8 ms·

A Week on the Wrist: Apple Watch Series 4

41 points by gesticulator 8y ago

emit_time 8y ago
From the CDC: More than 750,000 hospitalizations occur each year because of AFib. The condition contributes to an estimated 130,000 deaths each year. The death rate from AFib as the primary or a contributing cause of death has been rising for more than two decades.3,4 AFib costs the United States about $6 billion each year. Medical costs for people who have AFib are about $8,705 higher per year than for people who do not have AFib. AFib Facts An estimated 2.7–6.1 million people in the United States have AFib. With the aging of the U.S. population, this number is expected to increase. Approximately 2% of people younger than age 65 have AFib, while about 9% of people aged 65 years or older have AFib. African Americans are less likely than those of European descent to have AFib. Because AFib cases increase with age and women generally live longer than men, more women than men experience AFib.[1] I think the inclusion of a ECG and afib detection is going to make a huge difference in many people's lives. Also consider that they may have raised the price, but not hugely significantly. I've had two ECGs done in the past year, and I'm sure each one cost my insurance more than the price difference of the watch. One of my friends is highly skeptical of Apple's privacy and who will have access to this data, but as far as I can tell Apple does not have access to, or share health data with anyone. Although, maybe we should be concerned about people giving insurance access to this data without realizing the implications to their coverage/premiums. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_atrial_fibrillation.htm https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_atr...
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > One of my friends is highly skeptical of Apple's privacy and who will have access to this data, but as far as I can tell Apple does not have access to, or share health data with anyone. By default, the data stays on your device or is encrypted end-to-end if you store it in iCloud. A while back you could share your heart data for a health study, but you had to opt in.
  - emit_time 8y ago
    That's what I thought, I was trying to find information on their policies about metadata collection or anything like that, I didn't spend much time looking though. But given Apple's stance and track record with privacy I'd be amazed if they violated that with health data.
    - singularity2001 8y ago
      Once it's in the cloud, the government (NSA) can read it on demand, encryption or not. Edit: "No one else, not even Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information." Strong words, and AES-128, maybe I was wrong.
      - saagarjha 8y ago
        They can't if the only keys to access it are on your device, unless there's a fundamental flaw in how our cryptography is supposed to work.
        singularity2001 8y ago
        > unless there's a fundamental flaw in our cryptography They compromised elliptic curves. Otherwise it depends on what Apple uses for encryption.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        "A minimum of 128-bit AES": https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
        ninkendo 8y ago
        Source?
        newscracker 8y ago
        If this is your argument, then nothing on this planet is secure or safe from the NSA. Take into account the speculative execution related flaws, like Spectre and Meltdown, found in all major CPUs (including ARM based ones), nothing is unbreakable.
- mikestew 8y ago
  I think the inclusion of a ECG and afib detection is going to make a huge difference in many people's lives I'm quite content with my Garmin Fenix, but this is the one reason I'm considering an Apple Watch this round. I have had (still have?) Wolf-Parkinson's syndrome, had the ablation, haven't had problems since. But, you know, it'd be an excuse to buy a new gadget, right? And it does look like Apple Watch might finally start being usable as a running watch. And, man, what I would've given for the ECG fifteen years ago when the docs were trying to get a repro. Wore a big mobile ECG thing for a few weeks, then gave up. I don't know that it's fit for purpose, but it would have been nice to just wear an Apple Watch until it repro'ed rather than time-boxing it with a rented device.
  - jbverschoor 8y ago
    The QardioCore is pretty decent too. It can show a flutter on the ecg. The problem I see with the watch is that you have to manually start it (30 seconds touching the crown). I think the QardioCore needs the app to record this, but I am not sure.
    - rootusrootus 8y ago
      There isn't any way around that unless you wear the strap (like the QardioCore) or otherwise have a semi-permanent lead attached to your other arm. You need an electrode on each arm one way or another, or use one of the other EKG leads that uses electrodes on on your chest.
- patcheudor 8y ago
  >I've had two ECGs done in the past year, and I'm sure each one cost my insurance more than the price difference of the watch. Average cost of an ECG in the US is $188.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    Before or after insurance? I got charged just under $400 to use a Holter monitor for a day. I could buy the device for under $300. And I paid another $400 for a tech (not a Dr, mind you, just a tech) to confirm that the automatic analysis from the computer was accurate. That was technically with insurance, but on a high-deductible plan so I basically paid it out of pocket.
