Hacker News Reader

Comment by antr | Hacker News Reader

My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS. A sports watch without GPS, IMHO is a no go at $350. For <$300 I can get GPS, HR, ANT+, waterproof* and +20h battery life. e.g. Garmin Forerunner 910xt.

(I won't comment on the lack of info on battery life and water resistance).

*Edit: changed from water resistant to waterproof.

View on HN

Exactly. I put off buying a GPS watch because I wanted to see what Apple was going to offer. Answer: Nothing.

I really cannot imagine a more useless product than this watch. It requires an iPhone and seems to essentially serve as a small, remote interface for your phone. And how do I navigate that small interface? With an even smaller "digital crown." I hate trying to set the time on my watch, and now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?

Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that.

The only argument for this watch is that it might be helpful for those times when pulling out your phone is just too onerous. I regret that I do not have the type of lifestyle where that is a serious limitation.

Whether this will be useful all rests on the quality and differentiation of the haptic feedback.

For example, imagine walking down the street towards your destination and feeling the right side of the watch vibrate to signal that you should turn right.

If your watch can communicate contextual information related to your intention and local then it will be superior to (1) wearing a socially inappropriate device like the Google Glass, (2) being called out to by a device, (3) fumbling in your phone in order to then open the correct app.

Apps that correctly use haptic feedback should be able to silently and subtly give users superpowers without forcing them to clumsily interact with a product.

I actually wrote about the benefits of this back in 2012 [0], though I was talking about phones and notification fatigue back then (and not leveraging Future Interface style stuff.)

[0] http://sebinsua.com/your-thigh-as-an-interface-from-your-pho...

The overriding feeling I had during this keynote is that every feature that I found cool in the watch I would much prefer on my phone.

Cool watch app? Wait, actually that would be cooler and more usable on a big screen...

Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist.

> Haptic feedback? Agreed, awesome idea, but no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist.

It's frequently lost upon this crowd (I'm guilty of this myself) that half of the population in the West frequently wears clothes which lack pockets.

Your statistic confused me until I realized you were [assumedly] referencing females who keep their phones in their purses/bags.

Please try to say women, not "females." I don't think you meant anything by it but when you always see that usage, (common in tech spaces) it starts to feel a little dehumanizing.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=female

From Wikipedia:

"It is not etymologically related to the word male, but in the late 14th century the spelling was altered in English to parallel the spelling of male."

I honestly don't understand how "female" is any worse then "woman" honest question I'm easily the least sexist person you could run into (ask my wife) but sometimes it seems like no mater what you're still going to offend someone. :(

I think the issue is that "female" can refer to any species, whereas "woman" refers only to humans. So when someone obliquely refers to women and someone responds "oh, you're talking about females!", the subtext is that they have now realized that we're talking about women, but haven't quite realized that women are people too.

It would be the same as calling someone a "human" rather than a "person". Like aliens do in the movies. Maybe you don't feel that's dehumanizing, but I think a lot of people would.

(Classicist pet peeve: A word's etymology has nothing to do with its modern denotation and connotation.)

Personally, I like to imagine the post is being written by a Ferengi. There's more than sufficient evidence for it.

Oh lord, get over it. Female is degrading now?

Well, it does make you sound like a Ferengi.

What's a Ferengi?

Edit: Nevermind. I Googled it. Star Trek alien.

There's plenty of other languages where the words for "female" and "male" are different for people and animals.

a.i. males in medical community?

Phones already do this. My android phone vibrates when I have walking directions on and I need to turn.

I think interface wise Cook has the right of it when he says they didn't just strap a reduced iPhone on the wrist.

It's clear that they spent a large amount of time and effort with the haptic feedback and the crown.

But functionality wise... well I completely agree with you.

I can't see anything a smartphone cannot do, better and more efficiently, with the exception of the heart rate sensor.

Some functions in particular seem very awkward to me: I cannot see a reasonable way of using it as a phone or an audio player, in public, without bluetooth earphones.

With mobile phones, mp3 players and smartphones the value proposition was clear, but what is the killer application for smartwatches ?

That said, I would be far from surprised if they sell like hotcakes.

agree. What's the killer App for it? Maybe it's the HealthKit related things, but they hardly appeal to core Apple buyers: young people! It'll be a historical change if Apple starts to add oldlies into its base.

> no reason it can't be on my phone and buzz my leg instead of my wrist

There's a much higher density of tactile nerve endings in your wrist than in your thigh; even if you can reliably feel your phone vibrating in your pocket (I can't!), that's no guarantee you'd be able to discriminate finely enough for haptic feedback to be of use, especially since the phone's orientation in your pocket is not guaranteed.

Re haptic feedback:

I'm forever feeling my phone vibrate in my pocket when it isn't vibrating... and still manage not to notice when it does vibrate.

Perhaps I would perceive the signal more accurately if it was on my wrist instead of my thigh.

Until you start having the same phantom vibrations in your wrist as well.

In my experience, Google Glass turns you into a walking celebrity, and has been as far from "socially inappropriate" as it can get. I'm not in San Fran, which seems to be the only place that pours haterade.

Seriously ? Other geeks maybe interested in your new toy but nobody would be thinking that your social status has been elevated in anyway. In fact it is the complete opposite.

The early adopters of Google Glass have cemented its reputation as a geeky, invasive, awkward, Star Trek like toy for socially inept young men.

Only to geeky, invasive, awkward, Star Trek lovers aka socially inept young men.

