8 ms·
Inconvenient Truths About the Apple Watch
- doe88 11y agoI don't understand this obsession with big sizes watches maybe it's because I actually don't wear a watch but I've ordered the 38mm model (and I'm a man). My reasonning is that the last thing I want is something big on my wrist.
- simi_ 11y agoJust measured my watch: 33mm diameter, and I'm extremely happy with this size (for reference, I'm also a "6 feet" == 183cm well built male).
- abiaad 11y agoSo right. I'm a man and 38 mm is enough for my wrist.
- harryh 11y agoDo you not live in the US? Where BIG is celebrated for all sorts of things.
- RVuRnvbM2e 11y agoExactly this. Why would you want a big watch? Mine is the smallest and lightest I could find and I still feel it's a little too big!
- mauricemir 11y agoIt depends i have a Christopher Ward in 44mm (C8 Pilot) and it doesn't look to big.
- sliverstorm 11y agoIf I have a watch for telling time, I want it to be as small and thin as reasonable. If I have a watch as a fashion accessory/jewelry, being small is no longer a design parameter, and in fact being larger might be seen as positive- like a large diamond ring. Watches are not always worn just to tell time.
- nostrebored 11y agoLarge diamond rings are also tacky. I've not met a single girl who prefers grandiose rings. Ever.
- flavaflava 11y agoEvery 'girl' you've offered a large diamond ring has declined the offer? Perhaps the problem is not the size of the ring but with you
- nostrebored 11y agoDon't know how you came up with that interpretation. I'll go ahead and break this down for you, since it seems like you've never actually proposed to somebody. Typically you talk to your friends about rings, shop around, etc. You've likely already been talking about getting engaged, and asked for your girlfriend's opinions on rings as well. Throughout this process you'll get a good estimation of people's opinions on what is aesthetically pleasing -- from my experience this tended to be low set, solitaire or princess, moderately sized diamond rings.
- sliverstorm 11y agoWell, you feel that way, but not everyone does. The point is watches are largely jewelry/fashion accessories now, and in the land of fashion, throw out everything you knew about practicality and functionality.
- xutopia 11y agoI am a 5'11" man but rather slim around the wrist. I stopped wearing watches because all watches for my age group were humongous. I assumed that the 42mm watch would be too big but now I can't wait to go try one.
- pearle 11y agoThere are a lot of options below 40mm. I wear a 35.5mm Stowa Antea.
- VLM 11y agomanhood compensation. See also the complaints about it not looking expensive enough. It doesn't matter if it works, if its durable, or even if it actually is expensive, the only selection criteria was appearing expensive to others. That way, people you don't know or care about will be impressed by you. That guy I don't know who I passed in the hallway would be extremely intimidated if my watch band looked handmade, and thats very important to a certain caliber of people.
- Eric_WVGG 11y agoI find the fact that the author professes himself to be "built like a linebacker" and then makes observations about size that should somehow be relevant to everyday users. I mean, it's a totally valid perspective, but holy edge-case
- arprocter 11y agoThe Panerai he linked to is 44mm and they have a reputation for 'wearing big' - often spotted on the wrist of Messrs Stallone and Schwarzenegger
- TeMPOraL 11y agoI'd say it's not big enough. I want to have a useful touchscreen on my wrist, not "a watch". Though Apple Watch doesn't seem to work for that either.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- gdubs 11y agoI tried both on in one of the dev labs a few weeks ago. I expected the 38 would be the one I'd go for since I have slight wrists, but it just didn't look or feel right. A little too feminine. (I have a fairly androgynous fashion sense, and have no problem buying something in a women's size if it looks right -- but this just didn't for me.) Obviously your mileage may vary.
- pbreit 11y agoBecause the OP is a "watch guy". Ordinary people do not want something that bulky on their wrists.
- calciphus 11y agoTrends in the industry say otherwise. Walk into any store, from a Target to a luxury jewelry store, and you'll see that most watches trend towards big because that's what's popular right now. That's not to say Apple can't reverse that trend - they hold considerable sway in matters of fashion and design, but right now this is the dominant form for men's watches.
