19 ms·

While someone else already made the reference to this quote, it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I br

While someone else already made the reference to this quote, it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments. Personally I don't know that there's any watch that would really get me to start wearing watches at all again -- I never liked them that much to begin with. But this knocks down an awful lot of the criticisms I've had of existing smartwatches. The smaller Apple Watch is 38mm, certainly not small but by no means an irrationally huge behemoth. (Even the larger is only 42mm, I believe.) When you consider the three lines, two sizes, and multiple bands, there's dozens of combinations available. You may personally not like the fashion sense, but other than the Moto 360 this is the first smartwatch that's had a fashion sense to criticize. (And guys, the Moto 360 is 46mm, so let's not pretend it's svelte, either.) But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. Yes, I'm sure every single component has an antecedent you can point to, just like the iPhone's interaction model. Except that nobody put it all together like that before the iPhone. And nobody put it all together like this before the Apple Watch. I'm not so glib as to say that catcalls when Apple introduces a new product are a sure sign of success (I remember the iPod Hifi, thanks). But again, it's hard not to see a few recurring patterns in the responses: oh, look, it doesn't do everything that it could (or that competitors already do!) and it's too expensive. If it sells well, it'll only because of the Apple faithful buying everything. And, of course, if it sells well, than within a year all smartwatches will adapt its interaction model. Other manufacturers will come out with variants that Apple isn't making, and we can move onto the evergreen phase of dismissing Apple as a company that just copies everybody else.