None of the people who have approached me directly gave a shit about who I was or what I did for a living. They rarely even introduced themselves. It usually went something like "Is that the google?...." and the conversation goes from there. My IRL experience does not match the blog hatersphere at all.

Actually they have thrown out people even in Paris McDonalds for wearing a Google Glass.

And just try wearing it in some sensitive areas (e.g night-clubs, expensive restaurants etc) around the world and see what happens...

>Actually they have thrown out people even in Paris McDonalds for wearing a Google Glass.

The incident you're thinking of was Steve Mann being assaulted and thrown out for wearing his own custom digital eye glass, about a year before the Google Glass developer release.

I also haven't heard of frequent incidents involving "sensitive areas". Some incidents, yes, but definitely not enough for me to categorize it as a trend.

Unless what you're describing was a later repetition of a 2012 incident, that was actually Dr Steve Mann being kicked out for wearing his EyeTap - which is physically bolted to his head and cannot be removed easily. Nothing to do with Google Glass at all.

So it's socially inappropriate because it's not allowed by a gigantic corporation (that films everything we do at their restaurants), as well as stuck up fancy institutions that will scoff at your shoes and not let you in for that?

Walking celebrity? I saw someone wearing Google Glass (on the east coast) and I had a very negative reaction. Just felt not at ease with this stranger around me.

What personal reactions do you have with Google Glass that are untainted by what you've read? It's fear dude. I've had old ladies, young children who read about it and are amazed, and technology enthusiasts who would have nothing more than to try it on and give it a go.

I know people theorize about the mark of the beast and cyborgs and privacy but I simply haven't seen it. It's a cool gadget and I have fun wearing it in public. It's also great for hiking and camping and Auto Awesome is the shit, so... you are missing out.

Re: "It's a cool gadget and I have fun wearing it in public."

Having a camera pointed in your general direction is enough to give most people pause. I have really bad anxiety, and if someone wearing Glass looks in my direction, I will be made incredibly uncomfortable. It's the kind of thing that makes me want to never leave my house. Not saying you should live your life based on how I feel, but I think people who wear GG should at least be aware of the (great) potential for making others feel uncomfortable.

Absolutely. So I do things like put them on top of my head when entering restaurants, public restrooms, and small social gatherings. Anything that isn't intimate is fair game. If its not "rude" to walk around with your phone out, Google Glass is fair game.

IF someone wearing google glass looks 180 degrees within your direction and you get anxiety - that's a personal issue. IF Google Glass makes you never want to leave your house - then you live in San Fran when you shouldn't, or you have an irrational fear.

On top of that, for every 1 person that has an irrational fear of Google Glass, there are 99 people who are enthralled by it. So, democracy and all that.

The reaction I had was not tainted by what I read since I don't read about Google Glass and I'm only vaguely aware of anything about it. My knowledge of Google Glass mostly comes from these HN comments, really. I have no fear (I'm not sure WHAT I am accused of be afraid of??) I had no opinion of it at all whatsoever until I saw someone wearing it in real life. This was in a bar, btw.

My visceral reaction was that of human disconnect. I hope I am explaining it right, it is a hard feeling to describe. It is the same sort of reaction I get (except stronger) when someone is wearing those bluetooth ear things. It makes me feel uneasy. The person isn't "completely there." A disconnect.

Uh, I think it is too complicated to explain, but it is a human interaction thing, not a technology thing.

Sure, but this could be analogous to sitting at a bar looking at your phone - you're at a bar, what are you doing there?!

Now, if it was the Hard Rock Cafe in Times Square, its probably a stunt. But yes, a bar is not a place for google glass. Just like work is a place for pants. Common sense folks.

> Just like work is a place for pants.

Maybe on the east coast.

Imagine if I took out my phone in a restaurant, said "I'm filming this," and pointed it at you while you ate for the duration of your meal.

That's weird, and initially I thought glass was cool. It's not.

I had this experience sitting across a restaurant from someone wearing Google glass, and it made me realize what a horrible idea it is.

Yes, filming 100% of the time while you are eating at a restaurant would cause unease. Reality TV does this with $10k cameras that are mounted on a dude's shoulder. You don't need Google Glass to know thats a bad idea, so contributing that bad idea to Google Glass isn't a fair comparison because you can do it with other items.

> (3) fumbling in your phone in order to then open the correct app.

This isn't directly tied to you or your argument, but whenever people talk about about smart watches, 'fumbling with your phone' seems to come up. I can't recall the last time I thought of checking my phone as a hassle or felt like I was 'fumbling with it'.

That being said, I am excited to see what developers come up with for smart watches (either platform) and am interested to see how the haptic* feedback performs.

* I know Apple is calling it the Taptic Engine, so I'm not sure if we're supposed to be calling it taptic or haptic feedback, especially since it's not entirely haptic

Is your wrist sensitive enough to determine whether the right or left of your phone has buzzed if you're walking?

Might be one if by land, two if by sea.

>Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere. How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub and resizing things on the screen before finally pulling out your phone and just using that.

Reminds me of a joke I heard:

A local school board was trying to find ways to increase the efficiency of their schools. A local computer programmer had come to the board meeting with a proposal.

He suggested that each desk be equipped with a small button, that via wireless technology would light up a small panel on the teachers desk.

That way if a student wanted to ask a question, they could simply press the button which would light up say spot A17 on the panel. Then using a quick lookup sheet the teacher could then see that desk A17 is where John was sitting.

