14 ms·

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 har

by 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.
    - mikeash 12y ago
      "As practiced" is key. The two systems have the same capabilities, and as far as I can tell are about equally easy to use "correctly". On Android, a lot of developers have used the system to build apps which just expand stupidly on tablets. Will Apple developers do the same, or will they be smarter? Either way, it won't be because of the underlying technology.
- deong 12y ago
  No, on Android, you create as many specific layouts as you want, based on combinations of screen size, density, orientation, language, etc. Within each of those layouts, you specify how you want the system to scale the UI up for those you don't specify.
DAddYE 12y ago
> 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")? Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing. Don't get me wrong, I have an android phone (and the only one) however, I really don't get it. Seems to me that the only intent of google is avoid an Apple monopoly without trying to bring something on the table. Android itself is barely okay, however if you add custom OEM modifications + carrier modifications (really carriers allowed to write software???) to me the matter become just about "flag".
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing." Yes, quite a lot. Have you? Additionally, apple's device won't even be out for a minimum of 3 months (assuming it came out in january). Which is the not completed thing again? Truthfully, seeing what I saw, Apple's watch is just not a leap forward in any interesting way i can think of over android wear. Maybe it'll win because of better marketing or whatever. But it's interface did not look appreciably better to me, nor did it have anything that i would consider "a killer app" that android wear does not. (I mainly use my wear device to track my running and biking paces, display notes like shopping lists, and display texts so that i know whether i should pull out my phone to respond to the person) They could have chosen some axis to improve upon - waterproofness (i can scuba dive with my pebble but not my wear device), battery life, screen[1], whatever. They are trying "software". Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's not (again though, I also don't find the ipad interface so much better than the android one. For the things i do on these devices, the ipad is a slim win, but has a shittier software keyboard by far). [1] Sapphire is not interesting to me. My watch does not sit in my pocket with things likely to scratch it. I woodwork, and have worn wear devices for 6+ months now, and while i've scratched phones from chisels, saw blades, etc, i've never scratched my watch. A higher res display or something would have been cooler.
morbius 12y ago
I think that it's too premature to judge whether this effort is more justified technically and subjectively than Android Wear or any other competing efforts from independent vendors. Apple's device won't be shipping for another several months, and the demo given at the keynote today hardly scratches the surface of what the product could potentially do. There needs to be an identifiable niche that these smartwatches could work with, and they ought to be marketed to that niche to really sell the idea of wearing a screen on your wrist. Similar to how Microsoft is positing that the Surface is intended to be an artist's easel, it's perfectly plausible for Google to market Android Wear to musicians, athletes, and early adopters -- but I haven't seen that effort from them yet. I get glimpses of this marketing approach from Apple's newfound moxie, but it still feels like everyone who makes a smartwatch is trying to sell it to everyone, which seems short-sighted given most people do not wear physical timepieces anymore. There is potential -- but not now. Early smartphones were hollow and unfinished (yes, even the iPhone). Form and function will get better as time goes on, and there might be a legitimate use-case for devices such as these.
- MCRed 12y ago
  The iPhone has been used less than %10 of its time as a phone by me. Same thing with the watch as a watch. The other applications-- each of which may by itself not justify the price of the device, in aggregate make smartphones a steal, and may well do the same for the Apple watch. I don't wear a timepiece and haven't for many years, however, I was considering getting one of those health monitoring bands and then decided to wait because I bet the Apple watch would be a better product for that need. So, while the iPhone has eliminated the need for a watch, the thing on the wrist isn't so much a watch as a notification system and monitoring system. Apple positioned this as an accessory to the iPhone and that's how I would use it. I'm not sure whether I would wear something on my wrist again or just stop after awhile, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy one of these when they come out. For me, the $350-$450 it will cost is a little high but not something to worry about and I know they will get cheaper over time, as well as smaller etc. But I'm not just out of college and worrying about money like that anymore. I think there's a large market of people like me. I would be quite surprised if there wasn't enough value in the device to make me very happy with the purchase.
chipotle_coyote 12y ago
Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." Both of these are trivially demonstrated false. And I'm sure Google has put thought and effort into Android Wear, but what you dismiss as a "trite speech from Tim Cook" looks to me like a stake in the ground. Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. This informs a whole lot of things about the way the UX works. The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way. Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. As a general rule, everything everyone ever gets enthusiastic about can be safely dismissed as having first appeared in a Nokia product that all 27 Finns who bought it are still fanatical about. Also, it was probably implemented in Lisp.
- jbellis 12y ago
  I own an Android Wear watch, and the only thing it has in common with Android for phones is the name. "Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch" is a gross misrepresentation.