personZ 12y ago
it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments You should also remember that he was hardly in the majority with those comments. Further he was technically correct, and the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire (notably iTunes). But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. How so? Google put, it seems, enormous thought and effort into Android Wear. It is a whole interaction and ecosystem built specifically for smart watches. Because Tim Cook gives some trite speech about not using a smartphone OS on a watch (this was, it is worth noting, not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet")? You've tried to cover every possible Apple defense, so you seem pretty committed, but you have to understand that a lot of people are derisive because we've been hearing the Apple faithful railing about these same attributes of competitor devices for months. Announcing before availability, large and bulky, needs to be tethered to a device, square, and so on...I have to imagine all of those once liabilities will suddenly turn into strengths. I love my Apple products, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach.
- klausa 12y ago
  >not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet" The way Xcode (and iOS8) support dynamic layouts is nothing like Android. Xcode 6 allows you to have multiple designs/constaints within the same UI file, for different screen sizes. Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits all", which is no way similar to what's Apple doing. ___ Since I'm getting heavily downvoted, I'd like at least a chance to clarify. I'm perfectly aware that it is technically possible to create universal tablet/phone Android app, with separate layouts for each. However, that's not what's usually being done. I believe reasons for this for two-fold: 1. Google's initial message after introducing tablets didn't push hard enough for separate UI (or didn't at all) 2. Developers mentality @2: I think it's just a different way that the two ecosystem operates. When Apple tells developers to jump, devs ask how high. When Google tells developers to jump, they go "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man".
  - personZ 12y ago
    Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits all", which is no way similar to what's Apple doing. Aside from CSS-type "responsive" design, Android layouts have always had resource tags, which means that you can set different layouts for screen sizes, orientations, pixel densities, cultures, text direction, and so on. Apps that didn't demonstrate this on tablets were as they were because the developers were lazy or simply didn't care, not because of a limitation of the platform.
    - klausa 12y ago
      Maybe I should've added "as practiced", since all the apps I'm using are still pretty much blown-up versions of their phones counterparts. I haven't picked up my Android tablet in like half a year now, does Twitter and Facebook have a proper tablet android app by now?
      - ossreality 12y ago
        It's okay, you just don't know what you're talking about. Even when Android tablets run the phone app and the dev hasn't created an alternative Fragment driven layout, it STILL isn't 2x/4x scaling everything on the screen like iOS is. You're just completely and utterly wrong.
MCRed 12y ago
I believe the iPod HiFi was a success. The purpose of that product was to create a market for iPod docks. At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them. I bet Apple has made more money from "Made for iPod" licensing as a result of the iPod HiFi (which kickstarted that industry) than their gross revenues from the iPod HiFi. So, maybe a failure as a product, because it stimulated competition that, if it hadn't come about would have left Apple with a %100 share of iPod docks. But given how many iPod docks have sold, I'm sure that market would have been viable, even if only Apple were making them.
- threeseed 12y ago
  Exactly. The iPod HiFi did its job perfectly. It was designed to stick a rocket up the likes of Bose, Pioneer etc to show that Apple could easily and successfully move into their markets.
  - scep12 12y ago
    Except it was 2 years after Bose had introduced the SoundDock.
- duskwuff 12y ago
  There were already a lot of other iPod docks on the market when the iPod HiFi came out in 2006. Keep in mind that the dock connector was introduced with the 3rd-generation iPod in 2003 -- it's hardly as though third parties failed to notice the connector for those three years! The Bose SoundDock came out in late 2004, and it was hardly unique, either; this review compares it to several other similar products on the market at the time: http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/bose-sounddock-ipod http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/bose-sounddoc...
- scep12 12y ago
  > At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them. What?? The Bose SoundDock was product of the year in 2004 -- 2 years before the iPod HiFi came out. Apple was behind the times and completely missed the mark with the HiFi.
dkulchenko 12y ago
But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. I strongly disagree. I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here - they seemed to have approached the problem as "how can we make iOS usable on a smaller screen" and came up with interfaces like the crown and the (albeit pretty) circle-based homescreen UI to access apps to tackle those issues. Which is interesting, because they started off their presentation explicitly saying they didn't want to just scale down iOS. Google, on the other hand, approached the problem of "how can we make wearables useful as a platform" rather than "how can we scale down Android" and created the intuitive cards interface (which, as a Moto 360 user, is remarkably convenient) and Google Now-based contextual awareness of info you need when you need it. Android Wear doesn't even have an app selector easily accessible, because they don't want you to use the watch that way - it's hard to hunt for apps on a tiny screen, so instead they push contextual information at you as you need it in an easy-to-use way. I have high hopes for both platforms in the years to come, but I don't find Apple's watch design to be smarter or better thought-out as it is right now (and I'm typing this on a Macbook Air, so I have an appreciation for Apple).
- MCRed 12y ago
  I am old enough to remember when the first Mac came out. There was a response to it very much like you see here (only it happened on BBSes because there wasn't much of an "internet") then. It's been the same way for every major product- iMac was chastised for lacking a floppy drive, the iPod, iPhone and iPad were all poo-poohed. In every case someone has said "X is better!" And in every case so far that X has turned out to maybe have some particular features, or better stats for some particular stat, but not to be engineered to the level of the Apple product. Particularly with the android example- the only way they were able to compete was to change from a blackberry copy to an counterfeit iOS interface. Which they did very quickly. I haven't seen anything innovative from Google since 2001 (unless you count gmail as innovative, which I would so, that's the exception.) Android is still a terrible, clunky piece of junk, even with so many years to copy Apple. We'll see when the Apple watch is on the market - but really, Samsung and Googles watches so far have appeared to be basically copies of guesses of what apple was going to make (given that the Apple watch has been rumored so long) rather than genuinely well considered and innovative devices. Kinda the way HP put out a "slate" computer at Comdex the year the iPad was announced, Balmer something to go up on stage and brag about and "beat Apple to market with". I do really wish, if Google wants to compete with Apple, they did something innovative (Microsoft did with their Metro UI) or if not innovative, something really good. But it seems that in the way that Apple doesn't quite "get" web services, Google doesn't quite get operating systems. ---- Edit: Use android regularly, unfortunately. Google maps in JS was pretty innovative, but I think that's part of the Gmail invention- e.g.: web 2.0. I give google credit for inventing Web 2.0. Or at least pushing it forward quite a bit.