The teacher could then look up quickly and say, "John...you have a question?"

In fairness, and to think a little more about your throw-away joke than I suspect you intended, the 'push and forget' nature of a button as compared to holding up your hand is important in some situations.

The Software Carpentary workshops that I've worked with/seen, for example, use a post-it note system that signifies that a student has a question (or is done, depending on the colour of the note). This allows the student to continue trying solutions without holding up their hand looking for attention. When an instructor is available, they can go over and help.

The advantage of a button system, then, would be that you could gather data on which students were asking the most questions, how long they generally have to wait, etc.

I like the watch idea personally. Say you're riding your bike and you receive a text message. in order to see what's going on you will probably have to stop and take the phone out of your pocket. with a watch you can simply look at your wrist quickly.

As a daily bike commuter around Boston, this idea terrifies me. Multitasking is extremely dangerous while biking. There are already enough bikers out there who choose to distract themselves with earphones and music while biking. Reading a text message while weaving in traffic is a recipe for disaster. When you're on a bike, be on the bike.

I am a daily bike commuter in Anchorage where we have tons of dedicated trails. I can ride all the way to work 7 miles and I only have to cross a couple streets.

This would be fine. better than pulling my phone out of my pocket while riding (which is what I do now)

Apparently you can record video with your iPhone 6 while on a bike so Apple clearly have different use-cases in mind.

I think a lot of what they're aiming at is rethinking a lot of the scenarios where you're trying to directly replicate how you use your phone, on your wrist.

So to take your map scenario. Here's how it currently works for me. Take the phone out, pull up maps, figure out where the hell I am, where I'm trying to get to, and then plot a route between the two.

Yes, that's going to work a whole lot better on a phone.

But what comes next? Following the route from A to B with the phone held flat in front of me like it's some kind of divining rod.

And this is where rethinking the actual interaction starts making a difference. Having the phone push cues instead of walking somewhere I'm unfamiliar with my nice expensive divining rod held out ..

I'd wait and see how it actually works - for example, with the navigation scenario, it's far more likely that you'd choose your destination on your phone which will then handoff the navigation to the watch. Thus, no need to constantly look at the phone while you're walking + haptic feedback to guide you along the path.

Siri could be the big savior here. I'm actually very happy with my iPhone's voice recognition and Siri's performance.

Another gripe, the "digital crown" is on the opposite side of the watch for me. It could be an impediment of being left handed, but having it on the right hand side of the watch increments the awkward factor for me.

Apparently, the orientation of the display will be a matter of setup configurability:

http://www.slashgear.com/wheres-our-left-handed-apple-watch-...

"So, it turns out the Apple Watch really works TWO ways. Apple tells us on initial setup, you can choose to have the watch face orient itself for use on the right wrist, making it friendly to lefties. The watch bands are also swappable, so your band isn't facing the wrong way. Good news for everyone involved, but like most things in life, Lefties will still have to deal with a right-handed design -- the crown will be on the bottom of the left side of the watch when on the right wrist."

It seems like it's reasonable for it to switch orientation with the easily switchable bands. The 'crown' nub would then be on the bottom left of your right arm.

Doh! Of course you are probably right. Hopefully the display (like an iPhone) can determine its orientation and adjust.

I'm guessing it takes it's orientation from the strap.

Is Siri really good? I only ask because I spent a significant portion of today's commute shouting "OK GOOGLE" repeatedly at my phone, only for it to misunderstand what I was saying. And I speak with a flat English accent.

Yeah, I agree on the leftie thing. They most likely won't make a leftie variant but I do think that they could make it rotatable.

> Imagine a typical scenario. You are walking down the street and suddenly need to navigate somewhere.

"Siri, give me walking directions to the nearest Starbucks."

Isn't the whole scenario far fetched? Does anyone really wander around and then suddenly have an urgent need to be somewhere (other than a restroom :)?

The only thing I can think of that might make me suddenly need to go somewhere is a message/reminder...from my phone.

I think the idea is that you would raise the watch to your face and say "Siri, directions to closest Starbucks". The little dial is not the only way to interact with the thing.

How many minutes are you going to waste playing with that little nub

Zero minutes and five seconds. The watch has Siri. You say "directions to X". Boom. Done.

Zero minutes.

Once start walking your route, feedback will be given via haptic feedback to let you know which way to turn so you won't have to look at it again.

(Source: the keynote)

> now they expect me to interact with something more complicated using a tiny, rotating nub?

Did you ever use a Blackberry? Tiny rotating nubs are really good.

You cannot imagine a more useless product?

As a serious runner, there is no way that I would run for an extended distance without my phone on me. First of all because I would rather not have to drag my injured self out somewhere to ask for help, rather than being able to call for it from my phone. Whenever I do triathlon training, I would also not think of leaving without my phone, as I tend to go for 30-40 mile bike rides into remote areas, and having a way to communicate with the outside world in case the worst happens (equipment malfunction, injury) is preferable. I don't think I have a single watch that can last more than 7 hours of continuous GPS usage, between running and biking, so I'd like to see what the battery life on the Apple Watch looks like before passing judgement.

Many Garmin watches last much more than 7 hours. My old 310XT lasts around 12.

I've had both the 310XT and the 910XT, and neither lasts more than 6 hours now. Using the heart rate monitor strap greatly impacts my battery life, for some reason. I wish there was a way to tell how many cycles my batteries have left in them. I think it's time for an upgrade :)

>My two cents: I don't know any person who is into serious running (I'm into triathlon, so add cycling and swimming) who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch and additionally you are required to have your iPhone with you to use the GPS.

