What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

 Apple Watch ⌚ (1 Viewer)

Jobber said:
Mr. Ected said:
Jobber said:
No GPS is a deal breaker. Wow.
If it's tied to your phone, does it then 'have' GPS?
If you leave your cell at home and go on a bike or run, then no, it does not 'have' GPS.
Huge shortcoming. You would think they could have popped in GPS and had the apps trace your run etc and then sync back up and transfer that data to your phone when you get home. Big swing and miss there.They also need to figure out a way to get music on it, like spotify or Amazon prime or pandora, not just iTunes.

They solve these two problems and I'll fork over $399. But not before that.
It really is baffling to me. I'm sure they had their reasons, but WTF?
Battery life.
You already have to charge it daily. I can run with my garmin for 12 hours before it needs to be charged.
Right. And if your Garmin did everything the Apple Watch does it would not last 12 hours with GPS.
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
Well duh, I mean why would Apple put all the current functionality into their current device? Can't give the people want they want right away. I mean it took them 3 years to finally put NFC into the iPhone.

And I'm not a total Apple hater, have a Macbook Air and love it. But this is the downside of Apple. They'll slowly add functionality to their products so people have to keep buying the newest one. the Apple Watch2 will probably have GPS.
Why would I have wanted an NFC chip in my phone 3-4 years ago when there was virtually zero infrastructure in place to use the technology?

 
Jobber said:
Mr. Ected said:
Jobber said:
No GPS is a deal breaker. Wow.
If it's tied to your phone, does it then 'have' GPS?
If you leave your cell at home and go on a bike or run, then no, it does not 'have' GPS.
Huge shortcoming. You would think they could have popped in GPS and had the apps trace your run etc and then sync back up and transfer that data to your phone when you get home. Big swing and miss there.They also need to figure out a way to get music on it, like spotify or Amazon prime or pandora, not just iTunes.

They solve these two problems and I'll fork over $399. But not before that.
It really is baffling to me. I'm sure they had their reasons, but WTF?
Battery life.
You already have to charge it daily. I can run with my garmin for 12 hours before it needs to be charged.
Right. And if your Garmin did everything the Apple Watch does it would not last 12 hours with GPS.
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.

 
I can run with my garmin for 12 hours before it needs to be charged.
Guys, my swatch gets 6 months out of a battery... I'm not sure why the apple watch can't too.
So does my garmin if I don't turn the GPS on.

Again, you have to charge the apple watch daily anyway. Is the battery life so poor on this watch that you would literally drain the whole thing during a single run with GPS?

 
Jobber said:
Mr. Ected said:
Jobber said:
No GPS is a deal breaker. Wow.
If it's tied to your phone, does it then 'have' GPS?
If you leave your cell at home and go on a bike or run, then no, it does not 'have' GPS.
Huge shortcoming. You would think they could have popped in GPS and had the apps trace your run etc and then sync back up and transfer that data to your phone when you get home. Big swing and miss there.They also need to figure out a way to get music on it, like spotify or Amazon prime or pandora, not just iTunes.

They solve these two problems and I'll fork over $399. But not before that.
It really is baffling to me. I'm sure they had their reasons, but WTF?
Battery life.
You already have to charge it daily. I can run with my garmin for 12 hours before it needs to be charged.
Right. And if your Garmin did everything the Apple Watch does it would not last 12 hours with GPS.
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.
They'll have the battery problem "solved" by next go around, I'm willing to bet my Apple windfall on it. I'm also willing to bet that they will not release GPS version with the "new" battery. It will come in the iteration after. Their model should be clear to everyone by now. I'm not saying it's a bad model or deriding it in any fashion, but it is what it is. I don't know why people find the need to make excuses for it. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have my kids' college paths set by now. :shrug:

 
I can run with my garmin for 12 hours before it needs to be charged.
Guys, my swatch gets 6 months out of a battery... I'm not sure why the apple watch can't too.
So does my garmin if I don't turn the GPS on.