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
>Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device How are we measuring "more thought" now? Mega-Turings? I think this statement is very unfair to Android Wear. A non-biased look shows some pretty innovative aspects at work and a usable design. Its also really unfair to claim that you know all about the Apple Watch when no one has one yet people have been using AW for months.
Spooky23 12y ago
I think you're on the right track here. The idea that Apple is putting out a vision where you can communicate with people nearby in non-verbal ways is really powerful. You have a company that has managed to deliver an awesome mobile experience on for consumer and enterprise shipping a device that can do everything from payments to health monitoring to door access. That's a ridiculously powerful thing. What android can or can't do technically doesn't matter. Google, samsung, etc can't make the relationships that Apple can right now.
- deong 12y ago
  The good thing is that we all should benefit. I've had NFC on at least my last two phones (maybe 3?), but the hardware is not ubiquitous enough to matter. I'm assuming that there's nothing locking the POS hardware into Apple Pay, and so NFC payments become a thing everyone can use.
  - Zombieball 12y ago
    Out of curiosity are tap-to-pay credit cards and POS devices common where you live? (Also where do you live? lol) Here in Vancouver, BC I would say these sales terminals are becoming quite common place.
    - 72deluxe 12y ago
      Here in the UK there are NFC payment points all over the place, but no mobile payment systems support them; it's all US-only.
    - deong 12y ago
      I'm in Iceland, and I don't really see them much (if ever). Chip and pin readers are the norm here, and you can completely function without cash, but I don't notice contactless options really. I'll take this opportunity to also say that Apple Maps still don't work here. By which I mean, they don't work at all. They have no data. The entire app is little more than a graphic of a map and a UIAlertView that says "No results found".
  - 12y ago
blueking 12y ago
Not so fast buddy, what Apple has today is a marketing video they aren't shipping until 2015. The moto360 is available today. So for the record google were first to market with this concept. And it was google who had NFC payments on their nexus line last year with widespread integration so lets not pretend that was an Apple innovation either. The only new innovation I see is sending sketches to other people, on a tiny screen. What a silly gimmick. Now I can send little drawings of boobies to my friends. How soon before that gets old ? Hardly a oculus class breakthrough. Apple has lost its edge.
msabalau 12y ago
"Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work" What's interesting to me is the extent to which the Apple Watch is designed to be interacted with, which contrasts strongly with Google's vision of wearables (both Android Wear and Glass) as assistants that are there when you need them, but which otherwise disappear so you can stay immersed in life.
grey-area 12y ago
Taco's criticism of the iPod was that it didn't do enough - didn't have enough features, didn't have enough storage etc, and he was rightly panned for getting it wrong. Criticisms of the price or lack of features of Apple products historically have been proved unfounded (it's easy to lower the price and add more features). So I agree if someone says 'but it doesn't do x', they can easily be satisfied by later models. In contrast, many of the criticisms of this watch centre on the incoherent design, awkward interaction with a physical scroll-wheel AND touch interface (which Apple are not even allowing people to try out in the demos), and the grab-bag of features added to it, apparently without thought about how they all interact. It looks like it does too much, and none of it well. They can possibly rescue this mess in the time they have before launch by polishing the software, but I'm hesitant about the concept of this scroll wheel (what they call a digital crown), which they have now committed to for the long term, and sounds like it is going to be very awkward when combined with physical touches and on the wrist, and pointless if you also require users to touch the screen. It would have been far nicer just to keep this simpler and use swipes and taps, and not try to hobble it with a traditional 'watch' shape. It really does feel as if no-one was in charge of the design here, and lots of different teams worked on different features, which were mashed together at the last minute, without someone to force them all to integrate properly. I do believe Apple is entering a new era now - becoming a larger more stable company, and is now led by an operations person (Cook), not someone obsessed with design and willing to take massive risks in pursuit of perfection (Jobs). That is starting to have an effect on the products they make.
baddox 12y ago
The main difference between dismissing an iPod and an Apple Watch is that, disregarding cost, the latter asks for the fairly significant "lifestyle change" if you don't already wear a watch.
Intermernet 12y ago
I'll make this clear from the start. I'm not an Apple fan (for complex reasons... call it a falling out.) That said, this is a beautiful piece of design. I think they've outdone themselves with this one, it's a truly wonderful device. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that it will only be a matter of time before we see the usual Samsung vs. Apple patent violation claims being thrown around again (despite any possible prior art etc.). Personally, I still think the tech isn't quite compact enough yet, but we're only one or two generations away from a slim-line, waterproof, and functionally integrated piece of kit that will actually complement the existing tech. The integration with dive computers / cycling computers / sports cameras / personal drones :-) etc. could be incredible! Hopefully Apple's entry onto the smart-watch scene doesn't end up mired in too many patent battles... I'd like to see these devices progress as fast as possible! Bravo Apple design team!
- pms 12y ago
  This sounds like a comment from the Apple design team itself. The Apple watch looks very common and cheap; the only good thing about its look is that it is highly personalizable.
  - Intermernet 12y ago
    Wow, I never thought I'd be accused of being an Apple shill! I don't know which bits look common or cheap to you, I quite like the use of Sapphire (usually only used on high end watches) and stainless steel. I just think the unit itself is still a bit chunky, as I'm a fan of slim watches. As far as personalization goes, I think if there were an identical unit running Android, it would be inherently more tweakable, and the main reason I won't be buying one of these is that it will invariably be designed to only work well with IOS / OSX devices (of which I own none).
warfangle 12y ago
Moto360 may not be svelte, but the attachment of the band is not at the edges - which make it fit better on smaller wrists like mine.
untog 12y ago
I've seen a lot of people bring up that infamous comment, but I don't think it proves much - if we say it applies to everything Apple does then it means that Apple are never wrong. They can be, and inevitably one day they will be.