Yeah, it's for the sligltly LESS serious runners, of which there are millions...

No, this is a huge impediment to its usefulness. Having to carry around a phone while running is a drudge regardless of how serious of a runner or athlete you are. Not to mention so many other sports that could benefit from this but won't. This is especially so considering the larger size of the iPhone 6 and especially the iPhone 6 plus.

What casual runner goes running without their phone? That's how we get GPS, work with Nike+ gear, and can be reached if someone needs us or make a call if we need to.

How many leave their phone on the house and go out jogging?

> What casual runner goes running without their phone?

Me for one. I run 2x a week for about a half-hour each time in the park near my apartment building. That's about as casual as it gets?

I used to run with my phone, but I recently bought a tiny mp3 player and a Casio wristwatch for running. I don't care about GPS since I know my park, and if someone needs me I'll talk to them in a half hour.

Needing to bring a phone with me makes this watch absolutely a no deal.

Casual runner, cyclist, recreational triathlete. Phone always on me; it's one of the few times I want the phone functionality in case of mishaps. Running vests with cyclist-style tail pockets plz!

> What casual runner goes running without their phone?

Judging by the answers you got, ones who have oversized phones and think that shaving a little weight is worth not being able to call emergencies (who cares, they can use a strangers phone if that happens, just like the guys who cycle and skip tools, patches and pumps and then end up asking people passing them by, and anyway emergencies happen to other people).

OTOH, I don't know why anyone would ever wear a watch after 1993.

I wear an automatic watch.

1) I like being able to know time and date at a quick glance -- the ease of this is light years ahead of any smartphone. 2) It never runs out of juice since it doesn't have a battery. 3) It looks good (IMO). 4) I irrationally like the fact that my moving about gives life to a tiny beating mechanism. For that reason my watch has a power reserve meter.

Have zero interest in smartwatches though. I have enough crap to keep charged as is.

I wear one all the time. It's purely fashion.

Hah, I buy this argument far more than any claims that people need accurate time measurement at notice short enough that taking a phone from a pocket/bag is unacceptable. Though I do think watches are hopelessly retro :-)

I mean, don't get me wrong. It is an added convenience to have access to the time a bit more quickly. If I'm checking the time, there's a decent chance I'm in a rush for something.

But yeah, almost purely fashion.

Casual runner here. Could not imagine running with my phone.

I think the point is that lots of runners would prefer not to bring their phone if that was an option and this watch could have enabled that. It's a legitimate (minor) annoyance to carry your phone while running.

It's more than a minor annoyance. The problem is how to carry it. Pockets are out of the question (for those that have them) as is any sort of bag or purse. I used to have a band for my old iPod that would strap to my arm. I suppose going back to that contraption with a phone is a possibility, but considering the discomfort and weight, not to mention the possibility of rain destroying the phone, I would do anything to avoid that. And if it's on my arm anyway, why would I need the watch interface?

Easy, get a race belt.

These are nylon belts with a buckle and a small expandable pouch. They also have 2 toggles to attach your race bib too.

They are just big enough to hold your phone, keys and some cash or cards.

You'll see people doing fun runs wear them to avoid carrying a pack for their stuff. To prevent water damage, put your item in a ziplock bag.

Completely agree.

For less serious runners, the GPS serves no noticeable purpose. Without the GPS, the Apple Watch can still track your speed and distance.

It certainly serves some purpose to map your runs even for less serious runners. It would also be cool to have music without being tethered to the phone.

Every runner I know, casual or not, myself included. Not to mention other athletes in such sports as football, soccer, basketball, hockey, etc.

It's very inconvenient to run with a phone and almost impossible to play other sports with one.

>What casual runner goes running without their phone?

ME!! I don't want something bulky weighing me down.

Of course I always have my phone!

Not to mention women's running clothes don't fit phones typically.

I carry my phone around while running all the time. How else would I get music and GPS tracking?

Having run quite a number of marathons, half-marathons, 5k, 10k and all distances in between, I have noticed that there are still a good amount of runners out there (whether serious or not) who use their 4"/5" phones for tracking.

I was happy to use my Pebble and now, my android wear devices to track my running pace. I run about 4 miles a day. Honestly, the iWatch is just too pricey for what I would use it for.

If $300 sounds to much for a fashion item, it's probably not for you. Heck, I don't think I'll buy one either.

But then again, consider that people buy $300+ headphones (Dre's) because of how they look, fashion etc. And they are not even the best headphones out there, whereas this is probably the best smartwatch.

Or that people bought iPods for $300 or more just 6 years ago. Without video or phone or camera. Heck, I bought my first iPod for ~$800 10 years ago (complete with a black and white LCD display).

And that's the 1st gen. In a year, it will be like $200 or $100 for the same thing or the new model.

So, yeah, it might flop or it might sell, but it won't be due to its price.

"If $300 sounds to much for a fashion item, it's probably not for you."

Fair enough, but i have to say, I feel like i'm taking crazy pills here. So apple releases it and suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch. Just a few short months ago, i was reading nytimes articles about the current crop of smartwatches saying "'They’re just not that attractive,' said Mr. Dawson, 'they are all clunky and square'"

But now suddenly it's a fashion item to have a clunky, square watch?

(I understand fashion is fickle, but this is really really fickle :P)

Agreed. Apple make beautiful devices that are fashion accessories... but this isn't one of them, in my opinion.

