If it works as well as the iPod shuffle or Nano it will stop working if you sweat too much :(
Resellers should start investigating drones and robots, but needn’t bother swapping their Rolexes for Apple watches anytime soon, channel consultants Canalys warned today. Kicking off the firm’s European shindig today, CEO Steve Brazier refused to get wound up about the Apple Watch, saying there was little in the first …
Amen to that. My Shuffle 5g exploded. Turns out its hermetically sealed battery bag was assembled at sea level. I live at 5k feet above sea level so the hermit bag expanded and ruptured early on. 14 months after purchase the battery failed while charging and the hermit bag did not confine the nasty bits The inevitable happened.
Apple's response was "it's your fault". It was my fault, I made the mistake of buying an Apple product.
Indeed they did.
However, even Apple users would suggest waiting for the iWatch MK 2.
First iPod: Firewire only, Mac only, 5GB.
First iPhone: No 3G
First iPad. No longer supported. The iPad 2 is still supported (though reports suggest its beginning to struggle with iOS 8).
Wait for MK 2.
Just being wrong (at least) once before does not establish that pundits are always wrong.
There are similarly pundits who declared that the G4 Cube would change the computer marketplace, that the Apple TV would kill the Roku stone dead and that Android would never have more than 10% of the market. Some of those same pundits also said the iPad would be the first really successful tablet.
Brazier added, uncommonly for Apple, it was competing at the low end, describing it as a $300 product competing for wrist space with $60k Rolexes – the sort of comparison guarantee to get status conscious dealers wriggling in their seats.
This bit interested me. Although Brazier is technically right in the price aspect of low-end, Apple products are always seen as luxury/high-end. Maybe the high-end watch makers are having to watch their backs? Who knows if the Apple watch will change people's perceptions of what purpose the watch should do for themselves. The iPod, iPhone and iPad have done so. Depends if Apple's PR and advertising will sink into the minds of others.
I predict that iWatches will become expensive paperweights very fast. If I forget to wear my (automatic) watch, it will stop within 2 days. All i need to do is then give it a 2 seconds wind and set the time & date which I can do in about... 20 seconds total, and I'm good to go. With a maximum 36 hour battery life in an apple watch, people are going to very quickly get fed up with forgetting to charge it...
My quartz watches are ok until their battery goes, then they sort of lie forgotton in a bedroom draw for several months until I can muster up the time and courage to either open then and buy a new battery, or sell a kidney and get them done by a local watch stand, whereupon I generally forget I had them in the first place and buy a new watch. I predict that this is what will happen to the apple offering. After a month of wearing it and forgetting to charge it and having a totally useless lump on your wrist, it will find itself relegated to the same box that holds your Zip drive, Jazz cartridges, SCSI cards and 540 mb hard disks. All may work perfectly, but all are perfectly useless...
The Apple watch has wireless charging, which should help keep it charged, and I hope it can sync time from your iPhone (which hopefully can sync from the network), as that should avoid any need to fiddle with it if it does go flat.
(My quartz watch uses solar power to top up its battery, and syncs time with a radio signal, so it hasn't needed any attention since I bought it.)
> If I forget to wear my (automatic) watch, it will stop within 2 days
Really? My watch charges through a solar cell behind the face. It just needs standard room light. It also sets itself from the WWV signal every night. Plus of course it has a scratchproof sapphire face. The battery's non-removable, but this also means it's very waterproof.
I'd expect nothing less from an Apple watch. You'd think they could at least match the state of the art in a regular watch.
" Depends if Apple's PR and advertising will sink into the minds of others."
Sorry, but the magic black turtleneck that generate the RDF has gone to China.
Apple products are always seen as luxury/high-end. Maybe the high-end watch makers are having to watch their backs?
Not this time. You're making the mistake of thinking that because the Apple watch may be a useful device that does lots of things including display the time it competes with the high end. The fact is that it doesn't compete with the likes of Rolex any more than Lexus really competes with Rolls Royce since the average Rolex doesn't really have to tell the time to work perfectly any more than a Rolls parked in front of the door does.
If Apple is successful selling into a luxury segment it doesn't follow they would be successful in all parts of that market. If Tesla builds a luxury car, they might steal some sales from Lexus and Mercedes, but if they steal zero sales from Rolls and Bentley that doesn't mean they're a failure in the luxury segment.
The luxury segment has a pretty broad price range from "yeah, I could easily afford that since I make a pretty good living" to "I might have to give up a few things, but I could have that if I really wanted it" to "I know a few people who might be in the target market, but it is beyond my means" to "only the 1% of the 1% would even be allowed to apply for the wait list to buy one"
I would expect that if Apple sells something like a 18K watch for a few thousand dollars as some are claiming they might, they'd have a very attractive trade-in program or it would even come with free upgrades for the next x years. Otherwise what's the point of selling something made with solid gold if it becomes obsolete in a couple years and you have to take it to a jeweler and get screwed on the melt value of the gold?
People are reading a lot into an offhand mention of charging during a presentation that didn't once address battery life. It may have even been calculated to throw off the competition who will think producing watches that last only a day will be competitive.
I'd be shocked if it requires overnight charging. It doesn't support cellular, and doesn't require regular communication with anything. Apple is very good at reducing power use - look at the battery life Anandtech's testing shows from the 1800 maH battery in the iPhone 6 compared to other devices with far larger batteries.
Apple is clearly holding back some surprises for the full introduction, and I think this is one them. Bet the battery lasts at least a week. Based on current Android watches, the Apple Watch would likely have a battery of 300-400 maH. That's a fourth the size of the iPhone 5S battery, which is rated for a standby time of up to 250 hours.
No one gets anywhere near 250 hours of course, because it depends on having a very strong cellular signal and not touching your phone AT ALL during that time. No one uses a phone like that - if you do, what's the point of a smartphone? But how much are people going to touch their watch during the day? It won't be touched all the time like phones are, so standby time is a better measure of potential battery life than talk time or video watching time.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019