personZ 12y ago

it's hard for me not to recall Commander Taco's (in)famous dismissal of the original iPod when I browse these comments You should also remember that he was hardly in the majority with those comments. Further he was technically correct, and the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire (notably iTunes). But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. How so? Google put, it seems, enormous thought and effort into Android Wear. It is a whole interaction and ecosystem built specifically for smart watches. Because Tim Cook gives some trite speech about not using a smartphone OS on a watch (this was, it is worth noting, not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet")? You've tried to cover every possible Apple defense, so you seem pretty committed, but you have to understand that a lot of people are derisive because we've been hearing the Apple faithful railing about these same attributes of competitor devices for months. Announcing before availability, large and bulky, needs to be tethered to a device, square, and so on...I have to imagine all of those once liabilities will suddenly turn into strengths. I love my Apple products, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach.

klausa 12y ago
>not long after celebrating how xcode now supports dynamic layouts...you know, the thing that Android did a half a decade ago, and was widely deridden as "running smartphone apps on a tablet" The way Xcode (and iOS8) support dynamic layouts is nothing like Android. Xcode 6 allows you to have multiple designs/constaints within the same UI file, for different screen sizes. Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits all", which is no way similar to what's Apple doing. ___ Since I'm getting heavily downvoted, I'd like at least a chance to clarify. I'm perfectly aware that it is technically possible to create universal tablet/phone Android app, with separate layouts for each. However, that's not what's usually being done. I believe reasons for this for two-fold: 1. Google's initial message after introducing tablets didn't push hard enough for separate UI (or didn't at all) 2. Developers mentality @2: I think it's just a different way that the two ecosystem operates. When Apple tells developers to jump, devs ask how high. When Google tells developers to jump, they go "yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man".
- personZ 12y ago
  Dynamic layout a'la Android is "one size fits all", which is no way similar to what's Apple doing. Aside from CSS-type "responsive" design, Android layouts have always had resource tags, which means that you can set different layouts for screen sizes, orientations, pixel densities, cultures, text direction, and so on. Apps that didn't demonstrate this on tablets were as they were because the developers were lazy or simply didn't care, not because of a limitation of the platform.
  - klausa 12y ago
    Maybe I should've added "as practiced", since all the apps I'm using are still pretty much blown-up versions of their phones counterparts. I haven't picked up my Android tablet in like half a year now, does Twitter and Facebook have a proper tablet android app by now?
    - ossreality 12y ago
      It's okay, you just don't know what you're talking about. Even when Android tablets run the phone app and the dev hasn't created an alternative Fragment driven layout, it STILL isn't 2x/4x scaling everything on the screen like iOS is. You're just completely and utterly wrong.

MCRed 12y ago

I believe the iPod HiFi was a success. The purpose of that product was to create a market for iPod docks. At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them. I bet Apple has made more money from "Made for iPod" licensing as a result of the iPod HiFi (which kickstarted that industry) than their gross revenues from the iPod HiFi. So, maybe a failure as a product, because it stimulated competition that, if it hadn't come about would have left Apple with a %100 share of iPod docks. But given how many iPod docks have sold, I'm sure that market would have been viable, even if only Apple were making them.

threeseed 12y ago
Exactly. The iPod HiFi did its job perfectly. It was designed to stick a rocket up the likes of Bose, Pioneer etc to show that Apple could easily and successfully move into their markets.
- scep12 12y ago
  Except it was 2 years after Bose had introduced the SoundDock.
duskwuff 12y ago
There were already a lot of other iPod docks on the market when the iPod HiFi came out in 2006. Keep in mind that the dock connector was introduced with the 3rd-generation iPod in 2003 -- it's hardly as though third parties failed to notice the connector for those three years! The Bose SoundDock came out in late 2004, and it was hardly unique, either; this review compares it to several other similar products on the market at the time: http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/bose-sounddock-ipod http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/reviews/entry/bose-sounddoc...
scep12 12y ago
> At the time there wash't much of one, and likely Apple had trouble convincing companies like Sony et. al. that they should make them. What?? The Bose SoundDock was product of the year in 2004 -- 2 years before the iPod HiFi came out. Apple was behind the times and completely missed the mark with the HiFi.

