Apple Watch Series 3 | Hacker News Reader

Apple Watch Series 3

daringfireball.net

84 pointsmercutio2130 comments

>> "When are you separated from your iPhone? When you’re exercising. What do you miss most when you’re away from your phone? Messages and phone calls."

Anecdotal, but personally, this is one of the most refreshing and cherished qualities about my exercise time: it's ME time. No messages, no phone calls. Phone goes on airplane mode, and I'm in my own zone for those 60-90 minutes.

After reading My Year with a Distraction Free iPhone* I took steps to drastically reduce notifications and social media apps from my phone (not as drastic as the article, but way quieter than before), and I feel happier for it.

Maybe it's just me, but MORE notifications, messages, and calls to my wrist sounds like exactly what I don't want.

* https://medium.com/time-dorks/my-year-with-a-distraction-fre...

I do like having a distraction-free iphone, but I also like to run and hauling a huge phone with me is stupid. But I like to run on the trails on Mt Tam and it can feel surprisingly remote quickly, so I want to keep the ability to make phone calls somehow. I am looking forward to trying the watch for just this use case. (Also, music while running!) I'm assuming I can turn off notifs on the watch just like on the phone.

In The Verge's testing, the cellular range was not great. I wish they'd done side-by-side testing with an iPhone. Something like: "if your iPhone has one bar, your Watch will have none. If two, then either one or none."

https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/20/16334066/apple-watch-seri...

Agreed.

I have the series 2 and have started running without my phone since the series 2 can still track my runs without it. The one thing I kind of miss is listening to podcasts while running since I still would need my phone for that.

You can listen to podcasts with the watch series 2 and no phone, you just need wireless headphones.

Can you listen to podcasts on Apple Watch 3 without a phone around?

Yes - you can stream songs over cellular.

I don't think this is possible. There is no podcasts app for the watch (shocking). If you have your iPhone, you can pause/play forward/back... but this is the generic player for apps that don't have a version for the Watch. i.e. I use Google Play Music, which doesn't have a Watch version of its app, but when I play music from my iPhone, I can pause/play etc. from the watch.

Until very recently overcast supported apple watch playback, though this recently had to be removed due to API changes[1]. So it's definitely possible, though the experience is seriously lacking until Apple get their act together on the API side.

[1] https://marco.org/2017/08/10/removed-send-to-watch

Can you import podcasts into iTunes? Surely from there you can transfer to the watch like with Fitbit Ionic.

Interesting... that might actually be possible.

Same, I understand the taste for continuous reachability. But god when I do run outside I want to free my mind and not stay linked.

The always-online thing is gone for me, but I understand it's entirely subjective. For those who still need or enjoy full reachability then a 3G watch is probably a great thing.

I also see other value:

- hard to lose, it's on your wrist, not in some pocket, etc.. - hard to pickpocket (thus) - probably more battery efficient than thos 5" n-core flat computers we call phones. I'd like a mp3 / time / map / gps tracker / notification instead of my smartphone.

One cons:

- so much radio waves on your wrist ... hmmm .. I'd wrap some tin foil underneath :)

That's the best part about this, though. I have a Series 2 and can already set Do Not Disturb on the watch and also set numbers that I want to come through even in DND. No notifications unless it's from my family or my boss when I'm on call.

That's all orthogonal to what the watch is capable of doing. Just like with phones.

I think gps+cellular watches have a lot to offer. Too bad they are still expensive and have modest battery life.

Verge[1] (5/10), WSJ[2] has pretty negative reviews esp reg. battery and LTE reception and Apple acknowledged that problem in their statement. This has to be one of the worst reviewed Apple products in a while. However Wired[3] has good things to say about it and NYT[4] found it alright.

1. https://www.theverge.com/2017/9/20/16334066/apple-watch-seri...

2. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-watch-series-3-review-unt...

3. https://www.wired.com/2017/09/review-apple-watch-series-3/

4. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/20/technology/personaltech/a...

It says this has something to do with connecting to unsecured Wifi networks. That seems, amazingly, like something Apple testing might overlook. Who has unsecured networks these days?

It also sounds like a bugfix that could come shortly and make the review seem pretty dated.

EDIT: To clarify whoever is downvoting me, I’m not arguing that Apple shouldn’t have tested this. They really really should have. I just can see how they might not run across too many unsecured networks in their employee real-world tests.

Gruber says what I said: https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/09/20/goode-apple-wat...

Pretty much every location with publicly-accessible WiFi has an unsecured WiFi network - places like malls, hotels, coffee shops, restaurants, pubs.