I know it's wasteful to cut the corners off LCDs to make them round, but I am a little surprised that Apple didn't go that route just for novelty value if nothing else. Would've made a nice interface paradigm with a rotary dial on the face too.

Round LCDs do have an undeniably cool look: http://www.zerotohundred.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/MG_5...

But I have a feeling Porsche has just used an ordinary square panel here, with its edges concealed by the gauge bezel. A watch designer doesn't have room to pull off a visual trick like that.

You're surprised that Apple didn't make a fundamental design decision for novelty value? Not sure you have been paying attention to Apple lately.

Ok, ok; bad phrasing on my part. I meant that with Apple's branding around affordable luxury and challenging the status quo, a round screen would most definitely have been a talking point for this product and a differentiator from everything else on the market.

That said, I've since been reminded about the Moto360 which _did_ have a round screen, so my point is moot anyway.

usually, the more into the hobby, the more you spend into it. Not the opposite.

My wife runs long distances with an iPhone AND a watch.

My impression is that Forerunners have fallen out of favor. The GPS doesn't work all that well compared to a phone (I'm guessing because it lacks the AGPS data a phone has access to). Plus if you're running a marathon you probably want some music to listen to, and it sure is nice to have a phone with you even though it's perhaps a bit heavy.

I've got 18 months of Moves data logged against corresponding tracks from my 910XT and the difference in consistency, accuracy, etc., is telling - the iPhone is frequently off by 10s (if not 100s) of metres and especially coming round the Millennium Dome is a joke - it has me jumping from the south to the north of the Thames every few hundred metres.

Moves iPhone 5S - http://imgur.com/kjYf8Tj Garmin 910XT - http://imgur.com/jnXuaQC

I bet your iphone is trying to use cell tower locations or wifi hotspots it's picking up around there and borking up the location. The area around there is kind of open and flat so I wouldn't be surprised if it's picking up location information from across the river.

It does seem to be WiFi related. But if I have to remember to disable the WiFi whenever I want to do some GPS tracking - and if I forget, I basically get random garbage - that pushes it well into "no bloody use" for me.

Surely there is an app for that? Android has plenty of apps that will automatically turn on/off your wifi based on various criteria, such as your location (I always turn it off as soon as I'm 50 yards away from home or from the office).

That's a feature, not a bug ;)

Uh, no, I'm pretty sure that's a bug. Unless you literally want to consider inaccurate tracking a feature.

I would bet it is the cycling of GPS that the app is doing. If GPS is just left on, a battery can get burned through in a couple hours (for one of the newer iPhones, much less an older one). Those wacky readings are some of the initial results after GPS is cycled back on.

One might look for a higher power setting if you are doing an hour / half hour run and not concerned about keeping battery life up.

Moves is on "battery saving" mode (which actually makes little difference - I get bugger all life out of my phone anyway) but that doesn't really explain why it's just around the O2 it has serious issues - that's only about 2-3km out of the whole 30km walk.

Probably put these apps should compensate for the fact that humans can't run that fast nor that they can run over water.

Do you use a GPS app in your phone often? This almost looks like it was falling back to AGPS / Skyhook while the almanac was still downloading, which can take half an hour or so.

Once the almanac is downloaded, the phone's GPS track should look much closer to the Garmin's.

If this was a recurring problem then I don't know what to say, other than it doesn't match my experience with RunKeeper on an iPhone 4S.

Well, I have Find My iPhone and 5 other motion trackers (Moves, Argus, Breeze, Human, Nike+) running 24/7 - it's a fair bet my GPS almanac is up to date since they should all be poking the M7 for updates.

Did you disable WLAN on the iPhone during the run?

That's what RunKeeper recommends, because the AGPS using WLAN-SSIDs lowers the accuracy of the tracking.

How long does the Garmin take to find you at the start of a run? I admittedly had an old model, but it was basically a dealbreaker with the forerunner. I was wandering around for 5-10 mins with my wrist in the air waiting to start.

I use the 910XT in a very cloudy part of the world (which I'm assuming makes things worse). I've just integrated the startup time into my prep.

Before I put my running stuff on, I turn on the watch and let it figure stuff out while I'm taping my nips, and if it's winter, gloves, tights, mentally bracing myself for the cold, etc.

Same here, I've got a Garmin watch and it's great once it finds satellites, but routinely takes well over 5 minutes to do so (in NYC). I've started using my iphone to track runs and bike rides instead, only using the Garmin for really long bike rides where I don't mind the wait and having my current speed on my wrist is worth the wait.

I used to have to wait for a fix as well. What works for me is that when I'm preparing for the run, I put the watch in a window for enough time to get a fix, which sometimes take a long time. Then when I go out to run later, it gets a fix pretty quickly.

The new models lock really quickly. I have a Garmin 620 and it locks within 30 seconds. Cloudy days might take a minute, but basically by the time I finish my warmup walk, it's locked on.

It's a lot better than the 310XT. I don't think it's taken more than a minute of standing still in the last few months. I do tend to start in pretty open sky'd places though.

I have found this with the phone, if I do a cold start. When I ride somewhere, start the tracking, the stop the tracking when I get to the run track, the iPhone is so much better at tracking me.

(Totally offtopic but running near the Whitehouse in DC is funny because they screw with GPS accuracy so you bounce all over the place)

How is that possible? GPS satellites are sending the same signal out to everyone, I don't see how they could possibly target a certain area.