    - patcheudor 8y ago
      Single visit test.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  As someone who experienced two recent events of tachycardia (strongly suspected to be some kind of SVT, not captured on EKG ... yet) as well as ongoing PVCs 24x7, the heart features are what is going to drive me to replace my S1 with an S4. That and my desire to loosen my direct connection with the phone by putting cellular in the watch itself. I carry around an EKG now with my phone (simple lead 1 device just like what is on the S4), so it will be nice to lose that. And the watch may do a better job of that anyway since it will be directly connected instead of sonically. I could go on and on about the insurance cost of an EKG. You can buy the EKG (well, at least a decent Holter monitor) for less than what insurance charges to rent it for a day.
saagarjha 8y ago
> The most apparent size difference is actually the thickness – the 0.7mm shaved off the back (mostly from the sensor array) makes a huge difference in terms of comfort and you feel it the moment you put one of these new models on. Does it really? I think this is an exaggeration. I went from a 10.5mm first-generation Apple Watch (which is thinner that this one!) to a 11.4mm Series 2, and I couldn't notice the difference. So I'm not optimistic on this being a perceivable difference–I guess I'll see on Friday.
- runjake 8y ago
  I'll speak up and agree with the parent. I don't really like the Apple Watch, so my bias is limited. But, I've had a S0 (returned), S1 (returned), and S2 (sits on night stand most of the time). For whatever reason, the S2 is noticeably thinner and more comfortable for me. It may be because I have relatively small, bony wrists but YMMV. Hell, I'm not sure how Apple measures the thinness, but eyeballing a borrowed S0 vs my S2, I can eyeball a thickness difference, albeit maybe just with the glass circle thing jutting out from the bottom? In case anyone is curious why I don't care for the Apple Watch: - I care about truly few notifications (texts). - I expect to lift my wrist and look at the watch and see the date and time immediately, every time. The Apple Watch doesn't really do this. Sometimes it shows me an audio interface instead, which you can disable. But a lot of the time, the Watch doesn't even flip on when I turn my wrist unless I turn it a specific way and speed.
  - lifeformed 8y ago
    Are you sure it's the thinness and not the weight difference? 700 microns sounds inconsequential.
  - wycy 8y ago
    My S3 very reliably presents text notifications to me. I wonder why yours doesn't. As an aside, I'm also curious why you keep buying them if you just keep returning them.
    - icantdrive55 8y ago
rauhl 8y ago
A couple of years ago I really wanted to get a smart watch. After reading and reading and reading about them, I realised: buying a smart watch is actually pretty dumb. For the same amount of money, I could buy an automatic watch which will never need a battery replaced, never spy on me, never require patches, never fall out of software support — and will be with me for years to come. So I went out and bought a few nice automatic watches, and I’ve been incredibly happy since. Each of my watches tells time, each looks good, and each will still be running years after every smart watch sold in 2016 is powered off. This particular Apple watch is IMHO too big, and mesh bracelets look very 1980s to me.
- konschubert 8y ago
  Years ago I wanted to buy a computer but then I realized that I could also buy a bike which is much better because a bike doesn't use electricity /s
  - wlesieutre 8y ago
    Any operation you can do on a computer I can do on my abacus. It never needs to be charged and I enjoy the mechanical nature of its computations. Saved a bunch of money too!
- achompas 8y ago
  Spoken like someone who has not yet paid to service an automatic watch. :P Although automatic watches in the price range of an Apple Watch - $300-500 - can be pretty durable, their service costs are high enough to justify replacing the damn thing with a new watch once that time rolls around in 5-10 years.
  - foobarrio 8y ago
    Do you really have to actually service them at 5 year intervals? I have Seiko SKX with a 7S26 movement that still people routinely say it goes 10+ years without a service. When you do, it's about $100 since the movement is so common and cheap. Seiko and Casio both make fine quartz watches that are solar powered and have much lower maint cost than an automatic watch (though typically not seen as a nice or luxurious watch). The swatch thin-line watches are quite nice and replacing the batteries is cheap.
MrEfficiency 8y ago
Anyone have thoughts on if this is worthwhile? Out of FAANG, I find Apple the closest to capitulation because they need to keep their luxury product audience buying their product instead of competitors who seem more willing to take risks. Every Apple announcement seems more like an 'evolution than revolution' per the article, and this doesnt seem any different. Is this the best watch on the market? EDIT: whoops- PRAISE APPLE, thank you steve jobs for your sacrifice.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > Is this the best watch on the market? Without a doubt. Google Wear lacks focus, Pebble is dead, and there's more offerings like Garmin or Fitbit that are nice but have a smaller scope. But yes, this is still an "evolutionary" release.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    There are still a lot of tradeoffs in the space. The Garmin Fenix is arguably better for serious runners and backpackers in part because of better battery life and probably being more rugged. But they're huge even for 6 ft. large-limbed me. And I could never get my remanufactured Fenix 3 to consistently measure distance accurately on twisty turny trails no matter what settings I played with. Battery life is definitely still an issue. In fact, I often travel with just a cheap Timex so it's one less thing I need to bother with.