I was going to say...even this article's optimism seems disingenuous.

>Battery life has been fine. “All day” is about right — charging at night, using it all day

That does not sound anywhere close to 'fine' for a watch. I get annoyed at my Pebble Time's battery life from time to time, and it still lasts at least 5 days/nights on a charge.

Uhm, that's how the AW, AW S1 and AW S2 run so that's perfectly fine.

He's not comparing it to a Pebble.

Good thing too. Because Pebble owners know what time it is when they wake up in the middle of the night. Apple customers have to pick up their phone or ask alexa, I mean homepod.

Or just look over at the alarm clock.

Is your watch not your alarm clock? Because that's a super convenient feature, whether you wear it to bed or put it on a nightstand.

Plus, one less set of glaring LEDs in the room.

I need all the alarm clocks I can get.

No, the watch is charging in another room. Its just some red led's too, not glaring at all.

Mine goes on a dock and it goes into 'nightstand' mode. Screen is off, but all I have to do is tap my bedside table and the time comes on. YMMV, but I like it so much better than having the time always on, because I like a totally dark room.

Which is fine, comparing it to competitors and past iterations. But as a watch, that is simply not an acceptable battery life.

Something like, 'battery life continues to be poor but manageable' would be far more honest.

I'm sorry, but I kinda wanna call BS on this. The Verge review even admits that the connection issues were happening when the watch connected to a Wi-Fi network that they had connected to before. That's not really a reflection of the LTE connectivity, only a reflection that the watch can't connect and use Wi-Fi networks that require a captive portal where you can't sign in without your phone first. It seems really disingenuous to me for them to openly conflate those 2 things as a problem with the LTE connectivity.

Hi, Joe User here! Just got my new Apple Watch 3! All I can tell you is that when I walk into a Starbucks, the music on my watch quits streaming and I can’t send texts anymore.

Point is, you and I might know the nitty gritty, and so does the reviewer, but Average User just sees that “always connected watch” isn’t when they go to Panera. Is it BS to conflate the two? Eh, maybe. You want to drill to the specifics, whereas the reviewer is taking a more macro “general connectivity” view. I mean, they’re not wrong: if I’m connected to a “broken” wireless network, LTE is hosed as well. One can be forgiven for not expecting that to be the case.

Phone anxiety is a weird, and, for me at least, irrational thing. I know that mankind survived for millennia without the ability to communicate with each other out of earshot. But once you get used to having your phone with you at all times, you get used to feeling that if anyone needs you, they can get you.

Apple Watch Series 3 with cellular networking completely alleviates this anxiety. It is not a replacement for a phone, and is not supposed to be. But it lets you leave your phone at home when you go for a run, or in your locker while you’re at the gym, or in your hotel while you go to the beach, and not worry in the least that you’re out of touch.

It alleviates the anxiety of leaving your phone at home by... further conditioning your dependence on interconnectivity? Blind logic is the dark-side of the reality distortion field.

Applied differently: To help me with my alcoholism, I leave my 40oz at the hotel or in my locker-room. Now, I just sip on it from a smaller container filled with liquor that I keep on my wrist.

If your phone generates anxiety, fix the issue.

Hah, that's a great analogy. Except now I want a watch-shaped flask...

The phone doesn't generate anxiety. Not having the phone generates anxiety. The Apple Watch series 3 with LTE fixes the issue. So what's the problem?

Your comment seems to be implying that being used to always being available if someone needs to contact you is a bad thing (e.g. is the same thing as alcoholism). But why? Personally, I'm all for disconnecting, but even when I'm not available to anyone else, I still want to be available if my wife needs to talk to me. And even if I didn't have a wife, that doesn't mean it's unreasonable for other people to want to be available at any time. And finally, even if you want to disconnect regularly, you may still want to disconnect on your terms rather than being forced to disconnect because of the activity you're doing at the moment (e.g. going for a run).

That is the implication. Alcoholism is an affliction wherein something that's fairly benign in small doses can be a significant detriment to the individual if consumptions falls out of balance. In this way, being ever-available and ever-connected is a bad thing; there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it in small and balanced doses, but in high doses it can cause significant neuroses through withdrawal. It follows that, just as alcohol is the cause of alcoholism, the phone _is_ the ultimate source of anxiety. It provides dopamine, you feel bad when you don't get it.

An alternative angle is this:

If you're an addict and you get withdrawal symptoms, having more of your substance does not alleviate your addition. The symptom of withdrawal, not having the phone, generates anxiety. By increasing the time that you're connected and removing natural/forced break periods, you're raising the threshold that you need to maintain to not feel anxious. In doing so, you've created a situation where it will be harder to make break time and when you do, it'll feel worse.