- aetherson 11y agoA consistent thread through reviews of the aWatch is that the sport band is surprisingly awesome-feeling. Which is a sign for hope from Apple. The truth of the aWatch is that only the success of the $350-$400 models matters. If those sell well and summon up customer enthusiasm, then the watch has at least a fighting chance to be successful. If people don't like the $350-$400 models, then all the enthusiasm in the world for the $1,000-$17,000 models will not create an ecosystem, and the aWatch will be, at best, a tiny niche product. If Apple has recognized that and not bought into their own marketing hype about premium whatever, and focused all their attention on making the basic model as good as possible, then they're making the smart play.
- bryanlarsen 11y agoSomething finally clicked for me. The OP disses the watch, but buys one anyway so he can write apps for it. Apple always hypes their products, but they usually lowball expectations. For the Watch, they've really ramped up expectations, really setting themselves up for a let-down. It's been obvious for a while that the Watch was going to be more like iPhone v1 than iPad v1: showing lots of promise, but needing a couple of iterations to nail it and really become a mass market product. So I expect good numbers, but not huge numbers. So why would Apple risk the Watch being branded a failure by missing expectations? Apps. If devs expect a huge success, they'll jump in heavy. So when gen 2 or 3 rolls around the news stories will be about this watch being the one that rectifies the failure of gen 1, but it will be also be about the killer apps that you can get.
- Eric_WVGG 11y agoMuch more like the iPod than iPhone, IMHO. An accessory, a fashion object, very cool but totally optional and not life-changing in the way the smartphone has been.
- gdubs 11y agoAh, but the iPod paved the way for the iPhone. Where Apple succeeds is in creating products that people covet. White earbuds were a status symbol for some time until the knockoffs came. They signaled that you had enough disposable income for an expensive MP3 player. Now they've made something you wear -- so there's no missing the signal. And yes, I totally fall for it every time -- but as a developer I have a convenient alibi :)
- AJ007 11y agoThis could well end up in quite the opposite direction. Whether its Apple, Google, or both, we have a device that acts as a payment tool, light switch, id card, all at once seamlessly. Right now that device is the phone. We are still in the novelty phase. It is as seamless as reaching in to your pocket and navigating to the needed app. It is still optional. You can still get printed boarding passes, and most people do. There will be a transition point where this digital "key" (I think this is the best term) becomes mandatory. Retail stores could eliminate shoplifting along with the checkout line. Airports, employers, government facilities, could exercise more precise control of who is on the premises. May be there are already places like this. Certainly you aren't calling an Uber anonymously.
- JTon 11y ago> When Apple first showed off the Apple Watch, I was stunned. It looked glorious and larger than life. Shiny and precision-machined. Like an object from the future that time-traveled back to the present just to blow everyone away. I too was stunned, but for the exact opposite reason. I thought, and still think, the Apple Watch looks hideous. And no, I'm not exaggerating. I _really_ don't like it. This is coming from a non-apple user who thinks Apple makes beautiful hardware.
- pervycreeper 11y agoApple tends to be very hit-or-miss with its aesthetic choices.
- fit2rule 11y agoI'm with you - I also think it looks terrible, design-wise, and I was somewhat disappointed when it was announced. But like so many I'll be eager to see what comes of the re-design needed for V2.0 .. so I'm in a holding pattern about purchasing one. Writing apps for it on the other hand, I'm quite eager to do ..
- dhagz 11y agoIt's fun. I've already got one on the App Store (I think Apple has been rushing the review process on apps for the Watch). WatchKit is limited, but it's fun to push those limits. And I'm betting at WWDC we'll see a more fleshed out framework for interacting with the watch.
- return0 11y agoThe rounded rectangle design is nauseatingly ugly. There's a reason we cant find many examples of rounded rectangles throughout history - they re not beautiful. It looked OK on iphones which are useful items, but for a luxury item like this its almost a dealbreaker.