- personZ 12y ago
  but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." You've soundly beaten down notions that I certainly didn't state. Nor have I seen everyone else. However the narrative among the Apple camp was that competitors were desperately rushing to deliver vapour, and that their stodgy square mega watches were non-starters. Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. Again, you've firmly argued against something not being discussed. No one ever claimed that Android was first, however Android was quite specifically criticized by Apple (as were, tellingly, larger smartphones, and smaller tablets, and people eat it up). Because it turns out that Apple just says today whatever benefits their contemporary product line, much like just about every other company. And that's fine, but somehow it turns into higher meaning.
girvo 12y ago
> but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach. Its... it's a consumer electronics brand. I'll truly never understand how this stuff gets people so riled up. I mean, I used to get all hot and bothered when I followed smartphones (2006 represent!), but nowadays we're at a point where every gadget is just a riff on another gadget, and that's fine. Now no matter what brand I'm using, things just work they way I want them too, and that makes me happy.
- personZ 12y ago
  Its... it's a consumer electronics brand Of extraordinary social and technological importance. I work in technology, and shifts in mobile technology have significant impacts on my life. I can understand if this were a knitting board and someone made a comment like yours. In technology, however, it is extremely pertinent to what we do.
  - 72deluxe 12y ago
    It may be pertinent to what we do and affect our lives and may have limited social importance in our social circles, but they are really first-world issues. People getting incensed or stressed about a new gadget does really pale into insignificance compared to the slaughter of people in wars around the world and the ongoing poverty around the world. Perhaps the social circles we frequent need to be less shallow if they are obsessed with gadgets? I think the thing that many commenters miss is their perspective, and it is a sad missing factor. It also makes these discussions appear trivial and very petty; look at old Slashdot archives discussing new products and it is pretty sad. Just a thought. Keep me in the loop with your knitting board.... :-)
- jsmeaton 12y ago
  I agree with you. I'll be seeing some of my friends tonight that own Samsungs, and I can already hear the derisive "hah Apple is playing catch up and ripping off Samsung again". Nearly everything is derivative in some way or another. I just don't care either way. My personal preference is apple. I have other apple devices, I'm used to apple devices, and they are comfortable to me. But if you like Samsung, that's cool too. And I don't like the meme that says I, as an apple device owner, criticise everything else "the competition" does yet celebrate it when apple do it. I'm not that person, and most people I know aren't that person.
megablast 12y ago
> 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 I think this is unfair, it isn't Apple people railing against this, it is everybody. And they will be again, in a couple of days. A lot more was expected of Apple in this arena, and it looks like they have not delivered the watch everybody was after.
- madeofpalk 12y ago
  Pretty sure we go through this every year. People are 'disappointed' by Apple product announcements, people have a whinge about Tim Cook, then they turn out to be fairly successful and well received.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    In the last 13 years, they've delivered three new platforms: the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. (I'm not counting Apple TV, since Jobs' "hobby" designation still very clearly applies). Each of these had extraordinary effects in areas that others either hadn't imagined, had imagined badly, or had imagined well but had written off as impossible to achieve. In every case, Apple's products - which went onto be world changing, industry revolutionizing, bazillion dollar successes - were widely panned at the time of their unveiling. Not universally, to be sure. Some people loved the iPod instantly. But there were plenty of others who couldn't see past the $400 price tag and said "Sure, the iPod: idiots price our devices." The iPad also landed with a thud, at least online. The people who got their hands on them said "no wait, you really have to try this, it's a totally new experience", but that had to compete with a loud chorus of "meh", which I certainly understand. Mine (an Air) may not be the most indispensable Apple product I own, but it's easily the one I love the most, and the one that gives men the best sense of where Apple is going. That said, it was also a gift, and not something I would have bought for myself. Not until I actually had it and had been using it did I see it less an an individual device, and more as the favorite interface for a (far from realized) cloud-based future of computing. My point is that the Apply routinely makes choices with a long-range logic that is far from immediately self-evident. The iPhone came the closest to being regarded as revolutionary right out of the gate, but even there the excitement was shortsighted. It seemed like the biggest "breakthrough" was getting a handle on voice mail. There was still a lot of doubt about full-touchscreen vs. BlackBerry's then-dominant tactile approach. There was bitching about the lack of apps (third party development was web-only) and of course, the endless complaining about Apple's "failure" to include "basic" stuff like cut and paste. There was no GPS, no CDMA, and many of the individual components - from the phone itself to the camera to the battery life - were pretty crappy. But all these problems resolved themselves with time. Meanwhile, the fundamentals remained astonishingly stable. So much so that in many cases, major updates were visually indistinguishable from their predecessors. It took most people a long time to recognize how far-thinking the essential design choices really were. And to be fair, it generally took Apple a while before their own development path realized the full scope of the platform's potential. But that's what these are, platforms built for the long run. If the past is any guide three things should be clear. (1) They come with very well considered development plans (2) What come to be seen as fundamental features of the platform (e.g. the App store) go unannounced when the platforms launch and (3) the immediate negative reactions - of which there are many - tend to be very short sighted. So no, I will not be buying an Apple Watch in 2015, and probably not in 2016 either. But if the past is any guide, I expect that Apple will be delivering on this for a decade, if not decades to come. By the time it's ready to untether from the iPhone, I can see buying in. I'm looking forward to it.