    - zumzumzum 8y ago
      The tracking issues have largely been cleaned up on the Fenix 5. It works well enough day to day for me, showing notifications from apps on my phone, allows me to blacklist apps, and has all of the features I need as a "serious" runner and backpacker/hunter. The Apple Watch isn't playing in that space though.
      - ghaff 8y ago
        I was a bit on the fence between Apple and Garmin before a trip earlier this year where I really wanted a new GPS watch. I decided to spring for the Apple Watch but I wouldn't be surprised if there were another Fenix in my future at some point.
fhood 8y ago
Haptic feedback is huge. I think it is one of the most important ui innovations in the last few years, and the occasional ridicule apple receives for putting so much effort into it is extremely misguided. Haptic feedback removes the most crippling weakness of the touchscreen, the inability to use it without looking.
- taeric 8y ago
  Wait, how? Haptic feedback lets you know you did something. A simple "bounce" is convenient when directly interacting; However, it does nothing to let you know what you did. To the point that it almost equivalent to the bouncing icon on your task bar. That is, I expect the natural response to most of these feedbacks is to look at your watch. That not the case?
  - epicide 8y ago
    It can help you differentiate between whether it register a quick tap on the touch screen vs a force press. Not that they do it on the watch, but it could also have a ratcheting-type feel when you scroll to indicate a) that you're scrolling or b) how fast you're scrolling. The Steam Controller actually used this to great effect.
    - taeric 8y ago
      Oh, I get that it can help. I actually really like the feature. What I didn't get, was how it could help you use it without looking. Touchscreens require you to know what is on the screen, pretty much period. Right?
      - fhood 8y ago
        Ever want to skip a song on your iphone while driving? You know basically where the buttons are, but not exactly and since there is no feedback you cant tell if you are hitting a button, or just empty screen. With feedback you could allow the user to drag their finger around until they located a button based on the feedback.
komali2 8y ago
Really wish someone would step up to the plate with an Android or open platform smartwatch that even approaches the level of quality of the Apple watches. Their watches are slick but I'm very much opposed to "buying in" to the system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Apple watch without an iPhone to talk to (and subsequent iCloud account, apple text messages, Apple music etc) is just a very pretty watch with swappable faces, yea?
- glhaynes 8y ago
  I don't believe you can even get to the pretty watch with swappable faces part without an iPhone to activate it. It's very definitely only for iPhone users — as of now, at least.
- nradov 8y ago
  How do you define "quality"? There are smart watches from Samsung, Garmin, and other vendors which are superior in some ways but worse it others. It depends on what you want. All of those are open in the sense that you can write your own apps.
  - komali2 8y ago
    Wait, I wasn't sure if any of those have a cellular radio in them - that was the first thing that comes to mind. I do like the Galaxy Watch quite a bit though, though it requires "buy in" to Samsung's suite of things (Samsung Pay instead of Android Pay/Google Pay for example... which is just me preferring google stuff over samsung to be fair).
    - nradov 8y ago
      The Samsung Gear watch includes 4G LTE connectivity just like the Apple watch.
- biohax2015 8y ago
  Yep, one of the things keeping me from going Android is rendering my 250$ toy that I bought a year and a half ago useless.
netwanderer2 8y ago
This article has all the elements of a sponsored review but it was done extremely well and the author provided many detail information which I have to give him credit for that. The ECG feature is the only reason I would ever buy an iWatch, if it works as advertised. Apple is smart to focus in the health niche as there are no other valid reasons an average person would ever need a smart watch in their life.
- ghaff 8y ago
  >no other valid reasons an average person would ever need a smart watch in their life. I'm not a particular smart watch fanboy but here are a few reasons: - notifications (of which I use very few) - GPS tracking (hiking, running, etc.). That's partly health but not really. - Potentially do some phone-related things when your phone isn't handy.
- glhaynes 8y ago
  Apple is smart to focus in the health niche as there are no other valid reasons an average person would ever need a smart watch in their life. Imagine how nice notifications (and the ability to respond if necessary) are for people who work long shifts where they can't have their phone with them!
- achompas 8y ago
  Notifications are amazing for say, shift workers who are too busy to check their phones...like doctors and nurses.