Here's an excerpt, link at the bottom, of one of an increasing number of studies that describe the negative health impact of communication technology dependency:

> The results indicate that depression, anxiety, and sleep quality may be associated with smartphone overuse. Such overuse may lead to depression and/or anxiety, which can in turn result in sleep problems. University students with high depression and anxiety scores should be carefully monitored for smartphone addiction.

Yet, we want to sell everyone smart-watches so that they'll never miss a beat...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26132913

Just reading the abstract of that study it sounds like bullshit. Nobody is addicted to a smartphone. People get "addicted" to their social networks, but the social network isn't the smartphone. Take the smartphone, reset it back to factory defaults, and block the ability to install new apps, and you'll find that the "addicts" aren't going to be as interested in it (block the browser too and they probably won't even use it).

And making yourself available to be contacted isn't the same thing as being "addicted" to social networks. You'll notice the study you linked was looking at university students (which itself means its conclusions aren't necessarily applicable to the larger world), people for whom "being connected" means Snapchat and Instagram and other social networks. But for most adults, "being connected" means someone can reach them if necessary, as opposed to sitting there for hours browsing a stream of social network posts.

Personally, I've disengaged from basically all social networks. But I'd still like to "be connected" because people do sometimes contact me directly and I'd like to be available for that, or sometimes I get an important email that I want to handle sooner rather than later. And the only reason I'm not getting the LTE watch is because I always have my phone with me anyway and the LTE isn't worth giving my carrier $120/year.

I agree. If it's not a spouse, it's an elderly parent or grandparent that might need help. If it's work, they can pound sand, but if it's family, I don't mind being available when needed.

I ordered the new watch. It will be my first, so I'm pretty excited to check it out. I hope it motivates me to write apps again.

>It alleviates the anxiety of leaving your phone at home by... further conditioning your dependence on interconnectivity? Blind logic is the dark-side of the reality distortion field.

You seem to be applying cold logic to human behavior. This is a bad strategy for understanding products.

>Applied differently: To help me with my alcoholism, I leave my 40oz at the hotel or in my locker-room. Now, I just sip on it from a smaller container filled with liquor that I keep on my wrist.

You're trolling, right? You have to be.

>If your phone generates anxiety, fix the issue.

Language games are fun! The (lack of) phone isn't generating anxiety, the human brain is. The (lack of) phone is merely a trigger. A trigger whose manifestations this product has been designed to dramatically reduce.

Perhaps I'm in the minority but I've decided to purchase this precisely to stay connected while running. To be fair, it's not the during that I'm worried about, it's the after. I've never been able to get used to running with a phone (or really anything other than a watch, for that matter) so I'm always disconnected while exercising. I often, however, participate in races with a handful of other people and have learned that standing in a predetermined meeting spot after a race for an indeterminate amount of time isn't a great solution.

When pebble announced the Pebble Core, I thought I'd finally found the answer to my problem: complete a race—having been completely disconnected—while still have the option to connect afterwards as a means of coordination.

When that product was killed off with the sale of Pebble to Fitbit, I was back to hoping someone would fill that niche. This watch now makes that viable. Yes, it's an expensive price to pay (particularly as compared to the Core) but you only have to stand around windy, 20℉ weather in running shorts for an hour once before the price becomes of less consequence.

Samsung's Gear S3 http://www.samsung.com/us/explore/gear-s3 and the LG Watch Sport https://store.google.com/product/lg_watch_sport have LTE for $350.

Total valid. In my personal case, however, I rock an iPhone. If I'm spending "smartwatch" type-money, I want it to provide real smartwatch value which means tight integration. As much as I like the Android-based watches, there's nothing like first-party private API access.

but you only have to stand around windy, 20℉ weather in running shorts for an hour once before the price becomes of less consequence.

Way off-topic, but if you’re standing around for an hour without going back to the car, putting on warm clothes, and coming back, technology is not the problem here. Grab your phone while you’re getting your sweatpants, BTW.

A number of my friends purchased the AW2 for running, and none of them use it anymore. It simply doesn't have the battery life for long runs (>3 hours) if you're actually using the GPS. This rules it out for marathons, as it dies before you finish (even for BQ-qualifying times. And note, this was the non-LTE version of the watch; if the LTE version has worse battery life, you're not going to be organizing anything post-run with it.)

Additionally, they noted that sweat made using the AW2 problematic, due to the way the touch screen interacted with sweat. It's not a problem once you finish and can wipe it off, but it's a definite issue during the run itself.