EGreg 12y ago
Do you think that voice and language will ultimately be the main way to interact with a watch, given the limited screen real estate?
sweenster 12y ago
I completely agree, having watched this year's Google I/O panel on smartwatch interaction design, it is very obvious that Google has put an enormous amount of thought into their watch platform. They came to a fundamentally different conclusion for what a smartwatch should do, and I really enjoy the experience. The contextual information from Google Now is incredibly useful and it feels like my watch tells me not only what time it is, but information personally tailored to my lifestyle. For example, I always go out after work on Tuesdays, and right now my watch is telling me that there is lots of traffic on the way to my favorite bar. In the morning, it tells me how long my commute will be and what the weather will be that day. I can start navigation from my watch with my voice and get every direction as I need it. I can control any music player with notification support. I don't run any interaction-heavy apps on my watch, and I can't imagine ever wanting to do so. The thought of browsing a photo library or sending my heartbeat to someone seem like features for the sake of having features but in reality are completely unnecessary.
2xlbuds 12y ago
I completely agree, having watched this year's Google I/O panel on smartwatch interaction design, it is very obvious that Google has put an enormous amount of thought into their watch platform. They came to a fundamentally different conclusion for what a smartwatch should do, and I really enjoy the experience. The contextual information from Google Now is incredibly useful and it feels like my watch tells me not only what time it is, but information personally tailored to my lifestyle. For example, I always go out after work on Tuesdays, and right now my watch is telling me that there is lots of traffic on the way to my favorite bar. In the morning, it tells me how long my commute will be and what the weather will be that day. I can start navigation from my watch with my voice and get every direction as I need it. I can control any music player with notification support. I don't run any interaction-heavy apps on my watch, and I can't imagine ever wanting to do so. The thought of browsing a photo library or sending my heartbeat to someone seem like features for the sake of having features but in reality are completely unnecessary.
- nickonline 12y ago
  Which watch are you using? I've been using a pebble and while it's good it doesn't have the level of interaction you're discussing.
  - rictic 12y ago
    Those are all Android Wear features, so any of a number of devices.
  - 2xlbuds 12y ago
    The LG G Watch.
- kingkawn 12y ago
  Your comment has given me my first quantifiable measured sensation of feeling old. if you go out every Tuesday, you will learn the traffic patterns, and will naturally develop a series of contingency routes that you could take in the event of traffic. The watch is novelty more than useful. It will make you forget how you used to do things and in turn feel dependent on it, when in fact it is simply a novelty that distracted you so much that you forgot that what you were doing was fine.
Eric_WVGG 12y ago
“the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire” That is absolute crap. iTunes had no foothold to speak of in the marketplace. The notion of Apple having an "empire" at the time of the iPod’s release (or even at the time of the iPod’s mainstream success) was laughable.
- bduerst 12y ago
  You are wrong. iTunes was such a monumental hit that it carried iPods with it - there's even a business case on the matter: http://hbr.org/product/apple-inc-ipods-and-itunes/an/905M46-PDF-ENG http://hbr.org/product/apple-inc-ipods-and-itunes/an/905M46-...
  - free2rhyme214 12y ago
    The best way to win an argument is to avoid one. I've learned that this works with women as well.
- JohnTHaller 12y ago
  It absolutely did. You may have forgotten, but the early success of iTunes/iPod was in being able to organize your music and get it on your device. iTunes/iPod was the first to really get this right on any kind of scale. And, compared to the competition of the time, they really nailed it. So, a phone that had that integrated was a really big deal, even if it couldn't run any apps (as the first iPhone did and couldn't).
  - nardi 12y ago
    GGP is talking about the iPod, not the iPhone. GP is right that iTunes had no foothold when the iPod was released, and Apple had no "empire."
    - personZ 12y ago
      How did this suddenly get redefined to "when released"? If that is the case, Taco's widely criticized assessment was dead on - the iPod was initially a failure. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg We know that it took off, but that was wholly on the back of iTunes - 0.99 tracks and much easier use than competitors sold the iPod, not some fundamental excellence of the device. People forget now but while we revile iTunes generally now, at the time it was the killer feature of the iPod, and the initial iPhone success.
n09n 12y ago
The reality distortion field and the ability to spin those negatives as positives are features, though. A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. How well it tells the time or does other things is much less important than how fashionable it is. Branding is one of Apple's strong suits, and you can't take that away by adding features as if consumer purchasing decisions are based on some kind of checklist-like RFPs like corporate drones are used to.