41 points by gesticulator 8y ago

From the CDC: More than 750,000 hospitalizations occur each year because of AFib. The condition contributes to an estimated 130,000 deaths each year. The death rate from AFib as the primary or a contributing cause of death has been rising for more than two decades.3,4 AFib costs the United States about $6 billion each year. Medical costs for people who have AFib are about $8,705 higher per year than for people who do not have AFib. AFib Facts An estimated 2.7–6.1 million people in the United States have AFib. With the aging of the U.S. population, this number is expected to increase. Approximately 2% of people younger than age 65 have AFib, while about 9% of people aged 65 years or older have AFib. African Americans are less likely than those of European descent to have AFib. Because AFib cases increase with age and women generally live longer than men, more women than men experience AFib.[1] I think the inclusion of a ECG and afib detection is going to make a huge difference in many people's lives. Also consider that they may have raised the price, but not hugely significantly. I've had two ECGs done in the past year, and I'm sure each one cost my insurance more than the price difference of the watch. One of my friends is highly skeptical of Apple's privacy and who will have access to this data, but as far as I can tell Apple does not have access to, or share health data with anyone. Although, maybe we should be concerned about people giving insurance access to this data without realizing the implications to their coverage/premiums. [1]: https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_atrial_fibrillation.htm https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fs_atr...