- jowiar 11y agoThe original iPod? The Emeco Navy chair? A decent chunk of Dieter Rams' work? Feel free to say "I don't like rounded rectangles". But categorically calling rounded rectangles "not beautiful" or "nauseating" is laughable.
- S_A_P 11y agoHis claims may or may not have merit. However the formula of 1) establish your apple cred by naming how many devices you own since the history of ever 2) tell people how excited you are about this product 3) trash it is tired. For the record, Im not interested in a watch from anyone, I don't like things on my wrist hands or face that didn't come with me from birth. I think it was inevitable that Apple entered this market, and Im sure that for some people it will exceed their expectations, and for some, disappoint.
- dothething 11y agoYou didn't follow the same formula by distancing yourself from watch ownership?
- antidaily 11y agoThat picture of the screen makes it look like a Sega Game Gear. Yikes.
- sjs382 11y agoHah! That was my first thought, as well!
- robmcm 11y agoFear not the Game Gear had a PPI of 67.27, the Apple Watch is ~250. Game Gear 160x144 pixel resolution 3.2 inche screen 67.27 ppi
- Joeri 11y agoAt least the game gear had crisp pixels, which I remember appreciating about it. Contemporary pc screens had blurry blotches instead of pixels, unless you were lucky enough to own a trinitron.
- giarc 11y agoLook at the rest of the photo. It's not like the author's arm is in glorious, crisp, clear lines either. I think the photo is a misrepresentation of the screen quality. I think we are just seeing artefacts of the camera used to take the picture.
- antidaily 11y agoThat picture of the screen makes it look like a Sega Game Gear. Yikes.
- TheCapn 11y agoI think this product is an interesting one. When the iPhone, iPod, or iPad came out you didn't have reviewers establishing their credibility as a "MP3 Player" or "Tablet" enthusiast in order to give their perspective merit. With the Apple Watch you have watch enthusiasts though who come out and discuss why it is a poor comparison to industry standards established for the market. Ultimately I think a lot of "watch enthusiasts" will see through the marketing and be displeased while tech enthusiasts will judge the product on different standards.
- lambdaelite 11y agoI'm very curious to see how the Apple Watch holds up in daily wear, especially the Sport version. I am having a hard time imagining an aluminum and glass watch looking nice after a couple months of daily wear on a wrist. Same goes for the leather bands: if they're like the leather iPhone cases in any color other than black, they look pretty shabby after a short time (and I love broken in leather!).
- lumisota 11y agotl;dr: "If you’re interested in the Apple Watch and are considering buying one, go to an Apple Store and try it on."
- spikels 11y agoPretty devastating review. I don't know about the sizing but if the screen really looks that bad this is a bait and switch. Where are all the "screen images simulated" disclaimers? I bet only a tiny fraction of buyers see the watch in person before they buy it. Seems like there might be a lot of disappointed owners.
- eridius 11y agoGood news! It doesn't look like the picture. Something is very wrong with that picture; either he intentionally took it badly or his camera has issues.
- gigq 11y agoI'm sure he took it with an iPhone 6 cause that's the phone he has but it also looks like higher than usual ISO probably due to bad lighting. The bigger issue is think about how close you would have to hold the watch up to your face to make it that big in real life. If you did that you'd be able to see the pixels but you wouldn't hold it that close. http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review has much better real life shots that mirror what I saw at the Apple store.
- Corporate_Shill 11y agoalternative headline: Apple Apologist's guide to avoiding buyers remorse when purchasing your Apple Watch.
- jff 11y agoEver since reading that article about how dangerous it is to criticize Apple, and how authors always start out by flying their Apple cred... man I notice it all the time in any article that has to say something critical.
- eridius 11y agoThat article claiming it's dangerous to criticize Apple was complete bullshit, but it did serve to highlight how anyone writing anti-Apple posts loves to try and trot out their credentials as an Apple user as if that lends authority to whatever they're about to write.