Finally, the GPS on the AW2 sucks. It's the quality of early-2000s GPS watches. The watch is great for tracking time, but if you're trying to track pace or distance, you're going to need another data source.

Best bet post-race: keep your phone in your race bag, grab the bag after you finish, and use your phone to coordinate.

What do they use for actually recording the GPS tracks? As we can probably agree the built-in workout app sucks for the serious runner.

And I never saw any good assessments of the GPS quality of the watch even though I've looked, do you know of any online?

Now that watchOS 4 can connect directly to Bluetooth sensors, I'd be very interested in a GPS app that derived pace and distance from a BT footpod, much like you can do with a Garmin to get better accuracy.

Though always well written, Daring Fireball’s articles are always sprinkled with some fanboyism, I do miss a real critical and objective voice in his writing.

Because somehow the voice pretends it is.

But actually the glass is always a bit more than half full, no matter what.

Yes, but he is consistent. So you can always read his reviews and peg it down a notch if you regularly slightly disagree with him. I don't mind biases in reviewers if they're consistent in their takes.

I'd argue that writing is influential and can strengthens cognitive biases. If someone is poor and teetering on the edge of buying a luxury Apple watch they're going to be looking for that one shining article that goads them into doing it. When society accepts such influencers as role models and people to listen to / follow then we have a problem.

My wife ordered one, upgrading from her first gen model. The single biggest reason is GPS tracking while running without being forced to carry her iPhone 6S Plus. And the (much) improved battery life over her first gen model.

She ordered the Series 3 with cellular, just in case it becomes affordable. But boy do we both agree that this red dot looks ugly. As Gruber mentions, we also worry that it won't work well with the otherwise really nice watch bands.

Can't have it all...

I have a Series 0, and will be upgrading to a Series 3 nonLTE (once Target/Best Buy offer discounts) since my watch is too slow to do anything other than serve notifications. (many of the new WatchOS 4 features are not present in the Series 0 either)

Me too I had a Series 0. Then the battery inflated and cracked the display open about 3 months ago. Would have been about 200$ to repair, as it's out of warranty. Luckily I called Apple Care, explained the situation and got a free replacement unit. To my surprise I got a Series 1. The difference in performance is incredible.

I'm now using apps like Bring! for shared grocery lists, OmniFocus and others much more.

Can it be painted over, or does it serve a purpose?

It's purely cosmetic. The new LTE antenna is part of the main body of the watch.

Not just the body, apparently the screen itself.

Leo Laporte jokes that people would be painting their non cellular watches red: it’s just the “look at me, I have the latest iGadget” indicator on an otherwise identical looking device.

There is a company which sells alternative color accents for the digital crown and button. http://watchdots.com

They are just stickers, but apparently they last well.

Thank you so much for this link! I'm sure my wife is going to order one soon :-)

I wonder if you could find a googly eye sticker to cover the red dot. I'd get a kick out of that. The cyclops!

Question for Apple Watch wearers: is Siri on the Apple Watch the exact same as Siri on the iPhone?

I ask, because it's not the case with the one on Android Wear - the watch version can't answer factoid-style questions ("What's the tallest building in Dayton, Ohio?"), can't identify songs, can't perform simple system commands ("Increase scree brightness"), etc.

It's still convenient and useful, but it's just not as good as I had expected.

I'm due for a phone upgrade sometime soon and starting to seriously think about switching from Android to iOS.

Update: it looks like phone version has regressed and can't identify songs any more :(

Siri is much the same on the watch, except for when it can't answer a question - on the phone, it says "I found this on the web" which the watch can't do as it doesn't have a browser

Siri on the watch is the same as Siri on the phone, the only real difference is Siri on the watch will often tell you that you have to continue the question on the phone (e.g. if the answer requires searching the web or something of that nature).

Also, I haven't tested with iOS 11, but Siri on iOS 10 still recognizes songs just fine. I haven't tried recognizing a song with my watch though (and the question there is if the microphone on the watch is good enough to pick up the song well enough to identify).

With iOS 11 and watchOS 4, it feels like watchOS is taking aim for iOS, and iOS is taking aim for macOS. What’s Apple’s endgame here? The whole Mac Pro mini-crisis last year proved that professionals are a super loud minority, so they can’t flat out kill macOS.

I think they’ll just make iOS more and more attractive, while they make macOS more... iOS-like? And in turn, watchOS is an added benefit to iOS that macOS won’t fully utilize.

There’s some sort of uneasy tension here, I’ll be interested to see how it (slowly) develops.