saagarjha 8y ago
> One of my friends is highly skeptical of Apple's privacy and who will have access to this data, but as far as I can tell Apple does not have access to, or share health data with anyone. By default, the data stays on your device or is encrypted end-to-end if you store it in iCloud. A while back you could share your heart data for a health study, but you had to opt in.
- emit_time 8y ago
  That's what I thought, I was trying to find information on their policies about metadata collection or anything like that, I didn't spend much time looking though. But given Apple's stance and track record with privacy I'd be amazed if they violated that with health data.
  - singularity2001 8y ago
    Once it's in the cloud, the government (NSA) can read it on demand, encryption or not. Edit: "No one else, not even Apple, can access end-to-end encrypted information." Strong words, and AES-128, maybe I was wrong.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      They can't if the only keys to access it are on your device, unless there's a fundamental flaw in how our cryptography is supposed to work.
      - singularity2001 8y ago
        > unless there's a fundamental flaw in our cryptography They compromised elliptic curves. Otherwise it depends on what Apple uses for encryption.
        saagarjha 8y ago
        "A minimum of 128-bit AES": https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303
        ninkendo 8y ago
        Source?
        newscracker 8y ago
        If this is your argument, then nothing on this planet is secure or safe from the NSA. Take into account the speculative execution related flaws, like Spectre and Meltdown, found in all major CPUs (including ARM based ones), nothing is unbreakable.
mikestew 8y ago
I think the inclusion of a ECG and afib detection is going to make a huge difference in many people's lives I'm quite content with my Garmin Fenix, but this is the one reason I'm considering an Apple Watch this round. I have had (still have?) Wolf-Parkinson's syndrome, had the ablation, haven't had problems since. But, you know, it'd be an excuse to buy a new gadget, right? And it does look like Apple Watch might finally start being usable as a running watch. And, man, what I would've given for the ECG fifteen years ago when the docs were trying to get a repro. Wore a big mobile ECG thing for a few weeks, then gave up. I don't know that it's fit for purpose, but it would have been nice to just wear an Apple Watch until it repro'ed rather than time-boxing it with a rented device.
- jbverschoor 8y ago
  The QardioCore is pretty decent too. It can show a flutter on the ecg. The problem I see with the watch is that you have to manually start it (30 seconds touching the crown). I think the QardioCore needs the app to record this, but I am not sure.
  - rootusrootus 8y ago
    There isn't any way around that unless you wear the strap (like the QardioCore) or otherwise have a semi-permanent lead attached to your other arm. You need an electrode on each arm one way or another, or use one of the other EKG leads that uses electrodes on on your chest.
patcheudor 8y ago
>I've had two ECGs done in the past year, and I'm sure each one cost my insurance more than the price difference of the watch. Average cost of an ECG in the US is $188.
- rootusrootus 8y ago
  Before or after insurance? I got charged just under $400 to use a Holter monitor for a day. I could buy the device for under $300. And I paid another $400 for a tech (not a Dr, mind you, just a tech) to confirm that the automatic analysis from the computer was accurate. That was technically with insurance, but on a high-deductible plan so I basically paid it out of pocket.
  - patcheudor 8y ago
    Single visit test.
rootusrootus 8y ago
As someone who experienced two recent events of tachycardia (strongly suspected to be some kind of SVT, not captured on EKG ... yet) as well as ongoing PVCs 24x7, the heart features are what is going to drive me to replace my S1 with an S4. That and my desire to loosen my direct connection with the phone by putting cellular in the watch itself. I carry around an EKG now with my phone (simple lead 1 device just like what is on the S4), so it will be nice to lose that. And the watch may do a better job of that anyway since it will be directly connected instead of sonically. I could go on and on about the insurance cost of an EKG. You can buy the EKG (well, at least a decent Holter monitor) for less than what insurance charges to rent it for a day.

saagarjha 8y ago

> The most apparent size difference is actually the thickness – the 0.7mm shaved off the back (mostly from the sensor array) makes a huge difference in terms of comfort and you feel it the moment you put one of these new models on. Does it really? I think this is an exaggeration. I went from a 10.5mm first-generation Apple Watch (which is thinner that this one!) to a 11.4mm Series 2, and I couldn't notice the difference. So I'm not optimistic on this being a perceivable difference–I guess I'll see on Friday.