- joshuapants 11y ago> as if that lends authority to whatever they're about to write I think it does. Apple has a lot of True Believers and there are also a lot of people who have never used Apple products but take every opportunity to bash them. When I see a critical post written by someone who uses and likes Apple products, I consider the points made more carefully than a positive post by a brainwashee or a negative post by someone with an axe to grind.
- eridius 11y agoIt's really hard to take anyone seriously when they accuse Apple users of being "believers" or being "brainwash[ed]". Do you honestly believe that there's a large chunk of Apple customers out there (some even imply a majority of them) that only use Apple products out of some religious fervor or slavish devotion to the memory of Steve Jobs or whatever other justification you want to use? If anything, all of the Apple users that I know (and I know a lot) are more prone to be critical of Apple products than anyone I know is of any other company's products. (edit: That's actually a serious question. I genuinely don't understand why people try to make this argument)
- joshuapants 11y agoCan you point out where I suggested that all users of Apple products are brainwashed? One look at the Macrumors forum shows you that these people exist in some number (just like one look at a guitar forum shows you that Gibson has some believers). I work with one person who is absolutely insufferable with Apple evangelization. I didn't make the argument you thought I did, and while your weaving skills are admirable, I don't really need any strawmen.
- SeanLuke 11y agoThis picture is completely inappropriate. https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*cTTsFgbXbahUyF8jDgRF4Q.png https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*cTTsFgbXbah... He's trying to claim that the watch interface isn't sharp. I don't know if that's true or not (I have never seen an Apple Watch) but it's downright mendacious to illustrate this claim with a grotesquely high-ISO, grainy image which makes the watch display look as bad as possible.
- karlshea 11y agoI tried on the watch, and while the screen isn't as vector-sharp as the press photos, it also doesn't look anything like that photo.
- delecti 11y agoI agree that that's a very unflattering image, but it's purpose is to highlight the start difference between the marketing pics (which clearly show vector interfaces) and the reality of a pixelated display. Also, I think more of the unflattering-ness of the picture is due to the actually poor interface than the quality of the picture.
- 7Z7 11y agoThe digital crown looks about as pixelated and processed as the actual display pixels. I'd like to see a much better picture before I trusted anything in this image at all.
- IBM 11y agoLots of good pictures here: http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review
- baddox 11y agoWhy not show an Apple Watch screenshot at its native resolution, or even scaled up 2x? That would be a more honest way to demonstrate the resolution of the Apple Watch (which in my opinion is the least of its issues).
- 11y ago
- ExpiredLink 11y agoConvenient Truth #0: A smartwatch isn't a watch. Don't compare apples and oranges. Just because you can wear this device on the wrist doesn't make it a watch.
- robmcm 11y agoIt is a watch, clues in the name. However it's not a conventional watch.
- derefr 11y agoTo put it more precisely: it functions as a watch, but the design is not meant to status-signal through the traditional means by which watches status-signal. Apple don't care about "big for the sake of big" (more like "remove until you can't remove any more"); Apple don't care about leather that looks like artisanal leather with stitching et al, just that the material has the physical properties (e.g. sweat absorption) of leather while still having all the features they promised. Effectively, Apple is trying to replace traditional watch status-signalling with more smartphone-esque status-signalling, where a product looks more expensive the more like a mysterious featureless glowing glass bead it manages to seem.
- feld 11y agoI just viewed them in the apple store and thought the interface was incredibly fluid, screen was very crisp and bright, and the touch screen was impossibly accurate. I still don't want to buy one as the battery life is too short and I would rather wait for the apps to catch up so it can be more useful, but I don't think it's the failure this guy is setting it up to be.
- bambax 11y agoAs Daringfireball's review of the Apple watch said, there are two kinds of people: those who currently wear watches, and people who don't. The first ones have to be convinced to switch to the Apple watch because, as a watch, it's a better watch than the one currently on their wrist. The others just have to believe the Apple watch will answer a need that isn't met by any other device. I think the second proposition has a fighting chance (maybe) but the first is an uphill battle. The Apple watch is ugly and, simply, not a real watch. Watch people will probably never switch. That may not matter much, since they're a small minority anyway; but it would simplify Apple's marketing if it didn't try to talk to them at all.