Again, you have to charge the apple watch daily anyway. Is the battery life so poor on this watch that you would literally drain the whole thing during a single run with GPS?
I don't think you caught my point....

Maybe not one run... but assuming a normal user who will be dicking with / using the watch a good bit, I'm guessing adding GPS would cutbattery life to half a day.

The 200mah battery is a big issue IMO. One of a few reasons I won't be going with this watch.

 
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.
They'll have the battery problem "solved" by next go around, I'm willing to bet my Apple windfall on it. I'm also willing to bet that they will not release GPS version with the "new" battery. It will come in the iteration after. Their model should be clear to everyone by now. I'm not saying it's a bad model or deriding it in any fashion, but it is what it is. I don't know why people find the need to make excuses for it. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have my kids' college paths set by now. :shrug:
Who's making excuses? I said the battery sucks and is too small. I was responding to your assertion that "Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. ". It's not... not with this battery.

And for someone "understands" apple's MO so well, I figured you'd realize that they're not going to release something that required a ton of manual interaction like turning GPS on and off to conserve battery. Violates their ease-of-use mantra. They'll port GPS when the on board battery supports normal background interaction.

 
Jobber said:
Mr. Ected said:
Jobber said:
No GPS is a deal breaker. Wow.
If it's tied to your phone, does it then 'have' GPS?
If you leave your cell at home and go on a bike or run, then no, it does not 'have' GPS.
Huge shortcoming. You would think they could have popped in GPS and had the apps trace your run etc and then sync back up and transfer that data to your phone when you get home. Big swing and miss there.They also need to figure out a way to get music on it, like spotify or Amazon prime or pandora, not just iTunes.

They solve these two problems and I'll fork over $399. But not before that.
It really is baffling to me. I'm sure they had their reasons, but WTF?
Battery life.
You already have to charge it daily. I can run with my garmin for 12 hours before it needs to be charged.
Right. And if your Garmin did everything the Apple Watch does it would not last 12 hours with GPS.
You have to be able to switch it on and off (like the newest Garmin that can basically do everything the Apple Watch does).

 
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.
They'll have the battery problem "solved" by next go around, I'm willing to bet my Apple windfall on it. I'm also willing to bet that they will not release GPS version with the "new" battery. It will come in the iteration after. Their model should be clear to everyone by now. I'm not saying it's a bad model or deriding it in any fashion, but it is what it is. I don't know why people find the need to make excuses for it. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have my kids' college paths set by now. :shrug:
Who's making excuses? I said the battery sucks and is too small. I was responding to your assertion that "Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. ". It's not... not with this battery.

And for someone "understands" apple's MO so well, I figured you'd realize that they're not going to release something that required a ton of manual interaction like turning GPS on and off to conserve battery. Violates their ease-of-use mantra. They'll port GPS when the on board battery supports normal background interaction.
of course it's easy to do. Just write into the apps that the app needs to turn it on, then off when done. It's simple...even with this battery. And I wasn't saying YOU specifically, read up. But NOW that you ARE making excuses, I guess you can add yourself to the list :shrug:

 
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.
They'll have the battery problem "solved" by next go around, I'm willing to bet my Apple windfall on it. I'm also willing to bet that they will not release GPS version with the "new" battery. It will come in the iteration after. Their model should be clear to everyone by now. I'm not saying it's a bad model or deriding it in any fashion, but it is what it is. I don't know why people find the need to make excuses for it. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have my kids' college paths set by now. :shrug:
Who's making excuses? I said the battery sucks and is too small. I was responding to your assertion that "Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. ". It's not... not with this battery.

And for someone "understands" apple's MO so well, I figured you'd realize that they're not going to release something that required a ton of manual interaction like turning GPS on and off to conserve battery. Violates their ease-of-use mantra. They'll port GPS when the on board battery supports normal background interaction.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

 
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.
They'll have the battery problem "solved" by next go around, I'm willing to bet my Apple windfall on it. I'm also willing to bet that they will not release GPS version with the "new" battery. It will come in the iteration after. Their model should be clear to everyone by now. I'm not saying it's a bad model or deriding it in any fashion, but it is what it is. I don't know why people find the need to make excuses for it. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have my kids' college paths set by now. :shrug:
Who's making excuses? I said the battery sucks and is too small. I was responding to your assertion that "Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. ". It's not... not with this battery.