- stevewilhelm 12y ago
  My Nike+ SportWatch GPS is not primarily jewelry. It combined with Strava is primarily a fitness motivation and management tool.
  - n09n 12y ago
    Watches in general, obviously. There's an exception to every rule.
- kamaal 12y ago
  >>A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. Not actually though. A watch is still a watch. There are so many places where you can't carry or even have the opportunity to use your smart phone to check time. Students can't carry it to exam halls, people who are driving cars, workers, there many professions and use cases where a simple device strapped to your hand is indispensable when it comes to keeping track of time.
  - threeseed 12y ago
    A watch is not just a watch to many people. Otherwise companies like IWC, Brietling, Rolex etc wouldn't be making as much money as they do. Anything you put on your body that is visible to the public affects how people see you. Whether you care about this influences if you think a watch is fashionable or purely functional.
    - david 12y ago
      He didn't say a watch is "just a watch", he said a watch "is still a watch".
wdr1 12y ago
> 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). I think that's a very weak argument, as iTunes wasn't available for the PC market for years. The Mac market at that point was nascent and lots of people were buying iPods w/o the ability to use iTunes.
- duskwuff 12y ago
  > The Mac market at that point was nascent and lots of people were buying iPods w/o the ability to use iTunes. The iPod was supported on Windows before iTunes was available through Musicmatch Jukebox, which Apple bundled with Windows iPods. I don't think there were many people buying iPods before then just to look at. :)
  - nardi 12y ago
    He didn't say they were. You seem to be in violent agreement.
- personZ 12y ago
  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg Very few bought the iPod in the first two years, and it was a commercial failure. It was iTunes on Windows that brought it mainstream.
krisgenre 12y ago
Very true. Look at iOS - it never had home screen, no widgets and no home screen pages. Apple watch seems like its trying to include all these, it would have never made sense to put iOS on a watch. Android on the other hand has had all of these and has been working on various kinds of devices for quite long ( guess fragmentation has a brighter side too ). It does make sense to put it on a watch ( obviously with some design changes ).
moogleii 12y ago
I'm curious what your defense is to their success with the non-Apple faithful, though. That always seems to be left unsaid. The good ol' common "marketing" play from the Android diehards may have accounted for some of its success, but I think it's immensely dense to attribute a large proportion of Apple's current (and recent past) success to it (you might get to fortune 500 with that, but getting to #1 wealthiest company in the world solely on marketing is a bit of a stretch, at a certain crossover point you'll need actual good product). In fact, I would call that the counter-distortion field among the "Android faithful." Somehow, as people love to point out, on paper, Apple devices are underspec compared to the competition. But they do well anyway. "MARKETING! The zombie sheeple faithful!" Of course, I'm not saying you believe it's purely marketing, but I raise that just to give example of the other distortion field. As you have pointed out, the iPod succeeded because of synergy with iTunes (though many of the replies to your comment raise excellent counterpoints, and I think it's revisionism to call what Apple had back then as an empire - like many others back then, we were 90% dismissively sure Apple was going to file for bankruptcy soon). I partly agree with you, but I disagree it was due to iTunes as software, because, quite frankly, iTunes has and still sucks. The iPod succeeded because Apple made sure to have business deals in place with the big dogs of music and to offer individual tracks for (at the time) very cheap prices. You may recall, but CDs were kind of a rip off at that point, and the music industry wanted to charge quite a bit more per track. The iPhone itself succeeded because Apple coordinated with carrier(s) while requiring certain conditions - no pre-installed apps, and design autonomy. Recently, it's been trying to coordinate with the cable networks to get Apple TV some traction (though I believe they failed). With Apple Pay, it coordinated with all the major credit card carriers. To me, it is that kind of planning that shows Apple's commitment to polish. I could be wrong, but Google seems to be more on the "here's our plan, we'll open it up, and hopefully people (and other corporations) flock to it. But if not...well, we have our bread-and-butter search to subsist on." It's worked with some things, and it hasn't for others. Google Wallet and Google NFC payments may have come out first, but they seem to be dead in the water. But hey, my swiss army knife has more attachments than yours, right? > 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. My experience is pretty different. I don't really hear the "Apple faithful" very often, short of online journalists. In terms of actual end-users, the Android house seems way more vocal, and usually in two buckets: "we had it way before!" or some kind of flock of sheep comment. Take a visit to r/technology on reddit, and do a search on Apple, then do a search on Android. The negativity is no where near 1:1. For all that noise, I must cite my favorite tech blog: http://anandtech.com/show/8414/a-month-with-the-iphone-5s/ http://anandtech.com/show/8414/a-month-with-the-iphone-5s/. I believe this is far fairer than most of the vitriol you'll find out there. As for the watch? I think it looks bulky, just like all the other smartwatches. I'm skeptical about its battery life, which they seemed to have not mentioned. But I gotta admit, the feature set looks pretty polished to me.
yalogin 12y ago
Hard to stomach? That's a curious choice of words. Do you think Google or Amazon would not do the same marketing and try to create the same kind of hype around their products if they can? You are saying you can see through the clutter but it looks more like you are biased against company that was successful in their execution.

