5 ms·

I agree with you, but I don't think that's what the author's point was. You'll still probably carry your iPhone with you, but it'll probably stay in your pocke

I agree with you, but I don't think that's what the author's point was. You'll still probably carry your iPhone with you, but it'll probably stay in your pocket or bag more often than not. And you're right, the Apple Watch will never replace the functions you cited. I've been using smartphones for years, and I'm definitely someone that's very tied to e-mails and phone calls. Yet I'd rather remove the distraction. I don't need to be 100% available all day, everyday. The Watch will let me respond to e-mails, messages, and phone calls without pulling out my phone. If it's something more involved, I can pull out my phone. Beyond that, I can wait until I get back to my desk. The Watch + AirPods won't completely replace the iPhone, it will complement it. Just like the iPad and MacBook does. None of those verticals are particularly large for Apple, and will never touch the iPhone. They simply mop up the periphery users like me that will actually use it. Everyone else is perfectly served by the iPhone.

pjmlp 9y ago
I surely won't pay 300 euros just to avoid taking my phone out of the pocket.
- melling 9y ago
  “In the future...” We are having one of those conversations about the future with current technology at current prices? Again...
- rayiner 9y ago
  For me that feature has been worth every penny. I'm constantly getting emails; if one comes in after business hours, 95% of the time it can wait until the next morning. But 5% of the time it can't, so I've always got to pull out my phone to check. With the watch, I can just glance quickly and go back to whatever I was doing. (I'm somewhat resentful of journalists always interjecting the narrative in articles about the Watch that it's an underlying symptom of people being addicted to their phones. For a lot of people, being available is part of the job. The Apple Watch is the modern equivalent of a pager.)
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    Can you not have your phone only buzz for messages matching some pattern?
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Not in any way that I’d trust.
- matwood 9y ago
  For fitness and heart rate tracking it's pretty nice. Add in alerts and other integrations and the AW quickly become something I was skeptical of, to something I wear every day. And while minor, the geek in me smiles every time my MBP logs me in automatically using the AW.
  - brlewis 9y ago
    AFAICT they still only do intermittent heart rate tracking except in workout mode. Continuous all day heart rate still requires something like Fitbit.
    - dpkonofa 9y ago
      That can't possibly be the case. A big point made during the latest keynote was that the watch will now report heart arrhythmia and that wouldn't be possible if the tracking was intermittent. It's probably close to something like the FitBit where it tracks every 5 minutes or something. That's enough to get rate information for things like arrhythmia while saving battery life enough to make it last 1.5 days on a charge.
      - brlewis 9y ago
        Fitbit tracks continuously, not every 5 minutes. There's a picture on this page where the Apple Watch shows "current" heart rate from "2m ago", so yes it can possibly be intermittent. Perhaps they can detect arrhythmia without continuous measurements. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-features-built-in-cellular-and-more/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-...
        dpkonofa 9y ago
        According to their website, FitBit only offers continuous tracking (known as PurePulse) on a few of its models. My point was that the new OS update must track continuously or more frequently than it was originally done because it wouldn't be able to detect arrhythmia otherwise. It already tracks continuously when you're doing a workout or it senses a heart rate reading that's greater than your resting heart rate and the technology that is used on the Apple Watch to detect the rate is exactly the same as the PurePulse found on Fitbits. It's green LEDs and photodiodes. Unlike the FitBit, though, the Apple Watch also offers infrared heart rate detection, although that's only used as a backup.
- ecesena 9y ago
  Is it only 300eur? In US it's 399$ + taxes, which in CA is 432.92$.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pjmlp 9y ago

I surely won't pay 300 euros just to avoid taking my phone out of the pocket.

melling 9y ago
“In the future...” We are having one of those conversations about the future with current technology at current prices? Again...
rayiner 9y ago
For me that feature has been worth every penny. I'm constantly getting emails; if one comes in after business hours, 95% of the time it can wait until the next morning. But 5% of the time it can't, so I've always got to pull out my phone to check. With the watch, I can just glance quickly and go back to whatever I was doing. (I'm somewhat resentful of journalists always interjecting the narrative in articles about the Watch that it's an underlying symptom of people being addicted to their phones. For a lot of people, being available is part of the job. The Apple Watch is the modern equivalent of a pager.)
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  Can you not have your phone only buzz for messages matching some pattern?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    Not in any way that I’d trust.
matwood 9y ago
For fitness and heart rate tracking it's pretty nice. Add in alerts and other integrations and the AW quickly become something I was skeptical of, to something I wear every day. And while minor, the geek in me smiles every time my MBP logs me in automatically using the AW.
- brlewis 9y ago
  AFAICT they still only do intermittent heart rate tracking except in workout mode. Continuous all day heart rate still requires something like Fitbit.
  - dpkonofa 9y ago
    That can't possibly be the case. A big point made during the latest keynote was that the watch will now report heart arrhythmia and that wouldn't be possible if the tracking was intermittent. It's probably close to something like the FitBit where it tracks every 5 minutes or something. That's enough to get rate information for things like arrhythmia while saving battery life enough to make it last 1.5 days on a charge.
    - brlewis 9y ago
      Fitbit tracks continuously, not every 5 minutes. There's a picture on this page where the Apple Watch shows "current" heart rate from "2m ago", so yes it can possibly be intermittent. Perhaps they can detect arrhythmia without continuous measurements. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-features-built-in-cellular-and-more/ https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2017/09/apple-watch-series-3-...
      - dpkonofa 9y ago
        According to their website, FitBit only offers continuous tracking (known as PurePulse) on a few of its models. My point was that the new OS update must track continuously or more frequently than it was originally done because it wouldn't be able to detect arrhythmia otherwise. It already tracks continuously when you're doing a workout or it senses a heart rate reading that's greater than your resting heart rate and the technology that is used on the Apple Watch to detect the rate is exactly the same as the PurePulse found on Fitbits. It's green LEDs and photodiodes. Unlike the FitBit, though, the Apple Watch also offers infrared heart rate detection, although that's only used as a backup.
ecesena 9y ago
Is it only 300eur? In US it's 399$ + taxes, which in CA is 432.92$.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]