And for someone "understands" apple's MO so well, I figured you'd realize that they're not going to release something that required a ton of manual interaction like turning GPS on and off to conserve battery. Violates their ease-of-use mantra. They'll port GPS when the on board battery supports normal background interaction.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Nice contribution to the debate. If every app had "while using" option, that would be fine. But far too many abuse the GPS functionality and only have "Always" or "Never" as options, frequently calling to the GPS excessively. You have permissions associated but frankly it's a headache. Post triple emoticons all you want, but the end result is Apple deemed the battery life to be enough of an issue to not include GPS functionality in this version of the watch. :shrug:

This watch is a pretty crappy first effort, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.
They'll have the battery problem "solved" by next go around, I'm willing to bet my Apple windfall on it. I'm also willing to bet that they will not release GPS version with the "new" battery. It will come in the iteration after. Their model should be clear to everyone by now. I'm not saying it's a bad model or deriding it in any fashion, but it is what it is. I don't know why people find the need to make excuses for it. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have my kids' college paths set by now. :shrug:
Who's making excuses? I said the battery sucks and is too small. I was responding to your assertion that "Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. ". It's not... not with this battery.

And for someone "understands" apple's MO so well, I figured you'd realize that they're not going to release something that required a ton of manual interaction like turning GPS on and off to conserve battery. Violates their ease-of-use mantra. They'll port GPS when the on board battery supports normal background interaction.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Nice contribution to the debate. If every app had "while using" option, that would be fine. But far too many abuse the GPS functionality and only have "Always" or "Never" as options, frequently calling to the GPS excessively. You have permissions associated but frankly it's a headache. Post triple emoticons all you want, but the end result is Apple deemed the battery life to be enough of an issue to not include GPS functionality in this version of the watch. :shrug: This watch is a pretty crappy first effort, IMO.
You've used it?

 
Why would I have wanted an NFC chip in my phone 3-4 years ago when there was virtually zero infrastructure in place to use the technology?
Because having the latest tech at no extra cost is a bad thing?
"No extra cost"? I can assure you that EVERY chip and component involves a trade off - both in terms of $, size space, and functionality. At one time I was the type of person with so much time on my hands that I wanted all my tech gadgets to have every possibility built in, but now I prefer that my gadgets contain the latest technology that is actually useful while leaving stuff like NFC out until the technology matures.

 
tommyGunZ said:
MattFancy said:
tommyGunZ said:
Why would I have wanted an NFC chip in my phone 3-4 years ago when there was virtually zero infrastructure in place to use the technology?
Because having the latest tech at no extra cost is a bad thing?
"No extra cost"? I can assure you that EVERY chip and component involves a trade off - both in terms of $, size space, and functionality. At one time I was the type of person with so much time on my hands that I wanted all my tech gadgets to have every possibility built in, but now I prefer that my gadgets contain the latest technology that is actually useful while leaving stuff like NFC out until the technology matures.
What about now with there being more out there with NFC, and they are only allowing you to use it with SmartPay.

 
tommyGunZ said:
MattFancy said:
tommyGunZ said:
Why would I have wanted an NFC chip in my phone 3-4 years ago when there was virtually zero infrastructure in place to use the technology?
Because having the latest tech at no extra cost is a bad thing?
"No extra cost"? I can assure you that EVERY chip and component involves a trade off - both in terms of $, size space, and functionality. At one time I was the type of person with so much time on my hands that I wanted all my tech gadgets to have every possibility built in, but now I prefer that my gadgets contain the latest technology that is actually useful while leaving stuff like NFC out until the technology matures.
What about now with there being more out there with NFC, and they are only allowing you to use it with SmartPay.
This is more of a valid criticism, IMO. Though I'd have to hear what Apple's reasoning for limiting NFC use is, and why they feel their users are better off.

 
just ordered mine. said it will ship in june. :popcorn:
Just received mine today. Only played with it for a few hours. But i like that its simple. Little things are helpful. Like, when i get a text, i look at my watch and can see it, without having to pull my phone out of my pocket. I got the sport version. Will see have i feel after a few days.