The Economist[1] had a story about the London Stock Exchange getting jammed GPS-signal 10 minutes every day. I believe they are using something similar.

[1]: http://www.economist.com/news/international/21582288-satelli...

Gps satellites all send slightly incorrect information... A separate radio signal correction is transmitted to correct it. That way, during wartime (or in high value target areas) the US can basically mess up enemy gps enabled weapons by broadcasting misleading satellite and correction data.

That doesn't answer the question of how they could make GPs inaccurate only in a specific area.

Low power GPS jammer at the Whitehouse, perhaps?

A terrestrial transmitter spoofs or overpowers the GPS signal.

GPS satellites have a signal strength on par with a night light's, so it's easy to overpower in a small area using a low power transmission.

I don't know how they do it, but if you drive by the Pentagon with a GPS unit you'll see it go crazy.

On some you can load AGPS data onto it for the next few days, but the bigger issue is that Garmin no longer uses SiRF chipsets, which are vastly superior when compared gen-for-gen vs. the generic stuff Garmin's using now.

It's a shame, but the most accurate Forerunners are the older ones–same for Foretrex, etc.–which are often the ones with the shortest battery life.

I doubt "people into serious running" run into the 10s of millions that Apple are aiming the watch at though.

(I agree with your point though - I have a 910XT for the battery life - the Apple Watch would be useless as an activity tracker for me since the iPhone 5S doesn't really cope with 5h+ activities.)

I agree with you too. The Apple Watch is a mass market product, not for heavy users. However, I can imagine many people wearing this watch at gyms, where people tend to look after themselves (healthkit, etc)... but I don't see professionals using it (unless endorsed).

If the battery life doesn't suck (which I fear it does given the total lack of reference to it) and the "iPhone required" isn't as onerous as it seems, I might well wear one just for the easy 24/7* heart rate tracking. Granted the optical ones aren't as good as the HRM straps (as best I remember the dcrainmaker reviews) but they're less onerous for long periods.

I think it's a general limitation of the optical heart rate trackers that they aren't quite "24/7". At least on all the Android Wear devices that feature one, you have to ask it to take a reading, and it's pretty unreliable if you're moving. I didn't see it mentioned in the Apple coverage, but I assume it's probably similarly limited there?

My Basis watch takes readings regularly (not sure the interval once a minute, maybe) of my heart rate. Battery lasts about 3-4 days.

I would have bought one since that's exactly what I want but they're -still- not shipping outside the US. Think they may have missed their chance now...

More significant than "people into serious running" is "people who want to be into serious running". Fitness products live and die based on their ability to hook the consumer with aspirational marketing. A well-placed fitness magazine "review" will impact sales far more than superior tech specs.

So the heart-rate sensor is for people that sit at their desks all day?

There is a probably a middle ground (and possibly a large one) between people running triathlons and couch potatoes.

Actually, yeah, that's pretty much the market for the fitbit and similar devices. People who sit at desks looking to get more activity in their lives.

It's certainly not for people exercising, because it clearly won't work for that use case. You can spot that from a mile away.

This comment reminded me of CmdrTaco's slashdot comment after the iPod launch: http://t.co/RPAX2r93kx

I think Garmin forerunner will be to the future of wearables what Nomad was to the future of music in 2002.

Do you remember what a Creative Nomad Jukebox actually looked like around 2001? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQaplenaBl4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PR5hPd_inno

Existing MP3 players offered a pretty rough user experience; the iPod was a pleasure to use in comparison. Largely the same was true of iPhone as compared to existing smartphones. The first generations of iPod and iPhone also had hardware that was strikingly attractive and even more important, ready for prime time: well able to meet the needs of their software and of the use cases they were designed for. The Apple Watch has lovely fit and finish but looks portly and awkward, and faces serious questions on the basic criterion of battery life. The UI looks promising, but from what there is to see so far it doesn't look as if it's going to blow Android Wear out of the water. (The "digital crown" looks promising, though!)

Moreover, even without a second 5GB of storage or wireless, the iPod had a compelling "value proposition" that was soon clear to everyone, even if it wasn't immediately clear to CmdrTaco: "portable MP3 player that doesn't suck". What's the comparable pitch for the first-gen Apple Watch; what does it offer that feels like a must-have, rather than a nice-to-have, and which you can't do fairly well using your smartphone?

None of this is to say that the Watch is terrible, or will fail, or will never amount to anything. But the CmdrTaco analogy seems clearly inaccurate to me at this stage.

"Existing MP3 players offered a pretty rough user experience; the iPod was a pleasure to use in comparison."

You clearly didn't own one of the first gen of iPod. Amazing as it was, crashes, reformatting and general bugginess were daily occurrences.

What the iPod brought to the table was a (buggy) new interface and click wheel which allowed you to browse your massive collection of pirated MP3's and ripped CD's much easier than other methods. Also form factor/hardware design was more pleasing to the eye to many.

I have fond memories of my Creative Nomad II: http://www.nextup.com/img/Creative_NomadIIc_Large.jpg

At first glance, OPs comment was comparing what I believe is the first really usable wearable device to something that looks similar in form factor but is eons behind in day to day usability. So the analogy seemed quite accurate to me.

And yes, I do remember the Nomad. At the time the iPod launched, my music player was a Sony Discman and pre-ipod, I would have bought the Nomad in a heartbeat if I could.

You're right; I was somewhat OT as antr's comment was about exercise watches.