I don't think iOS is "taking aim" at macOS. But a lot of people do use the iPad as a primary computing device these days, and the new iPad features in iOS 11 are definitely aimed at making the device even better for these people. For the things an iPad can do, it should do them as best it possibly can. For the things an iPad can't do, or can't do well, there's always macOS. And making the iPad better at the things it can do well doesn't harm macOS in any way.

I notice that the watch now covers all 3 tentpoles from the original iPhone launch:

a phone, an ipod with touch controls and an internet communications device.

Of course, the iPhone is now marketed as a multipurpose computing device, a 4k video camera and an AR viewer, so things have moved on.

It would make sense to me to add more power-user features to MacOS in future, rather than making it more iOS-like? Apple made that mistake with Lion and the app grid with folders and massive icons that can't be resized is crappy to this day.

iOS won't be a MacOS replacement at least until all Apple's professional apps are available on it. Processing-wise they are probably only a couple of generations away from being able to support Final Cut Pro, Logic X and XCode, but interface-wise there is a huge amount of work involved in reinventing those apps as touch-first.

> But it lets you leave your phone at home when you go for a run, or in your locker while you’re at the gym, or in your hotel while you go to the beach, and not worry in the least that you’re out of touch.

I'm a big fan of Apple. I own their stock, and I can count at least 10 Apple devices in my house at this moment. But the Apple Watch is not for me. I tried.

When I go for a run, I want to be out of touch. The only reason I ever take my iPhone on a run is so that I can take pictures or that I can reach someone else if I have an emergency. Mostly I don’t take my phone and when I do, it’s in do not disturb mode.

I'm a serious runner. I tried the first Apple Watch as running watch. It was inferior in that role to my Garmin at the time. But that Garmin wasn't a proper watch, it was really just for running. I liked the Apple Watch's fitness tracking features and that I could wear it all the time. But it just wasn't suitable for running with. So I would take it off when I went for a run and put on my Garmin, which means Apple didn't think I exercised at all. That was a bummer.

When Garmin came out with the 230, I immediately bought it. It could replace my existing Garmin for running, it was the size of a proper watch, battery life that lasts a week or more, and fitness tracking. Notifications if you want them.

I've since upgraded to the Garmin 935 and I love it. I don't see anything about the Series 3 that would compel me to purchase it. The touch screen is still an inferior interface to physical buttons if physical buttons will do the job. (In fact, the thing I hate most about taking my iPhone with me as a camera is that I can't take pictures with it when my hands are covered in sweat, which when I run, is mostly the case.)

The ironic thing is that it's the Apple Watch which got me used to the idea of wearing a watch all the time, and that made me realize the important of physical buttons, and that I don't want notifications on my watch.

Also have a Garmin 735xt for the same reasons. Another big issue is battery life. Garmin can go for a solid week or more between charges, while Apple Watch is about a day.

Can someone describe the other benefits of a Garmin over an Apple Watch for jogging? I use my Watch for light jogging, monitoring heart rate, pace, and distance.

Recently, I’ve been trying to increase days, and will up my mileage in a couple months, after I lose a little more weight.

Having used both: I have no idea. The Apple Watch is at least as good in everything the Garmin does.

I sometimes run races of up to 24 hours. The Garmin will record an activity that long, and longer if you charge it during the activity. This is an extreme case, but the Apple Watch can’t do either of these things.

My Garmin connects to a foot pod. This gives more accurate cadence info than from your wrist. It also gives more accurate instantaneous pace and more accuate distance if you’re running somewhere that GPS is insufficient.

There are high tech accessories that track additonal metrics that work with the Garmin, such as the Stryd foot pod.

The Garmin display is always on. I prefer this to the Apple display.

The Garmin uses its physical buttons for all operations of the watch which means I can use it no matter how sweaty my hands are or whether I’m using gloves.

The Garmin battery lasts 7-10 days.

Garmin Connect syncs my runs to Strava and Smashrun. I can also download all my runs to rubiTrack.

Those are a few of the reasons I prefer my Garmin.

Everything other than always on & battery life is quite possible with an Apple Watch.

I’ve tracked things for 8-10 hours and had 50% left so I can see if working for you, even in your admittedly extreme use case.

I feel like you’re being rather unfair to it and other than always on & the hardware buttons you mentioned, it sounds like my original statement is true for the vast majority of people.

I have the Garmin 230 and like others have mentioned, the battery life, always on, and its supposed to be a bit more accurate GPS wise than the Apple watch. But I'm not sure if it matters too much unless you're training and really need to be spot on, but know there will always be little differences between any gps watch.