dkulchenko 12y ago

But what's really interesting to me is that Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work than anybody else. I strongly disagree. I think that Apple actually took the easy way out here - they seemed to have approached the problem as "how can we make iOS usable on a smaller screen" and came up with interfaces like the crown and the (albeit pretty) circle-based homescreen UI to access apps to tackle those issues. Which is interesting, because they started off their presentation explicitly saying they didn't want to just scale down iOS. Google, on the other hand, approached the problem of "how can we make wearables useful as a platform" rather than "how can we scale down Android" and created the intuitive cards interface (which, as a Moto 360 user, is remarkably convenient) and Google Now-based contextual awareness of info you need when you need it. Android Wear doesn't even have an app selector easily accessible, because they don't want you to use the watch that way - it's hard to hunt for apps on a tiny screen, so instead they push contextual information at you as you need it in an easy-to-use way. I have high hopes for both platforms in the years to come, but I don't find Apple's watch design to be smarter or better thought-out as it is right now (and I'm typing this on a Macbook Air, so I have an appreciation for Apple).

MCRed 12y ago
I am old enough to remember when the first Mac came out. There was a response to it very much like you see here (only it happened on BBSes because there wasn't much of an "internet") then. It's been the same way for every major product- iMac was chastised for lacking a floppy drive, the iPod, iPhone and iPad were all poo-poohed. In every case someone has said "X is better!" And in every case so far that X has turned out to maybe have some particular features, or better stats for some particular stat, but not to be engineered to the level of the Apple product. Particularly with the android example- the only way they were able to compete was to change from a blackberry copy to an counterfeit iOS interface. Which they did very quickly. I haven't seen anything innovative from Google since 2001 (unless you count gmail as innovative, which I would so, that's the exception.) Android is still a terrible, clunky piece of junk, even with so many years to copy Apple. We'll see when the Apple watch is on the market - but really, Samsung and Googles watches so far have appeared to be basically copies of guesses of what apple was going to make (given that the Apple watch has been rumored so long) rather than genuinely well considered and innovative devices. Kinda the way HP put out a "slate" computer at Comdex the year the iPad was announced, Balmer something to go up on stage and brag about and "beat Apple to market with". I do really wish, if Google wants to compete with Apple, they did something innovative (Microsoft did with their Metro UI) or if not innovative, something really good. But it seems that in the way that Apple doesn't quite "get" web services, Google doesn't quite get operating systems. ---- Edit: Use android regularly, unfortunately. Google maps in JS was pretty innovative, but I think that's part of the Gmail invention- e.g.: web 2.0. I give google credit for inventing Web 2.0. Or at least pushing it forward quite a bit.

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

>Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device How are we measuring "more thought" now? Mega-Turings? I think this statement is very unfair to Android Wear. A non-biased look shows some pretty innovative aspects at work and a usable design. Its also really unfair to claim that you know all about the Apple Watch when no one has one yet people have been using AW for months.

Spooky23 12y ago

I think you're on the right track here. The idea that Apple is putting out a vision where you can communicate with people nearby in non-verbal ways is really powerful. You have a company that has managed to deliver an awesome mobile experience on for consumer and enterprise shipping a device that can do everything from payments to health monitoring to door access. That's a ridiculously powerful thing. What android can or can't do technically doesn't matter. Google, samsung, etc can't make the relationships that Apple can right now.

deong 12y ago
The good thing is that we all should benefit. I've had NFC on at least my last two phones (maybe 3?), but the hardware is not ubiquitous enough to matter. I'm assuming that there's nothing locking the POS hardware into Apple Pay, and so NFC payments become a thing everyone can use.
- Zombieball 12y ago
  Out of curiosity are tap-to-pay credit cards and POS devices common where you live? (Also where do you live? lol) Here in Vancouver, BC I would say these sales terminals are becoming quite common place.
  - 72deluxe 12y ago
    Here in the UK there are NFC payment points all over the place, but no mobile payment systems support them; it's all US-only.
  - deong 12y ago
    I'm in Iceland, and I don't really see them much (if ever). Chip and pin readers are the norm here, and you can completely function without cash, but I don't notice contactless options really. I'll take this opportunity to also say that Apple Maps still don't work here. By which I mean, they don't work at all. They have no data. The entire app is little more than a graphic of a map and a UIAlertView that says "No results found".
- 12y ago