by personZ 12y ago

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.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    "As practiced" is key. The two systems have the same capabilities, and as far as I can tell are about equally easy to use "correctly". On Android, a lot of developers have used the system to build apps which just expand stupidly on tablets. Will Apple developers do the same, or will they be smarter? Either way, it won't be because of the underlying technology.
deong 12y ago
No, on Android, you create as many specific layouts as you want, based on combinations of screen size, density, orientation, language, etc. Within each of those layouts, you specify how you want the system to scale the UI up for those you don't specify.

DAddYE 12y ago

> 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")? Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing. Don't get me wrong, I have an android phone (and the only one) however, I really don't get it. Seems to me that the only intent of google is avoid an Apple monopoly without trying to bring something on the table. Android itself is barely okay, however if you add custom OEM modifications + carrier modifications (really carriers allowed to write software???) to me the matter become just about "flag".

DannyBee 12y ago
"Have you ever tried android wear? I read/watched some reviews (even with the 360) and seems to me far to be a completed thing." Yes, quite a lot. Have you? Additionally, apple's device won't even be out for a minimum of 3 months (assuming it came out in january). Which is the not completed thing again? Truthfully, seeing what I saw, Apple's watch is just not a leap forward in any interesting way i can think of over android wear. Maybe it'll win because of better marketing or whatever. But it's interface did not look appreciably better to me, nor did it have anything that i would consider "a killer app" that android wear does not. (I mainly use my wear device to track my running and biking paces, display notes like shopping lists, and display texts so that i know whether i should pull out my phone to respond to the person) They could have chosen some axis to improve upon - waterproofness (i can scuba dive with my pebble but not my wear device), battery life, screen[1], whatever. They are trying "software". Sometimes this is good, sometimes it's not (again though, I also don't find the ipad interface so much better than the android one. For the things i do on these devices, the ipad is a slim win, but has a shittier software keyboard by far). [1] Sapphire is not interesting to me. My watch does not sit in my pocket with things likely to scratch it. I woodwork, and have worn wear devices for 6+ months now, and while i've scratched phones from chisels, saw blades, etc, i've never scratched my watch. A higher res display or something would have been cooler.

morbius 12y ago

I think that it's too premature to judge whether this effort is more justified technically and subjectively than Android Wear or any other competing efforts from independent vendors. Apple's device won't be shipping for another several months, and the demo given at the keynote today hardly scratches the surface of what the product could potentially do. There needs to be an identifiable niche that these smartwatches could work with, and they ought to be marketed to that niche to really sell the idea of wearing a screen on your wrist. Similar to how Microsoft is positing that the Surface is intended to be an artist's easel, it's perfectly plausible for Google to market Android Wear to musicians, athletes, and early adopters -- but I haven't seen that effort from them yet. I get glimpses of this marketing approach from Apple's newfound moxie, but it still feels like everyone who makes a smartwatch is trying to sell it to everyone, which seems short-sighted given most people do not wear physical timepieces anymore. There is potential -- but not now. Early smartphones were hollow and unfinished (yes, even the iPhone). Form and function will get better as time goes on, and there might be a legitimate use-case for devices such as these.

MCRed 12y ago
The iPhone has been used less than %10 of its time as a phone by me. Same thing with the watch as a watch. The other applications-- each of which may by itself not justify the price of the device, in aggregate make smartphones a steal, and may well do the same for the Apple watch. I don't wear a timepiece and haven't for many years, however, I was considering getting one of those health monitoring bands and then decided to wait because I bet the Apple watch would be a better product for that need. So, while the iPhone has eliminated the need for a watch, the thing on the wrist isn't so much a watch as a notification system and monitoring system. Apple positioned this as an accessory to the iPhone and that's how I would use it. I'm not sure whether I would wear something on my wrist again or just stop after awhile, but I'm pretty sure I'm going to buy one of these when they come out. For me, the $350-$450 it will cost is a little high but not something to worry about and I know they will get cheaper over time, as well as smaller etc. But I'm not just out of college and worrying about money like that anymore. I think there's a large market of people like me. I would be quite surprised if there wasn't enough value in the device to make me very happy with the purchase.

chipotle_coyote 12y ago

Yes, there kind of is a distortion field, but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." Both of these are trivially demonstrated false. And I'm sure Google has put thought and effort into Android Wear, but what you dismiss as a "trite speech from Tim Cook" looks to me like a stake in the ground. Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch; Apple says you shouldn't, and you should do these other things instead. This informs a whole lot of things about the way the UX works. The Apple Watch's relationship to the Moto 360 looks to me less like the iPhone 6's relationship to the Moto X than like the original iPhone's relationship to other high-end smartphones of 2007: obviously a lot of shared DNA, but trying to address the same problem space in a measurably different way. Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. As a general rule, everything everyone ever gets enthusiastic about can be safely dismissed as having first appeared in a Nokia product that all 27 Finns who bought it are still fanatical about. Also, it was probably implemented in Lisp.

