My impression of Android Wear is that it’s best thought of as a wrist-worn terminal for your Android phone and for Google’s cloud-based services. An extension for your phone, not a sibling device. Android Wear devices are almost useless other than for telling time when out of Bluetooth range from your phone. I don’t think that’s a device that many people want; it’s a solution in search of a problem.
I don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch. Playing music via Bluetooth only and an interface to a nascent payment system don't really change the fact this is still the iPhone's $350+ wrist buddy for the vast majority of its uses.
> don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch.
This is something that nobody seems to want to acknowledge in (for lack of a better word) the Apple fanclub.
If you look at the features of the Apple watch, they are basically the same as every other smartwatch released by Samsung and motorola (except for the NFC/Apple Pay stuff, which I am genuinly excited for).
People are trying really hard to differentiate Apple Watch from the Android watches, but it all sounds so absurd because they are so similar (apart from the home screen zoom-UI). Even Apple made their watch square!
And we know that Android Wear kind of sucks. So if they're not that different, Apple Watch will probably not be that great.
The "digital crown" input mechanism is interesting. The Watch seems to have a crisp (tiny) screen. And the wrist bands look cool. But unless there's going to be some crazy battery in there, there's nothing revolutionary about this, and its functionally the same as the 6 watches that Samsung has released, and will probably be almost as underwhelming.
Apple fan-boy here. I agree with the grandparent that Gruber didn't really make this point well. But:
> If you look at the features of the Apple watch, they are
> basically the same as every other smartwatch released by
> Samsung and motorola
This is basically true of almost every Apple product ever, except perhaps the iPhone at launch. I'll go a step further, and agree that Apple generally lags on features comparisons.
Which leads to one of two conclusions: Apple fans are all idiots caught up in marketing bluster, OR, there's something qualitatively different about Apple's take on their products, enough to stump up the extra cash. And you're welcome to the former of those opinions, but I think it's the second.
Fundamentally, I buy Apple for the same reason I shop with Amazon. There is - to me - enough implicit guarantee of quality (for Amazon, of the logistics, returns, etc) that anything else seems needlessly risky.
I'd probably enjoy and find value in a Moto '360. But I might not. I think I'd want to use one for a few weeks before committing to the cash. But my experience of Apple products to date suggests to me I'm going to love my Apple Watch, enough that I'll stump up the cash sight unseen.
> there's nothing revolutionary about this, and its
> functionally the same as the 6 watches that Samsung has
> released, and will probably be almost as underwhelming
I also own some Apple products,and one thing that is substantially different has been build quality and ease of use.
iPods were fun to use, iPhones had enough UI differentiation with things like blackberries to be "different".
the Apple Watch doesn't seem to have that. As a cousin post commented, Android Wear's UI almost seems more Apple than Apple's own UI.
Maybe the Zoom-UI and the crown are it. maybe this will tackle people's issues with usability. But there seems to be little differentiation. I won't argue about it being the best on the market (it might be), I just doubt this changes the marketplace as much as we might want.
This might end up being like the iPad. A lot of people ended up buying iPads, but unlike the iPhone, we didn't get a very large new tablet market from it.
> iPods were fun to use, iPhones had enough UI]
> differentiation with things like blackberries to be
> "different".
These things are true only in hindsight. When the iPod came out, how would it ever compare to the Nomad? How was a phone that had no keyboard going to compete with people's beloved Blackberrys?
> the Apple Watch doesn't seem to have that
I'm wrong a lot, but I'll be amazed if that's a comment you can stand by a month after it's in consumers' hands.
The ZoomUI looked terrible to me. After years of huge iPads with only 4 icons across on it, because that supposedly makes them easier to use, the tiny tight grocery fruit pack of the icons looks like a usability nightmare. Fiddling with the knob (it's not a crown, crowns have specific functions in watches) also looks like a terrible time with every interaction. There's so many other ways they could have gone with it, and it's like they chose the wrong way just to be different.
The thing that's really interesting to me is that there's a million different ways Apple could have gone with their watch, and instead they just arrived at an Apple version of what's been going on in Android land for a while now.
Kind of interesting to see Apple on the more information-dense side of the UI, I actually think that most of the Android Wear shots look cleaner (though maybe there's too little information), but I digress.
I'm still a bit confused on the ease of use of Apple's UI ,namely the Zoom UI. I'll have to try it to understand.
The fact that this comparison even exists shows that Apple's attempt is not "revolutionary" in any sense of the word: Every Wear screen was duplicated on the Watch. The functionality is the same.
But the main issues with smartwatches are still battery life, size, and general uselessness without the phone. These points were not tackled. So Apple Watch could be a local maximum for this style of watch, but it's not the second coming unfortunately.