 
Still waiting on mine. Cool to see that it's essentially waterproof: http://bgr.com/2015/05/11/is-the-apple-watch-waterproof-tests/
The watch survived the pool test but sadly, the phone that was required to be with the watch at all times probably did not.
Oddly enough, this was my exact thought. Though this is a rabbit hole we needn't go down.
If you're worried about falling in a pool, use a LifeProof case. If you want to go swimming, put your phone by your sandals and towel.

The phone is not required to be with the watch at all times.

 
It doesn't "DO" much on it's own. It needs the phone to go with it. Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. That's not their model though. No other excuse/reason needed :shrug:
It's a 205 mAh battery... about 90% smaller than the iPhone 6 battery. The space in this thing is kinda limited... It does quite a bit on it's own. Bluetooth/Screen/Processor requires a good bit of juice.... especially for a battery that size.

Am I saying that's GOOD? Hell no... battery life is no bueno on this thing. Just saying THAT is why there is no GPS for it.... GPS is a pretty brutal resource hog.
They'll have the battery problem "solved" by next go around, I'm willing to bet my Apple windfall on it. I'm also willing to bet that they will not release GPS version with the "new" battery. It will come in the iteration after. Their model should be clear to everyone by now. I'm not saying it's a bad model or deriding it in any fashion, but it is what it is. I don't know why people find the need to make excuses for it. If they didn't do that, I wouldn't have my kids' college paths set by now. :shrug:
Who's making excuses? I said the battery sucks and is too small. I was responding to your assertion that "Putting in a GPS that can easily be turned on/off is easy enough to do in this instance. ". It's not... not with this battery.

And for someone "understands" apple's MO so well, I figured you'd realize that they're not going to release something that required a ton of manual interaction like turning GPS on and off to conserve battery. Violates their ease-of-use mantra. They'll port GPS when the on board battery supports normal background interaction.
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
Nice contribution to the debate. If every app had "while using" option, that would be fine. But far too many abuse the GPS functionality and only have "Always" or "Never" as options, frequently calling to the GPS excessively. You have permissions associated but frankly it's a headache. Post triple emoticons all you want, but the end result is Apple deemed the battery life to be enough of an issue to not include GPS functionality in this version of the watch. :shrug: This watch is a pretty crappy first effort, IMO.
You've used it?
Yes. You can play with them at Apple Stores. In addition, a buddy has one and played with if for the better part of an afternoon.

I stand by my assessment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Still waiting on mine. Cool to see that it's essentially waterproof: http://bgr.com/2015/05/11/is-the-apple-watch-waterproof-tests/
The watch survived the pool test but sadly, the phone that was required to be with the watch at all times probably did not.
Oddly enough, this was my exact thought. Though this is a rabbit hole we needn't go down.
If you're worried about falling in a pool, use a LifeProof case. If you want to go swimming, put your phone by your sandals and towel.

The phone is not required to be with the watch at all times.
This. Also the watch connects with phone up to a pretty far distance. I was about 100 yards from my phone and it was still connected. If you really wanted to swim with your watch it will still connect to the phone as long as your phone is on the pool deck somewhere. It still sucks that your phone has to be with you but I just wanted to point that out.
 
Got mine for half off with my cousin's employee discount. I would not say I'm disappointed, but I am a little underwhelmed. Need to set expectations and know that it's more of a fashion accessory and assistant to the iPhone than anything.

 
People aren't buying it because its laughably overpriced and doesn't add anything to your life.

I have a friend who has one so I got to play around for a while. It's nice and all and I would buy one for a hundred bucks or so but not much over that. Can't believe how much they are asking. Crazy.