I run with both watches just to compare distance, etc. but one of the main reasons I got the Apple watch 2 was for the GPS and ability to store up to 2GB of music. This way I can stream my music while running onto my Jaybird 2 wireless headphones. Another cool and funny thing is that while running one day, with the Nike+ app, when I hit a certain distance, Kevin Hart started talking and cheering me on. I thought that was pretty neat and kinda motivating. I'm sure they have other celebrities doing that as well, but just a little something.

I also noticed on Apple watch, the Nike+ app doesn't have metric for Avg. Pace, it does show Current Pace, Distance, and Time. Every mile it will speak and tell you your Avg. Pace. But there is the Workout app on the watch that does allow you to see up to 5 metrics for Current Pace, Avg. Pace, Heart Rate, Distance, Duration, Active Calories, Total Calories. For me I like to have Current Pace and Avg Pace shown together along with Distance and Duration.

Now with the Apple watch 3, I do like being able to leave your phone behind in case an emergency does come up and someone needs to contact you, but I can also see how a random non-important call can throw off your run/workout session.

Here's one benefit: Accuracy.

If you're looking for a more accurate reflection of your fitness, or if you're getting more serious with your running for example, you'll want something that is accurate.

I recommend reading the reviews from DCRainmaker. The reviews are extremely thorough and he covers just about every fitness watch out there.

Garmin has best-in-class GPS and wrist-based heart-rate monitors.

The Apple watch...it has a GPS and heart-rate monitor. They're fine if you just want a general idea of how fast you're going (to an accuracy of +/- 30 sec/mile pace) or heart rate (to an accuracy of +/- 10 hbpm).

If you are tracking trends, this inaccuracy is fine since it's the trend that matters. But if the actual numbers matter, go with the Garmin (or Polar, or Suunto) and leave the iWatch at home.

> The only reason I ever take my phone is so that I can take pictures or that I can reach someone else if I have an emergency

That doesn't sound like you really want to be "out of touch" at all. When I go for a run, I want to become fitter, healthier, and a better runner. Apple isn't suggesting that the purpose of the device is to let you surf Facebook while you run; it's to do exactly what you said - have access if you need it.

Having access isn't by itself compelling enough. The Apple Watch still isn't a camera and is still worse than my 935 for running. And I'm even doubtful about using it for emergencies: the cell signal in many of the places I run is weak.

What makes it worse than your 935? I'm not familiar with the Garmin watches but every test that I've done against GPS and step-trackers has been pretty even or in favor of my Apple Watch.

Garmins are generally much more expensive than smart watches (i.e., the relatively basic Garmins cost $200-300), but if you're an outdoor athlete, they're worth the premium.

A typical Garmin watch has better GPS accuracy than an Apple Watch (US and Russian geosat networks), mobile alerts if you really want them (but no reply functionality), music player controls, camera controls (for Garmin cameras), and multiple dedicated specialty sensors. The newer low-end watches (ending in 5, i.e., 235) and the higher-end watches have best-in-class wrist heart-rate monitors that are accurate to within 2 beats of chest-based straps even on dark-skinned individuals.

Almost all Garmins, except the new activity trackers, are "water-proof" and can be used in most water-based activities except for SCUBA diving (which voids the warranty since they're not rated for those depths).

Oh, and they literally last for 2 weeks on a single charge for normal watch use, or roughly 8-24 hours with GPS in constant use, depending on the model. My Garmin Fenix 3 lasted through a 16 hour hike with battery to spare, and that's before I even tried using the battery-saving features. (My biggest issue with the battery is remembering to charge the watch because I need to do so infrequently that it's not an ingrained habit.)

In another comment I noted some of the problems my friends had with their earlier-model iWatches. Basically: bad GPS, poor battery life (in many cases dying before the end of a marathon, i.e., <5 hours), essentially unusable during sweaty activities or during water-based activities due to the poor touchscreen functionality.

If you can sweaty-hands the Camera app open with the side swipe, you can use the volume up physical button to take a picture.

Sometimes that will work, but often the phone won't even respond to my swiping it. I really wish iOS had a way to activate the camera from the buttons.

"Hey Siri, open the camera"

I just tested it, it works.

Whoa, thanks! Facepalm.

Don't you have two wrists? Why not wear both? That's what I did when transitioning from Suunto for running to Apple Watch. I'm not a serious runner or athlete really, so Strava suffices for my daily bike commute and occasional runs, but I agree the touch interface is bordering on unusable at times, and autopause is not good enough to trust. (and, overall, optical HR sensors don't handle intervals (recovery) well.