In the same sense that 2010 era iPhone was primitive? It's a different design strategy on part of Google - given the limited screen real estate they want to keep the information density minimal. That's actually a Apple-esq stance whereas Apple is taking Android-esq stance of adding ton of involved stuff which frankly doesn't sound too right for a smart watch.
To be clear, for people, who haven't read the article, it's making case that Apple and Google are taking "vastly different routes to getting a computer on your wrist" and that "we'll see who has the better approach in 2015".
Based on what I saw, Apple Watch seems to me, a lot more than just a notification device that Android Wear is.
Additionally, there's nothing in Android Wear that I've seen that focuses on the watch being, well, a watch. All the straps sucked, we don't know if the time is precise (this is the first thing Apple said about the Apple Watch), and most importantly, none of the watches out focus on user experience at all. They just wanted to be first out.
> I don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch. Playing music via Bluetooth only
But Gruber says this:
> It has internal storage and Bluetooth, so you’ll be able to use it for music playback without taking your iPhone with you.
Is Gruber wrong about that? I admittedly don't know, but he sounds authoritative here that the Apple Watch has storage for tunes. That's pretty cool to me.
Pretty much all the smartwatches have sufficient internal storage for some music. They're probably all just an app away from supporting this kind of use-case.
In other words Gruber's case on this is irrelevant.
The AppleTV, which is not marketed as having any internal storage at all, has the same (meager) 8GB of storage as the now free-with-contract iPhone 5C.
Sure, he does. But it is odd rhetoric to say "Android Wear is a limited device category without an audience for x and y reasons. Apple Watch, despite suffering from x and y as well, will be different because things change".
The iPod Nano was a product whose entire purpose was playing music.
"The Runwell" is a $600 Shinola watch which only tells the time.
The "nascent payment system" which is Apple Pay is better supported by the credit card companies than Google Wallet. It only remains to be seen how many retailers will switch to NFC. Just about everyone who does EFTPOS in Australia uses NFC now, I don't understand why the USA is such a (payment) technology backwater.
For the market of people who listen to their music on $500 headphones while walking around or catching the bus to work, the Apple Watch is obviously not going to replace their iPhone or iPod Touch/Nano/Shuffle/whatever.
For the market of people who currently use bluetooth headphones while running, jogging, cycling, etc, switching to the Apple Watch (or other bluetooth enabled small form factor personal music player) might be worth the money.
Another point to consider is that with the iPhone moving into the "digital surfboard" screen sizes, having a "wrist buddy" makes more sense. Do I want to be hauling my digital surfboard out just to check the time? Am I prepared to spend $500 on a watch ever? What about a watch that combines with my iPhone to do much more than a simple chronograph?
All that taken into account, I don't think the market for the Apple Watch is digital gadget geeks. I suspect the actual market for the Apple Watch is people invested in the Apple ecosystem (as opposed to say the Samsung Galaxy ecosystem), who already spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on fashion accessories such as gold watches.
The primary use of fancy chronographs is to look good on your wrist. As an incidental function they tell the time, phase of the moon, current date, provide stopwatch and timer functions, etc. Smart watches will even tell you the current weather (as opposed to simply having a thermometer and barometer gauge on the face of the watch).
IMHO the primary purpose of the Apple Watch isn't to be an extension to your iPhone, it's to be a fashion accessory which happens to be functional.
Just because it doesn't make sense to you at any price doesn't mean it won't make sense to someone who already has two $5,000 watches.
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about the difference between Google Wallet and Apple Pay. Wallet does not need (or even function differently) with the "support" of credit card companies - it is a payment processor unto itself. If you have a Visa, Mastercard, AMEX or Discover logo on your card, it works with Google Wallet.
Put differently, Wallet supports 100% of credit and check cards in the US, whereas Apple supports "many".
Pay, because of the need to generate purchase tokens and "one-time-use" cards, requires integration effort on the side of both Apple and the issuing bank. Pay is not a payment processor, just a gateway.
>The "nascent payment system" which is Apple Pay is better supported by the credit card companies than Google Wallet. It only remains to be seen how many retailers will switch to NFC.
Regulations in the state requires every POS to support the EMV technology by October 2015. From what I've seen, most retailers will have to upgrade and the new machines pretty much all include NFC technology. So by the end of next year, NFC should be available with almost every retailers. I don't think it's a coincidence that Apple is releasing NFC now (they could have easily done it with the iPhone 5 or 5S)
I don't see how the overall point doesn't equally apply to the Apple Watch. Playing music via Bluetooth only and an interface to a nascent payment system don't really change the fact this is still the iPhone's $350+ wrist buddy for the vast majority of its uses.