jbellis 12y ago
I own an Android Wear watch, and the only thing it has in common with Android for phones is the name. "Google says you can shrink smartphone UX to a smartwatch" is a gross misrepresentation.
personZ 12y ago
but I'd argue it's with notions like "Apple has never announced a major product months before availability" and "nobody has ever made a large square watch." You've soundly beaten down notions that I certainly didn't state. Nor have I seen everyone else. However the narrative among the Apple camp was that competitors were desperately rushing to deliver vapour, and that their stodgy square mega watches were non-starters. Yes, Android had dynamic layout before iOS. And? Qt had it before everyone. Again, you've firmly argued against something not being discussed. No one ever claimed that Android was first, however Android was quite specifically criticized by Apple (as were, tellingly, larger smartphones, and smaller tablets, and people eat it up). Because it turns out that Apple just says today whatever benefits their contemporary product line, much like just about every other company. And that's fine, but somehow it turns into higher meaning.

girvo 12y ago

> but there is absolutely no doubt that there is a distortion field, and it really is hard to stomach. Its... it's a consumer electronics brand. I'll truly never understand how this stuff gets people so riled up. I mean, I used to get all hot and bothered when I followed smartphones (2006 represent!), but nowadays we're at a point where every gadget is just a riff on another gadget, and that's fine. Now no matter what brand I'm using, things just work they way I want them too, and that makes me happy.

personZ 12y ago
Its... it's a consumer electronics brand Of extraordinary social and technological importance. I work in technology, and shifts in mobile technology have significant impacts on my life. I can understand if this were a knitting board and someone made a comment like yours. In technology, however, it is extremely pertinent to what we do.
- 72deluxe 12y ago
  It may be pertinent to what we do and affect our lives and may have limited social importance in our social circles, but they are really first-world issues. People getting incensed or stressed about a new gadget does really pale into insignificance compared to the slaughter of people in wars around the world and the ongoing poverty around the world. Perhaps the social circles we frequent need to be less shallow if they are obsessed with gadgets? I think the thing that many commenters miss is their perspective, and it is a sad missing factor. It also makes these discussions appear trivial and very petty; look at old Slashdot archives discussing new products and it is pretty sad. Just a thought. Keep me in the loop with your knitting board.... :-)
jsmeaton 12y ago
I agree with you. I'll be seeing some of my friends tonight that own Samsungs, and I can already hear the derisive "hah Apple is playing catch up and ripping off Samsung again". Nearly everything is derivative in some way or another. I just don't care either way. My personal preference is apple. I have other apple devices, I'm used to apple devices, and they are comfortable to me. But if you like Samsung, that's cool too. And I don't like the meme that says I, as an apple device owner, criticise everything else "the competition" does yet celebrate it when apple do it. I'm not that person, and most people I know aren't that person.

megablast 12y ago

> 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 I think this is unfair, it isn't Apple people railing against this, it is everybody. And they will be again, in a couple of days. A lot more was expected of Apple in this arena, and it looks like they have not delivered the watch everybody was after.

madeofpalk 12y ago
Pretty sure we go through this every year. People are 'disappointed' by Apple product announcements, people have a whinge about Tim Cook, then they turn out to be fairly successful and well received.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  In the last 13 years, they've delivered three new platforms: the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad. (I'm not counting Apple TV, since Jobs' "hobby" designation still very clearly applies). Each of these had extraordinary effects in areas that others either hadn't imagined, had imagined badly, or had imagined well but had written off as impossible to achieve. In every case, Apple's products - which went onto be world changing, industry revolutionizing, bazillion dollar successes - were widely panned at the time of their unveiling. Not universally, to be sure. Some people loved the iPod instantly. But there were plenty of others who couldn't see past the $400 price tag and said "Sure, the iPod: idiots price our devices." The iPad also landed with a thud, at least online. The people who got their hands on them said "no wait, you really have to try this, it's a totally new experience", but that had to compete with a loud chorus of "meh", which I certainly understand. Mine (an Air) may not be the most indispensable Apple product I own, but it's easily the one I love the most, and the one that gives men the best sense of where Apple is going. That said, it was also a gift, and not something I would have bought for myself. Not until I actually had it and had been using it did I see it less an an individual device, and more as the favorite interface for a (far from realized) cloud-based future of computing. My point is that the Apply routinely makes choices with a long-range logic that is far from immediately self-evident. The iPhone came the closest to being regarded as revolutionary right out of the gate, but even there the excitement was shortsighted. It seemed like the biggest "breakthrough" was getting a handle on voice mail. There was still a lot of doubt about full-touchscreen vs. BlackBerry's then-dominant tactile approach. There was bitching about the lack of apps (third party development was web-only) and of course, the endless complaining about Apple's "failure" to include "basic" stuff like cut and paste. There was no GPS, no CDMA, and many of the individual components - from the phone itself to the camera to the battery life - were pretty crappy. But all these problems resolved themselves with time. Meanwhile, the fundamentals remained astonishingly stable. So much so that in many cases, major updates were visually indistinguishable from their predecessors. It took most people a long time to recognize how far-thinking the essential design choices really were. And to be fair, it generally took Apple a while before their own development path realized the full scope of the platform's potential. But that's what these are, platforms built for the long run. If the past is any guide three things should be clear. (1) They come with very well considered development plans (2) What come to be seen as fundamental features of the platform (e.g. the App store) go unannounced when the platforms launch and (3) the immediate negative reactions - of which there are many - tend to be very short sighted. So no, I will not be buying an Apple Watch in 2015, and probably not in 2016 either. But if the past is any guide, I expect that Apple will be delivering on this for a decade, if not decades to come. By the time it's ready to untether from the iPhone, I can see buying in. I'm looking forward to it.