My wife has a Forerunner 235 I bought for her and she LOVES it.

For serious runs (eg, half marathon or something) I still take the suunto just to have the 'real' data but I do that less and less.

I do this. Looks like I'm an idiot to onlookers, but I don't care. :)

A year or so ago I saw that the Apple Watch is a stealth product category.

When Siri was capable enough to answer the things a Safari search would have provided me and when the watch got a cellular radio I might actually ditch my phone and just wear a watch.

One down.

I don't think siri will be capable of that for a long, long time, if ever

Siri has been smart enough to do that for a long while now.

Source: that’s my primary use of her.

I really like the automatic audio remote. I am a very happy AirPods user, but I missed being able to adjust the volume easily. Now I can glance at the watch and use the digital crown to change the volume, very slick!

I just upgraded my iPhone to iOS11 and my Series 2 Watch to WatchOS4 (which 2+ goddamned hours, but I digress), and noticed that Sonos allows me to use my watch to control volume!

I'm not sure what the various parameters are, but I fired up a podcast on the Sonos controller app on my phone, walked partay through the house, raised my wrist to check the time, and I had control for the sonos right there -- turned the crown, sure enough, volume went up! It was really cool. Hopefully the UX is intuitive enough that it won't be popping up all the time when i don't want it.

So why does the LTE Watch have the red dot anyways? I asked on Reddit and no one has any idea: https://reddit.com/r/apple/comments/70homi/so_why_does_the_a...

The most sensible theory is that it’s related to the LTE antenna, but Apple admitted in the Keynote the Watch screen is the antenna.

Probably the classic syndrome of design being dictated by branding/marketing.

I suspect as much, how else can people visually differentiate your status as having Cellular on your watch. Thing is most people can't tell a difference between series 1, 2, and 3.

Time to buy black nail polish... It sure is ugly.

I think it's so you can tell at a glance what generation watch you are looking at.

They did a similar change series 1 to 2.

There are people for whom that matters.

The non-LTE variants of Series 3 do not have the red dot.

Right… so if you’re up for some conspicuous consumption, you better shell out for the more expensive model.

You are right the red dot might be the first time. The dial varies all over the map series 1, 2, 3, depending on finish and material.

I can't discern a pattern that isn't just dependent on the finish of the watch.

It’s because in many parts of the world, people won’t buy expensive things unless there is some way for people to know you spent a lot of money and have the newest thing.

I hate the red dot too. Already ordered my WatchDots.

Exactly this. China is a great example. Many many people will buy the LTE model strictly for the red dot, with no intention of actually using LTE, because it's a status symbol. I'm really surprised Gruber doesn't get that.

There was a post I saw recently, that I thought Gruber linked to but I can't find it anymore, about how Apple's strategy of taking old phones and selling them as the lower tier models is great because it means people can buy those phones and nobody can tell that they bought a lower-tier phone (because it looks like they could have just bought the top-tier phone last year and not gotten around to upgrading yet). This was also used to explain why the 5C was apparently a flop, because it was immediately obvious to anybody that a 5C owner bought the cheap phone.

Status symbols are important.

It's the same reason why earpods only come in white. It makes them stand out. White iPod headphones were a walking advertisement/status symbol for years.

I will buy AirPods the moment they come in black... so I'm guessing I probably never will. :)

They also further reinforce the status symbols of the top-of-line Watch by discontinuing Stainless Steel case in all editions except in the Series 3 LTE as well. Though, this also means that the Stainless Steel Watch is not available to purchase at all if your country don't have Series 3 LTE available.

Red is a lucky colour in China.

I hope that's not the reason, because it a huge wart on the side of a device that already isn't as thin and elegant as it might be.

But who knows?

I don't think that could be it in this case.

The LTE version is only $70 more. That's not going to wow anyone. (Well, plus a monthly service charge, which is more significant financially, but has no weight as a status symbol.) Meanwhile, there are more expensive upgrades that are at least as obtrusive, like the stainless-steal case and those designer bands.

I mean, I don't really get it either, but it isn't this.

Maybe it's just a way to highlight a significant new feature?

Well, maybe it's to signal "I have the latest!" (as opposed to a few-year-old one) rather than "I spent $70 more!"

But I don't get it either. I always bought my iPhones when they did the hardware revision (the "s" models), not the design change.

It's like how folks said Starbucks cups were a status symbol. On what planet does $3 buy you status?

I suspect the person who wrote posted this blog isn't into fitness on any serious level beyond 'how many steps did i get in today'.