blueking 12y ago

Not so fast buddy, what Apple has today is a marketing video they aren't shipping until 2015. The moto360 is available today. So for the record google were first to market with this concept. And it was google who had NFC payments on their nexus line last year with widespread integration so lets not pretend that was an Apple innovation either. The only new innovation I see is sending sketches to other people, on a tiny screen. What a silly gimmick. Now I can send little drawings of boobies to my friends. How soon before that gets old ? Hardly a oculus class breakthrough. Apple has lost its edge.

msabalau 12y ago

"Apple has clearly put a lot more thought into how interactions on a device like this should work" What's interesting to me is the extent to which the Apple Watch is designed to be interacted with, which contrasts strongly with Google's vision of wearables (both Android Wear and Glass) as assistants that are there when you need them, but which otherwise disappear so you can stay immersed in life.

grey-area 12y ago

Taco's criticism of the iPod was that it didn't do enough - didn't have enough features, didn't have enough storage etc, and he was rightly panned for getting it wrong. Criticisms of the price or lack of features of Apple products historically have been proved unfounded (it's easy to lower the price and add more features). So I agree if someone says 'but it doesn't do x', they can easily be satisfied by later models. In contrast, many of the criticisms of this watch centre on the incoherent design, awkward interaction with a physical scroll-wheel AND touch interface (which Apple are not even allowing people to try out in the demos), and the grab-bag of features added to it, apparently without thought about how they all interact. It looks like it does too much, and none of it well. They can possibly rescue this mess in the time they have before launch by polishing the software, but I'm hesitant about the concept of this scroll wheel (what they call a digital crown), which they have now committed to for the long term, and sounds like it is going to be very awkward when combined with physical touches and on the wrist, and pointless if you also require users to touch the screen. It would have been far nicer just to keep this simpler and use swipes and taps, and not try to hobble it with a traditional 'watch' shape. It really does feel as if no-one was in charge of the design here, and lots of different teams worked on different features, which were mashed together at the last minute, without someone to force them all to integrate properly. I do believe Apple is entering a new era now - becoming a larger more stable company, and is now led by an operations person (Cook), not someone obsessed with design and willing to take massive risks in pursuit of perfection (Jobs). That is starting to have an effect on the products they make.

baddox 12y ago

The main difference between dismissing an iPod and an Apple Watch is that, disregarding cost, the latter asks for the fairly significant "lifestyle change" if you don't already wear a watch.

Intermernet 12y ago

I'll make this clear from the start. I'm not an Apple fan (for complex reasons... call it a falling out.) That said, this is a beautiful piece of design. I think they've outdone themselves with this one, it's a truly wonderful device. Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that it will only be a matter of time before we see the usual Samsung vs. Apple patent violation claims being thrown around again (despite any possible prior art etc.). Personally, I still think the tech isn't quite compact enough yet, but we're only one or two generations away from a slim-line, waterproof, and functionally integrated piece of kit that will actually complement the existing tech. The integration with dive computers / cycling computers / sports cameras / personal drones :-) etc. could be incredible! Hopefully Apple's entry onto the smart-watch scene doesn't end up mired in too many patent battles... I'd like to see these devices progress as fast as possible! Bravo Apple design team!

pms 12y ago
This sounds like a comment from the Apple design team itself. The Apple watch looks very common and cheap; the only good thing about its look is that it is highly personalizable.
- Intermernet 12y ago
  Wow, I never thought I'd be accused of being an Apple shill! I don't know which bits look common or cheap to you, I quite like the use of Sapphire (usually only used on high end watches) and stainless steel. I just think the unit itself is still a bit chunky, as I'm a fan of slim watches. As far as personalization goes, I think if there were an identical unit running Android, it would be inherently more tweakable, and the main reason I won't be buying one of these is that it will invariably be designed to only work well with IOS / OSX devices (of which I own none).

warfangle 12y ago

Moto360 may not be svelte, but the attachment of the band is not at the edges - which make it fit better on smaller wrists like mine.

untog 12y ago

I've seen a lot of people bring up that infamous comment, but I don't think it proves much - if we say it applies to everything Apple does then it means that Apple are never wrong. They can be, and inevitably one day they will be.