EGreg 12y ago

Do you think that voice and language will ultimately be the main way to interact with a watch, given the limited screen real estate?

sweenster 12y ago

I completely agree, having watched this year's Google I/O panel on smartwatch interaction design, it is very obvious that Google has put an enormous amount of thought into their watch platform. They came to a fundamentally different conclusion for what a smartwatch should do, and I really enjoy the experience. The contextual information from Google Now is incredibly useful and it feels like my watch tells me not only what time it is, but information personally tailored to my lifestyle. For example, I always go out after work on Tuesdays, and right now my watch is telling me that there is lots of traffic on the way to my favorite bar. In the morning, it tells me how long my commute will be and what the weather will be that day. I can start navigation from my watch with my voice and get every direction as I need it. I can control any music player with notification support. I don't run any interaction-heavy apps on my watch, and I can't imagine ever wanting to do so. The thought of browsing a photo library or sending my heartbeat to someone seem like features for the sake of having features but in reality are completely unnecessary.

2xlbuds 12y ago

nickonline 12y ago
Which watch are you using? I've been using a pebble and while it's good it doesn't have the level of interaction you're discussing.
- rictic 12y ago
  Those are all Android Wear features, so any of a number of devices.
- 2xlbuds 12y ago
  The LG G Watch.
kingkawn 12y ago
Your comment has given me my first quantifiable measured sensation of feeling old. if you go out every Tuesday, you will learn the traffic patterns, and will naturally develop a series of contingency routes that you could take in the event of traffic. The watch is novelty more than useful. It will make you forget how you used to do things and in turn feel dependent on it, when in fact it is simply a novelty that distracted you so much that you forgot that what you were doing was fine.

Eric_WVGG 12y ago

“the iPod succeeded because of a synergy with other parts of Apple's empire” That is absolute crap. iTunes had no foothold to speak of in the marketplace. The notion of Apple having an "empire" at the time of the iPod’s release (or even at the time of the iPod’s mainstream success) was laughable.

bduerst 12y ago
You are wrong. iTunes was such a monumental hit that it carried iPods with it - there's even a business case on the matter: http://hbr.org/product/apple-inc-ipods-and-itunes/an/905M46-PDF-ENG http://hbr.org/product/apple-inc-ipods-and-itunes/an/905M46-...
- free2rhyme214 12y ago
  The best way to win an argument is to avoid one. I've learned that this works with women as well.
JohnTHaller 12y ago
It absolutely did. You may have forgotten, but the early success of iTunes/iPod was in being able to organize your music and get it on your device. iTunes/iPod was the first to really get this right on any kind of scale. And, compared to the competition of the time, they really nailed it. So, a phone that had that integrated was a really big deal, even if it couldn't run any apps (as the first iPhone did and couldn't).
- nardi 12y ago
  GGP is talking about the iPod, not the iPhone. GP is right that iTunes had no foothold when the iPod was released, and Apple had no "empire."
  - personZ 12y ago
    How did this suddenly get redefined to "when released"? If that is the case, Taco's widely criticized assessment was dead on - the iPod was initially a failure. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg We know that it took off, but that was wholly on the back of iTunes - 0.99 tracks and much easier use than competitors sold the iPod, not some fundamental excellence of the device. People forget now but while we revile iTunes generally now, at the time it was the killer feature of the iPod, and the initial iPhone success.

n09n 12y ago

The reality distortion field and the ability to spin those negatives as positives are features, though. A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. How well it tells the time or does other things is much less important than how fashionable it is. Branding is one of Apple's strong suits, and you can't take that away by adding features as if consumer purchasing decisions are based on some kind of checklist-like RFPs like corporate drones are used to.