runjake 8y ago
I'll speak up and agree with the parent. I don't really like the Apple Watch, so my bias is limited. But, I've had a S0 (returned), S1 (returned), and S2 (sits on night stand most of the time). For whatever reason, the S2 is noticeably thinner and more comfortable for me. It may be because I have relatively small, bony wrists but YMMV. Hell, I'm not sure how Apple measures the thinness, but eyeballing a borrowed S0 vs my S2, I can eyeball a thickness difference, albeit maybe just with the glass circle thing jutting out from the bottom? In case anyone is curious why I don't care for the Apple Watch: - I care about truly few notifications (texts). - I expect to lift my wrist and look at the watch and see the date and time immediately, every time. The Apple Watch doesn't really do this. Sometimes it shows me an audio interface instead, which you can disable. But a lot of the time, the Watch doesn't even flip on when I turn my wrist unless I turn it a specific way and speed.
- lifeformed 8y ago
  Are you sure it's the thinness and not the weight difference? 700 microns sounds inconsequential.
- wycy 8y ago
  My S3 very reliably presents text notifications to me. I wonder why yours doesn't. As an aside, I'm also curious why you keep buying them if you just keep returning them.
  - icantdrive55 8y ago

rauhl 8y ago

A couple of years ago I really wanted to get a smart watch. After reading and reading and reading about them, I realised: buying a smart watch is actually pretty dumb. For the same amount of money, I could buy an automatic watch which will never need a battery replaced, never spy on me, never require patches, never fall out of software support — and will be with me for years to come. So I went out and bought a few nice automatic watches, and I’ve been incredibly happy since. Each of my watches tells time, each looks good, and each will still be running years after every smart watch sold in 2016 is powered off. This particular Apple watch is IMHO too big, and mesh bracelets look very 1980s to me.

konschubert 8y ago
Years ago I wanted to buy a computer but then I realized that I could also buy a bike which is much better because a bike doesn't use electricity /s
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  Any operation you can do on a computer I can do on my abacus. It never needs to be charged and I enjoy the mechanical nature of its computations. Saved a bunch of money too!
achompas 8y ago
Spoken like someone who has not yet paid to service an automatic watch. :P Although automatic watches in the price range of an Apple Watch - $300-500 - can be pretty durable, their service costs are high enough to justify replacing the damn thing with a new watch once that time rolls around in 5-10 years.
- foobarrio 8y ago
  Do you really have to actually service them at 5 year intervals? I have Seiko SKX with a 7S26 movement that still people routinely say it goes 10+ years without a service. When you do, it's about $100 since the movement is so common and cheap. Seiko and Casio both make fine quartz watches that are solar powered and have much lower maint cost than an automatic watch (though typically not seen as a nice or luxurious watch). The swatch thin-line watches are quite nice and replacing the batteries is cheap.

MrEfficiency 8y ago

Anyone have thoughts on if this is worthwhile? Out of FAANG, I find Apple the closest to capitulation because they need to keep their luxury product audience buying their product instead of competitors who seem more willing to take risks. Every Apple announcement seems more like an 'evolution than revolution' per the article, and this doesnt seem any different. Is this the best watch on the market? EDIT: whoops- PRAISE APPLE, thank you steve jobs for your sacrifice.

saagarjha 8y ago
> Is this the best watch on the market? Without a doubt. Google Wear lacks focus, Pebble is dead, and there's more offerings like Garmin or Fitbit that are nice but have a smaller scope. But yes, this is still an "evolutionary" release.
- ghaff 8y ago
  There are still a lot of tradeoffs in the space. The Garmin Fenix is arguably better for serious runners and backpackers in part because of better battery life and probably being more rugged. But they're huge even for 6 ft. large-limbed me. And I could never get my remanufactured Fenix 3 to consistently measure distance accurately on twisty turny trails no matter what settings I played with. Battery life is definitely still an issue. In fact, I often travel with just a cheap Timex so it's one less thing I need to bother with.
  - zumzumzum 8y ago
    The tracking issues have largely been cleaned up on the Fenix 5. It works well enough day to day for me, showing notifications from apps on my phone, allows me to blacklist apps, and has all of the features I need as a "serious" runner and backpacker/hunter. The Apple Watch isn't playing in that space though.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      I was a bit on the fence between Apple and Garmin before a trip earlier this year where I really wanted a new GPS watch. I decided to spring for the Apple Watch but I wouldn't be surprised if there were another Fenix in my future at some point.