The first and second generation Apple Watches were average fitness companions at best. Even the weakest Garmin did the job far better. More specifically, the accelerometer was just awful unless you run at one pace, forever. For anyone who is actually interested in tracking real-time their peformance there are too many cheaper alternatives to justfiy this thing for fitness.

Apparently, this is not just my opinion: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2016/02/apple-watch-review.html

Why does Gruber refuse to make his website responsive? For someone so focused on the elegance of Apple’s products, it seems strange that he forgets that his website looks like a forgotten/neglected website from the early 00’s.

Safari's "Show Reader" option makes it nicely responsive, albeit not in the intended way.

Does it need to be "responsive"? I just double tap the text and it is readable. I much prefer his layout to others.

I read this as,

"Do you hate freedom? Buy yourself an Apple Watch and always, literally always, be shackled to someone else's priorities!"

I realize this is not a charitable interpretation but I feel like it deserves a counter-narrative.

I am still waiting on the report of W2 and Intel Modem. The first one i am hoping someday Apple will make their own 802.11ax WiFi Chipset for Router / Apple TV / Mac and iPhone. The latter because I am not aware of any Intel Modem that can be fitted inside a Apple Watch. It shows Intel aren't really far off in Modem space compared to Qualcomm if true.

This guy must get a monthly paycheck from Apple. He always comes out swooning over new Apple hardware despite everyone else slamming it. It’s a tired routine.

This is coming from someone with more Apple devices than I care to mention and even last week bought a new iMac. My personal phone however, is a Pixel.

I will buy it only when they fix the issue swimming in an ocean and loosing your watch. It happens to me in an open ocean. First fix the wrist and then I'll buy a new one.

Were you swimming with a band that uses a magnetic clasp?

I have the band that comes with my watch and I lost it carrying luggage (thankfully someone found it and I got it back). It's easy to lose it.

I’ve swum in the Pacific, Caribbean, and Atlantic with mine. Travelled 1000s of miles with it.

Never even fallen off, let alone lost.

You’re doing something very wrong.

Do you guys actually read this website at the default size? The sites much more enjoyable at 150%...

This comment is somewhat less off-topic given Gruber's last footnote, where he urges readers to try Bold Text, which he thinks looks better on the small Watch screen. Considering his threshold for small text, this is really saying something!

I read it at 14pt, default is 11pt. Change default using link at bottom of DF homepage.

Interesting. Thanks for the tip.

A camera is the one thing I miss when I leave my iPhone at home and go for a run. I have no idea how a camera could work ergonomically on a watch. Maybe it’s just not feasible. But it is mildly frustrating when I’m out on a run and see something interesting that I’d like to photograph.

Why can't you just enjoy that something interesting there and then? Do we really need to capture everything and share it with everyone?

EDIT: slightly tongue in cheek but curious nonetheless.

How am I supposed to enjoy something if I can't share it with someone else!?

You could share it by talking about it.

I was being sarcastic. Should have put a `/s` on there I guess.

I put in the comment and I then I thought you probably were :).

He doesn’t really need a watch either then? If you concede it’s a gadget review for something you don’t strictly need, why not indulge him?

I suppose so. I guess I'm just arguing this is a bizarre feature request.

He is out on a run. Will it need a separate processor for image stabilization because he is running?

I love having a camera with me everywhere I go. I love seeing something weird or amazing and being able to share that with my friends or family in seconds.

There is value in not letting devices control us, but there is also value in shared experiences that were previously impossible.

I understand- and I am in two minds whether this would be a good thing or not- especially because of the control aspect of it.

> Why can't you just enjoy that something interesting there and then?

You know, it is possible to enjoy something and capture it too.

> Do we really need to capture everything and share it with everyone?

No we don't. You're putting words into the author's mouth.

Some people have a creative impulse. They get inspiration and want to express what they're feeling or get an urge to make something. And he doesn't even mention sharing the photo.

My comment was slightly tongue in cheek as I get where he is coming from. I suppose it could be an optional feature, or a way to differentiate the product.

I think the most logical/useful place for a camera on a watch is embedded in the band, approximately 90 degrees from the face. I would not be surprised to see swappable "camera bands" available for future generations of the Apple Watch.

> "When is the right time to ship a product? In particular, a hardware product? The answer, sometimes, is not when it’s done, but rather when it’s useful."

Or rather when it's able to steal the last remaining privacy mankind holds. I'm sorry, but for me the cellar capability is the final straw and I will never buy one. I truly feel sorry for our newer generations who will suffer the consequences of us letting these organizations take that privacy so freely without even a fight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com