stevewilhelm 12y ago
My Nike+ SportWatch GPS is not primarily jewelry. It combined with Strava is primarily a fitness motivation and management tool.
- n09n 12y ago
  Watches in general, obviously. There's an exception to every rule.
kamaal 12y ago
>>A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. Not actually though. A watch is still a watch. There are so many places where you can't carry or even have the opportunity to use your smart phone to check time. Students can't carry it to exam halls, people who are driving cars, workers, there many professions and use cases where a simple device strapped to your hand is indispensable when it comes to keeping track of time.
- threeseed 12y ago
  A watch is not just a watch to many people. Otherwise companies like IWC, Brietling, Rolex etc wouldn't be making as much money as they do. Anything you put on your body that is visible to the public affects how people see you. Whether you care about this influences if you think a watch is fashionable or purely functional.
  - david 12y ago
    He didn't say a watch is "just a watch", he said a watch "is still a watch".

wdr1 12y ago

> 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). I think that's a very weak argument, as iTunes wasn't available for the PC market for years. The Mac market at that point was nascent and lots of people were buying iPods w/o the ability to use iTunes.

duskwuff 12y ago
> The Mac market at that point was nascent and lots of people were buying iPods w/o the ability to use iTunes. The iPod was supported on Windows before iTunes was available through Musicmatch Jukebox, which Apple bundled with Windows iPods. I don't think there were many people buying iPods before then just to look at. :)
- nardi 12y ago
  He didn't say they were. You seem to be in violent agreement.
personZ 12y ago
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Total_ipod_sales.svg Very few bought the iPod in the first two years, and it was a commercial failure. It was iTunes on Windows that brought it mainstream.

krisgenre 12y ago

Very true. Look at iOS - it never had home screen, no widgets and no home screen pages. Apple watch seems like its trying to include all these, it would have never made sense to put iOS on a watch. Android on the other hand has had all of these and has been working on various kinds of devices for quite long ( guess fragmentation has a brighter side too ). It does make sense to put it on a watch ( obviously with some design changes ).

moogleii 12y ago

I'm curious what your defense is to their success with the non-Apple faithful, though. That always seems to be left unsaid. The good ol' common "marketing" play from the Android diehards may have accounted for some of its success, but I think it's immensely dense to attribute a large proportion of Apple's current (and recent past) success to it (you might get to fortune 500 with that, but getting to #1 wealthiest company in the world solely on marketing is a bit of a stretch, at a certain crossover point you'll need actual good product). In fact, I would call that the counter-distortion field among the "Android faithful." Somehow, as people love to point out, on paper, Apple devices are underspec compared to the competition. But they do well anyway. "MARKETING! The zombie sheeple faithful!" Of course, I'm not saying you believe it's purely marketing, but I raise that just to give example of the other distortion field. As you have pointed out, the iPod succeeded because of synergy with iTunes (though many of the replies to your comment raise excellent counterpoints, and I think it's revisionism to call what Apple had back then as an empire - like many others back then, we were 90% dismissively sure Apple was going to file for bankruptcy soon). I partly agree with you, but I disagree it was due to iTunes as software, because, quite frankly, iTunes has and still sucks. The iPod succeeded because Apple made sure to have business deals in place with the big dogs of music and to offer individual tracks for (at the time) very cheap prices. You may recall, but CDs were kind of a rip off at that point, and the music industry wanted to charge quite a bit more per track. The iPhone itself succeeded because Apple coordinated with carrier(s) while requiring certain conditions - no pre-installed apps, and design autonomy. Recently, it's been trying to coordinate with the cable networks to get Apple TV some traction (though I believe they failed). With Apple Pay, it coordinated with all the major credit card carriers. To me, it is that kind of planning that shows Apple's commitment to polish. I could be wrong, but Google seems to be more on the "here's our plan, we'll open it up, and hopefully people (and other corporations) flock to it. But if not...well, we have our bread-and-butter search to subsist on." It's worked with some things, and it hasn't for others. Google Wallet and Google NFC payments may have come out first, but they seem to be dead in the water. But hey, my swiss army knife has more attachments than yours, right? > 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. My experience is pretty different. I don't really hear the "Apple faithful" very often, short of online journalists. In terms of actual end-users, the Android house seems way more vocal, and usually in two buckets: "we had it way before!" or some kind of flock of sheep comment. Take a visit to r/technology on reddit, and do a search on Apple, then do a search on Android. The negativity is no where near 1:1. For all that noise, I must cite my favorite tech blog: http://anandtech.com/show/8414/a-month-with-the-iphone-5s/ http://anandtech.com/show/8414/a-month-with-the-iphone-5s/. I believe this is far fairer than most of the vitriol you'll find out there. As for the watch? I think it looks bulky, just like all the other smartwatches. I'm skeptical about its battery life, which they seemed to have not mentioned. But I gotta admit, the feature set looks pretty polished to me.

yalogin 12y ago

Hard to stomach? That's a curious choice of words. Do you think Google or Amazon would not do the same marketing and try to create the same kind of hype around their products if they can? You are saying you can see through the clutter but it looks more like you are biased against company that was successful in their execution.