough and it is not situation aware enough.

ohitsdom 11y ago
Mostly good points, but one gripe: > they will thanks to Apple's excellent iOS9 adoption rate Adoption rate does not matter when discussing 3D Touch because it requires hardware and is only available on the latest models. But I still think devs get on board quickly because Apple sells a lot of phones, and it's a cool feature (and a bummer when not implemented).
- JohnBooty 11y ago
  If iOS9 adoption is fast, developers can start building iOS 9 apps that include 3D Touch features. The 3D Touch support will obviously only work on the 6S series for now, and there may be different code paths involved but it's easily do-able. If a majority of users stuck with iOS8 for some reason, developers would need to target that, iOS8 apps couldn't support Touch 3D features even optionally since none of the relevant APIs would be available.
  - JimDabell 11y ago
    You don't need to drop iOS 8 support to include 3D Touch support in your applications.
- LeoNatan25 11y ago
  OS adoption rate helps with the incentive to support new API, regardless of the hardware. You support it, and the hardware will catch up. Since we are already at 50% at least, implementing support is an easy decision. What more, the API here is very easy to implement, so even more incentive to implement.

saturdaysaint 11y ago

"How is apple able to apply great leaps in engineering to its phone while at the same time not applying the same pace to the iwatch?" "How dare apple release a new iwatch after less than six months? Shouldn't they give everyone a new watch?" Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

mmmBacon 11y ago

This Watch release isn't new internal hardware. It's simply an increase in the options you can buy in terms of case colors/materials and bands. As a watch is something you wear, it makes sense to give people more options to customize it to their personal tastes. Also you don't just slap a faster more power hungry processor into Watch. Watch is highly power optimized so you can't add something that's more power hungry without touching everything else in the system. It's just not correct to think of Watch as an iPhone on your wrist. It's selling point will not be that it just has an improved processor.