I don't think the analogy is very strong even looking at Apple Watch as an exercise watch competitor, though. Firstly, I'm not closely familiar with the recent exercise watch/widgets on the market, but I'd be surprised if all of them are as unpleasant to use as the Nomad was. Second, even if the UX advance is really that big, it seems the (first-generation) aWatch is going to have other stumbling blocks, like the need to own an iPhone 5 or higher and the need to have it with you for GPS. Those aren't just missing checklist ticks or things which will annoy a minority of technically-minded users, they're issues which affect whether "the rest of us" are going to enjoy using the aWatch or bother buying one at all. (Yes, the iPod originally required a Firewire Mac, but precisely for that reason it didn't really take off commercially until that requirement was lifted.) Thirdly, the iPod addressed a huge market, even if many users didn't even realise they were in the market for a portable music player until they heard about the iPod. Even if the aWatch wins over nearly everyone who currently uses an exercise wearable, and also draws in a substantial number of people who don't currently use one (and that's a super-optimistic outcome for as long as an iPhone remains a required accessory) is that really a big enough market to make for a commercial success on the scale of the iPod or iPhone, the kind of scale Apple now needs to keep its investors from being disappointed?

Or consider the first iPhone which had no 3G. Building your first iteration specifically not to go up against a particular competitor can be intentional, in hardware and software. Two or three generations down the road this watch could prove interesting (or may be not, like the iPad.)

No 3G, no app store(!!), no copy and paste, no GPS, worse call reception than the phones it replaced, the list goes on. It was still a massive success.

A pretty big difference is most other smartphones either didn't have these, or if they did the feature was so unusable it could just as well have been left out.

I remember it being fashionable here in the UK, mainly for the Carlsberg app that used the gyroscope (accelerometer?) to pretend that you were drinking a drink.

And for showing that you had a lot of money compared to us pauper Nokia users.

People were really disappointed with the lack of MMS, as I recall.

I'll ignore your slightly pedantic tone. I'm not calling this a failure or lame. Don't read between the lines. I'm just saying that at $350, for people who take sports seriously (a very very very small niche), there are better alternatives. This is Apple Watch 1.0, I'm sure there are better things down the line. Thinking otherwise is just a mistake. I said it before https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8292596

There are better alternatives-- IF and only IF you value certain features that the Apple watch lacks over the features that it has, but that the frontrunner lacks.

The front runner has GPS so you can get GPS without carrying your phone around. That's great. But what use is that GPS? (seriously, I don't get it- it's a 80s era LCD display).

The Apple watch has GPS (in the phone) but also gives you maps and haptic feedback to send you along your route without ever looking at the watch. I presume the frontrunner doesn't do that (how do you put a route into a watch without a map display?)

Sorry for the snarky tone. I think your clarified stance is a fair one.

Whoa, a Garmin Forerunner 910xt for $300? Hardly. My triathlon bundle cost $500, $400 for just the watch itself. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/prod90671.html

"$350!? And it can't even do the things my highly specialized device can do." It's funny you should mention the Forerunner 910, because you know what the 910 can't do? Be a watch. But that's okay because you didn't buy it to be a watch.

Besides, I'm the only runner I know that doesn't bring a phone with me when I run.

It's ironic if the 910 can't tell you the time, since one of the necessary components of a GPS device is a ridiculously accurate clock.

The 910 is capable of displaying the time of day, but it should be glaringly obvious to anyone that owns one that telling you the time is a peripheral feature that comes for free because of the nature of GPS devices. Combine that with a 20 hour battery life (probably far less if you're in an office and the GPS receiver is cranked all day), huge size, and questionable aesthetics, and it's obvious that Garmin did not intend for you to wear it to work. Not that it keeps people from trying if the Garmin forums are indicative of anything.

And Captain Pedantic has swooped in to inform us that the ridiculously accurate clocks live on the GPS satellites not on the device.

While the GPS satellite has atomic clocks, the GPS device also requires an accurate oscillator that is synced with the satellites' clocks — it uses the satellite signals to approximate the actual time and uses that approximation to measure the time delay to each satellite's clock to estimate distance, using an iterative algorithm.

They mentioned the low-end model requiring an iPhone, but unless I missed something due to the sporadic live-stream, they seemed to trail-off when it came to what the other two models would be like. I could see GPS being something built in to the higher-end model for instance.

I am a serious runner (have run 3 marathons, running a fourth in a month and a half), and I'm entertaining the possibility of converting over to the iPhone + Apple Watch. For me though, it's more complicated.

I always run with my phone & wallet for emergency reasons. I don't use a sports watch anymore (I do have a Garmin), but largely due to their bulk & wanting to focus less on my time/pace & more on my body.

I also am getting sick of Verizon getting vendors to lock down Android phones AND forcing phone vendors to toss a bunch of crapware onto the phones. The only reason I haven't switched yet is because I am on a legacy $40/month/line family plan. I am not a huge fan of iOS - I love Google's integrations with its services with Android.

A lot of what I end up doing is taking out my cellphone to check for messages or the time. It's excessive, and quite inconvenient.

Why not one of the existing smartwatches? I haven't yet been convinced that they're built for my desires.

I'm not really in a rush to make a decision here, and likely will wait some before jumping in (probably will try out the Moto 360 in the short term), but the cost isn't really out of the realm of reason necessarily to me.

I run with an iPhone in a running belt, a BT HR monitor (Wahoo TICKR Run), and the Magellan Echo. I'm very pleased with the setup.