 
People aren't buying it because its laughably overpriced and doesn't add anything to your life.

I have a friend who has one so I got to play around for a while. It's nice and all and I would buy one for a hundred bucks or so but not much over that. Can't believe how much they are asking. Crazy.
:goodposting:

Though they ARE still tracking to sell about 10MM of these things. Not bad considering less than 1MM TOTAL Android watches sold in the last year from all manufacturers combined.

NOT saying this is anything Apple should be proud of, or that I think the watch is a great device. I'm with Cappy in that I wouldn't spend $350 for one. However it is, relatively, a fairly successful launch. Very successful when you hold it up against android wear.

 
People aren't buying it because its laughably overpriced and doesn't add anything to your life.

I have a friend who has one so I got to play around for a while. It's nice and all and I would buy one for a hundred bucks or so but not much over that. Can't believe how much they are asking. Crazy.
A hundred bucks? The last Nixon surf watch I bought 5 years ago was like 250.

 
People aren't buying it because its laughably overpriced and doesn't add anything to your life.

I have a friend who has one so I got to play around for a while. It's nice and all and I would buy one for a hundred bucks or so but not much over that. Can't believe how much they are asking. Crazy.
Meh, early days.

While I am not an advocate of this or any android wear watch on the market I am bullish on smart-smart-watches long term and am grateful for the early adopters that will push the products I eventually will want closer. I think phablets being the new normal will ultimately push people in the direction of wearables.

I hope 'Gunz and the rest are happy with their purchase, but I hope they are also hungry for big improvements rather than the iterative ones phones/tablets currently experience with each new "generation".

 
of course the initial launch would be decent since a lot of people will buy any new Apple product sight unseen. The sales are cratering pretty badly though from the charts i've seen.

It has potential, but until it can work independantly from the phone it won't be a game changer or have mass market appeal.

http://www.macrumors.com/2015/07/07/apple-watch-demand-slides-june-slice/
Exactly. I am surprised the data plans for the watches that work with no phone are pretty reasonable. With a phone plan it's an extra $5/month.... stand alone it's $15/month. Not bad... but that screen makes it less data intensive too.

 
The mrs bought one for me as a gift. Didn't ask for it, didn't really want it. I'm not a free spender type so not something I would've bought for myself, and even told her not to get it for me as it was too expensive and not necessary (for me). But like all good women she doesn't listen.

It's just meh. I'm 42 with two kids, I kind of feel like a dork swiping away on my watch. It's cool getting game score updates but it's unnecessary IMO. But that's just me since I don't use it for fitness and such. As others have said way overpriced.

 
Since most of the tone seems to be "meh" or outright dislike I thought I would chime in with a different view. Like Billy Bats, I wasn't planning on buying one but did want one. As it happened, I did win the Sport edition (aluminum) in a sales contest at work. I had a Pebble previously and gave up on it after about 3 weeks. I joked that the Pebble basically was a reminder to pull my phone out. I find the Apple Watch to be much different and much better.

First, they absolutely nailed the way it interacts with you. I keep the ringer off on my phone and on the watch and the gentle shaking when I get an email, text, or call is just right. It even works great for my morning alarm (more on that in a bit).

Second, I think the notifications are great. Unlike the pebble, this actually helps me keep my phone IN my pocket more. I have five active email addresses between work, personal, and side projects. My wife's first/default nag with me when we are in a disagreement is that I spend too much time on my phone. And she's right; I pull my phone out way too much, especially when I'm with my family. So many messages--most of them, probably-- don't really require immediate attention. Some require no attention at all. Seeing the message and archiving it takes less than a second and gives us each what we want: I spend less time on my phone but I don't feel disconnected from my work and businesses.

I do use it to tell time as well. The faces may be seen as "fun" but they have a real utility to them. If people crow about Android being customizable and how awesome that is then Apple Watch owners can do the same about the watch faces. Most of the time I use a custom face that shows me my alarm, battery life, outside temperature, and when my next calendar appointment is. My kids are amused by the Mickey Mouse watch face as well, a level of entertainment to my small children no different than games and stuff on a regular phone.