- ctdonath 11y agoKind of person 2.5: those who don't wear a watch because the iPhone "pocket watch" is an incredibly useful compact information device, and until 4/24/15 a watch just tells time ... and who would jump at the chance to move the iPhone's "at a glance" functionality to their wrist. (Ex.: me) Not a real watch? Why, the same reason e-books aren't "real books" because they don't smell like old paper? (not trying to be snide, it's a complaint I hear often) It tells time, better than any mechanical watch (50ms accuracy, change the face to whatever you like), and includes all that functionality you keep flipping your iPhone out of your pocket for every few minutes.
- bambax 11y agoYou should read Gruber's piece: http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch The Apple Watch is not a real watch mainly because there's a lag between the time you glance at it and the time you see what's on it -- if you turn your wrist. If your wrist is already turned, or you can't turn it (for example, because you're typing) then you have to touch the face to turn it on. It's not waterproof. I'm not sure it's readable in very bright sunlight. It's very accurate, yes... contrary to the most expensive watches, which are the less accurate of all watches. Believe it or not, extreme accuracy is not a required feature of "real" watches.
- 11y ago
- azinman2 11y agoI don't know what he's talking about re size. I tried on both and the 42 felt plenty large to me. I wouldn't want it any larger. The screen also isn't nearly as bad as his photo. I have no idea what's going on there. Yes it isn't as sharp as my iPhone 6 but it's not blurry at all. The only thing that I agree with is that apples bands all look like crap. Their buckles on the leather look very feminine, and everything has a cheap feel. The one that doesn't is the Milanese loop. It looked gorgeous. Too bad it grabbed my arm hair and the sales guys said that was very common. Oops. I got the cheapest band and will wait for the 3rd party market to do something decent.
- astrodust 11y agoMaybe if you're a civilized silverback gorilla looking for something classy to wear you might be out of luck.
- plongeur 11y agoIt's so "Apple" to that obsessed with pixel densitites ...
- kstrauser 11y agoYes, it's narrower than watches which have to be round by the nature of their engineering. Someone made the design decision that a rectangle looks nicer on your wrist than a perfect square, and I'm inclined to agree with them.
- pbreit 11y agotl;dr: The Apple Watch is different from what I'm used to.
- Animats 11y agoThe article has a real-world picture of the watch face in use.[1] The display looks blurry and low-resolution. (It's not the photo; the knurls on the knob are sharp.) It's so different from the ads that Apple may be in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission for misleading advertising, for showing renders on their site that look much better than the actual product. [1] https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1330/1*cTTsFgbXbahUyF8jDgRF4Q.png https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1330/1*cTTsFgbXbah...
- baddox 11y agoIt is the photo. It's an extremely low quality grainy photograph. The Apple Watch display looks much better than that.
- Animats 11y agoThe bezel, the hairs on the guy's arm, and the knurling on the knob are in clear focus. Only the screen looks fuzzy. It's not a photograph problem.
- cawaker 11y agoI'm no photo expert but if you look closely the rest of the photo has a lot of noise also. So it may in focus but close up you can see its not a super high resolution image. Maybe the colors of the apple watch UI just bleed a bit with the noisy grain of the photo? Because in store, they did look better to my eyes.
- mcphage 11y ago> It's so different from the ads that Apple may be in trouble with the Federal Trade Commission for misleading advertising, for showing renders on their site that look much better than the actual product. It's also so different from all of the other real-world photographs taken of the watch—for instance, see http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review, which has been passed around elsewhere in these comments. So I wouldn't take that photograph as representative of how the screen looks.
- ctdonath 11y agoI just tried one on a few minutes ago. It's bright, sharp, large, responsive, ...just right. While the author is spending time complaining about the leather being so good it's in an uncanny valley of feeling wrong (akin to e-book naysayers complaining about missing the smell of old paper), I'm amazed at how far advanced the core functionality & responsiveness (what you're actually paying for) is beyond other smartwatches. Perfect? maybe not. But way better than anything else out there.