fhood 8y ago

Haptic feedback is huge. I think it is one of the most important ui innovations in the last few years, and the occasional ridicule apple receives for putting so much effort into it is extremely misguided. Haptic feedback removes the most crippling weakness of the touchscreen, the inability to use it without looking.

taeric 8y ago
Wait, how? Haptic feedback lets you know you did something. A simple "bounce" is convenient when directly interacting; However, it does nothing to let you know what you did. To the point that it almost equivalent to the bouncing icon on your task bar. That is, I expect the natural response to most of these feedbacks is to look at your watch. That not the case?
- epicide 8y ago
  It can help you differentiate between whether it register a quick tap on the touch screen vs a force press. Not that they do it on the watch, but it could also have a ratcheting-type feel when you scroll to indicate a) that you're scrolling or b) how fast you're scrolling. The Steam Controller actually used this to great effect.
  - taeric 8y ago
    Oh, I get that it can help. I actually really like the feature. What I didn't get, was how it could help you use it without looking. Touchscreens require you to know what is on the screen, pretty much period. Right?
    - fhood 8y ago
      Ever want to skip a song on your iphone while driving? You know basically where the buttons are, but not exactly and since there is no feedback you cant tell if you are hitting a button, or just empty screen. With feedback you could allow the user to drag their finger around until they located a button based on the feedback.

komali2 8y ago

Really wish someone would step up to the plate with an Android or open platform smartwatch that even approaches the level of quality of the Apple watches. Their watches are slick but I'm very much opposed to "buying in" to the system. Correct me if I'm wrong, but an Apple watch without an iPhone to talk to (and subsequent iCloud account, apple text messages, Apple music etc) is just a very pretty watch with swappable faces, yea?

glhaynes 8y ago
I don't believe you can even get to the pretty watch with swappable faces part without an iPhone to activate it. It's very definitely only for iPhone users — as of now, at least.
nradov 8y ago
How do you define "quality"? There are smart watches from Samsung, Garmin, and other vendors which are superior in some ways but worse it others. It depends on what you want. All of those are open in the sense that you can write your own apps.
- komali2 8y ago
  Wait, I wasn't sure if any of those have a cellular radio in them - that was the first thing that comes to mind. I do like the Galaxy Watch quite a bit though, though it requires "buy in" to Samsung's suite of things (Samsung Pay instead of Android Pay/Google Pay for example... which is just me preferring google stuff over samsung to be fair).
  - nradov 8y ago
    The Samsung Gear watch includes 4G LTE connectivity just like the Apple watch.
biohax2015 8y ago
Yep, one of the things keeping me from going Android is rendering my 250$ toy that I bought a year and a half ago useless.

netwanderer2 8y ago

This article has all the elements of a sponsored review but it was done extremely well and the author provided many detail information which I have to give him credit for that. The ECG feature is the only reason I would ever buy an iWatch, if it works as advertised. Apple is smart to focus in the health niche as there are no other valid reasons an average person would ever need a smart watch in their life.

ghaff 8y ago
>no other valid reasons an average person would ever need a smart watch in their life. I'm not a particular smart watch fanboy but here are a few reasons: - notifications (of which I use very few) - GPS tracking (hiking, running, etc.). That's partly health but not really. - Potentially do some phone-related things when your phone isn't handy.
glhaynes 8y ago
Apple is smart to focus in the health niche as there are no other valid reasons an average person would ever need a smart watch in their life. Imagine how nice notifications (and the ability to respond if necessary) are for people who work long shifts where they can't have their phone with them!
achompas 8y ago
Notifications are amazing for say, shift workers who are too busy to check their phones...like doctors and nurses.