The activity app is a nice-to-have, mostly because I did nothing with FitBit or activity tracking prior. I don't get enough exercise and I know it. At least with this simple activity tracker I can be informed of how lazy I am and actually try. If it gets later in the afternoon and I'm way behind on calories/steps I'll take a walk around downtown for 20 minutes. Depending on your perspective that may or may not be a lifechanging feature; I'm sure my heart appreciates that I'm actually trying though.

The watch is well weighed and well built. I actually cut the lawn (Texas weather ya'll) the other day and forgot it was on my wrist. Even with me sweating like crazy it remained comfortable whereas my other (Dress) watches would of course have no business on my wrist while working in the yard.

Perhaps my favorite feature is the alarm. I use the Watch to wake up in the morning at 5:15 with a light buzz of my wrist. If you ignore it long enough a small chime comes in, escalating in frequency until you finally wake up. This is a great alternative to a shrill alarm clock that wakes up me, my wife, and the aforementioned two small children. The Watch helps all of us wake up and sleep better.

Finally, I travel often for work and the Passbook integration (Boarding passes, hotel room keys) and Uber app (best app bar none. press the button, car arrives) are quite useful. They solve first-world quasi-problems but what's wrong with using technology for added convenience?

I have apps like HipChat and Slack (work) and sports stuff that I pretty much never check ever. Also don't use Siri or voice commands. I realize most of what's above seems inconsequential. They are incremental changes to my day and I admit that most of them aren't earthshattering. But not pulling my phone out so often, actually getting a little exercise, and waking up less chaotically make me glad to have the watch.

 
Long term I will have a smart watch (we all will), right now this does not help me much.

I need more than a couple apps and an alarm.

 
Long term I will have a smart watch (we all will), right now this does not help me much.

I need more than a couple apps and an alarm.
What is it you "need?" Maybe I'm too simple minded, but I'm not exactly sure what the a-ha moment is supposed to be with wearables.

 
Long term I will have a smart watch (we all will), right now this does not help me much.

I need more than a couple apps and an alarm.
What is it you "need?" Maybe I'm too simple minded, but I'm not exactly sure what the a-ha moment is supposed to be with wearables.
I'm guessing not needing a phone nearby for it to have any practical uses?
This is pretty key for me.

As I said earlier, if it could do GPS along with streaming music via Spotify etc. during a run in the park -- all WITHOUT having to have my phone -- I'd gladly fork over $350.

 
Long term I will have a smart watch (we all will), right now this does not help me much.

I need more than a couple apps and an alarm.
What is it you "need?" Maybe I'm too simple minded, but I'm not exactly sure what the a-ha moment is supposed to be with wearables.
When it starts replacing my phone, which I imagine isn't as far off as people think. When I can use it without my phone. :yes:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not a big technology guy so I'm obviously not their market. I still own a flip phone.

But is there any benefit to these things if you already have a smart phone? To me it seems like you have your phone (or most people do) all the time. So why do you need an extra product that does the exact same thing?

 
The problem with the watch replacing the phone looks squarely on battery technology as the holdup. Rather than type a huge post I'll just throw down some bullets:

• Battery: Engineers cant get all day battery life in a phone-sized device now. Imagine something 1/8th the form factor

• Web Browsing / Video Watching: You say you want your phone replaced, but do you really want to browse the web / watch videos on a 2" screen?
• Cost: Your phone costs $700-900. The reason the iWatch is "only" $400 is because it doesn't have a cellular Radio and such. Cram everything in your phone down to the micro form factor and these will be starting at $750.

Abe: I am 100% with you as that guy who has his phone in his hand WAY too much and catches #### about it from GF/Family. I also would love the more accurate fitness tracking through the day. I LOVE the idea of the alarm, but I have to ask, when do you plug it in to charge if you sleep with it on your wrist? Also what is the real world battery life performance you're seeing. TIA GB

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top