The Echo is now compatible with several Android phones as well. Given your description, I think you'd really like it.

Maybe during the event but every other day while your out working out and such? I don't know about you, but I don't know any cyclist that leaves home without his phone. Heck it comes down to what not to take beyond a few certain requirements. // 2 tubes, pump, money, id, phone, water, energy gels (yuck), rain cover //

If I am short riding, as in I could walk home, the phone still goes with me. However I see no use for the watch. I have a simple comp on the handlebars, maybe I could stick the watch there?

While I disagree with your premise as the phone is there anyway, I see the watch more as Starbucks wear than anything else.

The fact that the Apple Watch doesn't do everything we can conceive combined with its visual elegance (at least in the videos) suggests to me Apple's target in this first iteration is the luxury market. I expect the athletes using those "crappy" Beats headsets will be popularizing Apple Watches to adoring fans before too long. That will give Apple enough time to make improvements over time.

Well, that's just marketing. Of course it isn't the ultimate device for serious athletes, but it has useful health related features for the broad audience.

No matter how Apple markets its products, it's always intended for a broad spectrum of users, which almost excludes the possibility that you'll ever see a Apple product that is specialized for some kind of niche

Do they have watches, sub 250, that can be used for swimming OR running?

Even just the swimming would be great, cause the price point and being forced to carry an iPhone around kind of defeated the purpose of buying the Apple Watch for me.

Nevermind, my own question got answered by looking up the Garmin Forerunner 910XT: http://sites.garmin.com/forerunner910xt/

Run, swim, AND bike. Excellent.

The swim stroke tracker is hit-and-miss for me (sometimes guesses the wrong stroke and length points) but that probably says more about my swimming (which is awful) than the watch.

But I can definitely vouch for the excellent battery life, resilience to water, and usefulness on a bike laden with sensors.

The only gripe I have is that you can have multiple sets of bike sensors but not anything else. That and their approach to OS X software basically being "well, be grateful you're only 2 years behind the PC and that we acknowledge you at all."

Good to know, thanks!

Sadly, it might be outside of my price range. It does look like it's the perfect thing for tracking my workouts, but damn is that one hell of an investment.

It's also due to be replaced any day now (it's the last piece of the Garmin series that hasn't been updated in for.ev.er.). Once the new version comes out, 910xt's should be pretty cheap to pickup.

I believe the Fenix 2 has already replaced it - http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2014/03/garmin-fenix2-multisport....

I'm a casual runner and see no value in the $350 Apple Watch as well.

Heart monitoring and GPS is a nice to have for me. Seriously, all I need is my old $75 16GB iPod nano 6th generation square.

This is pretty ridiculous comparison. The Apple watch is clearly not targeted to any serious runners/triathletes. I don't recall anyone claim it's a "sports watch".

Apple Watch Sport

http://www.apple.com/watch/apple-watch-sport/

There is a huge difference between a sports watch and a sports edition of a watch.

"Steve Ballmer Laughs at iPhone" in 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eywi0h_Y5_U

>> (I won't comment the lack of info on battery life and water resistance)

Did they comment on water resistance? I thought they had a photo of someone pouring water over it...

There is a difference between submerging and just a sprinkle of water. I don't think the Apple Watch is submergible/usable for swimming.

Yes, waterproof is submersible and water resistant is rain/shower etc. Your comment referred to water resistance which that displays.

I would hope they make it waterproof as I don't want to have to leave an expensive watch with my bag on the beach unattended. But then I already have to do that with my phone I guess.

> I don't want to have to leave an expensive watch with my bag on the beach

While it's sapphire, I recommend that you keep your watch and phone as far away from salt water and sand as possible. One grain gets in the crown and you could be in trouble.

My sport watch is a Timex which is resistant to 100m, but the springs sometimes get sand stuck in them.

There isn't really a "water-proof" watch. There are varying degrees of water resistant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Resistant_mark

Ah yes! Waterproof vs water resistant. Yes, that was what I meant (changed). The AW appears to be water resistant, while many, if not most, sports watches are waterproof. Waterproof is a feature that I'm sure Cook would of mentioned if it were the case.

He probably would have, you're right. Maybe it will be exclusive to the sports edition. Seems like a good way to differentiate.

I run and this is fine with me. I don't go anywhere without my phone anyway, and I imagine GPS on the Watch would mean shorter battery life or bigger battery/watch.

Fellow triathlete here! 100% agree.

It looks nice though...

My impression from the marketing video where Ive speaks is that this is more like a vanity jewelry item, not anything serious and definitely not something that can handle abuse. I don't think they even market it as a sports item.

This is Apple's way: Release a product at a high price initially to capture extra dollars from early adopters with the extra money while also buying time for Apple to work out kinks in there production chain and also reduce costs as efficiency increases. Six to twelve months later cheaper Apple Watches will come out.

That doesn't seem to match my offhand recollections. Apple tends to keep price points the same and just update specs occasionally. The first iPhone famously had a price drop quite soon, but has that been true for their other product lines?

The MacBook Air went from being their most insanely expensive product to their entry-level without changing all too much (besides the requisite performance upgrades).

Good point. I'm still skeptical that's the plan for the watch, but I guess it's plausible at least.

I don't think Apple needs that handful of extra dollars from early adaptors.

The reason the initial price is high is because its easier to decrease a retail price than it is to increase it.

Apple tends not to lower their prices. Instead, they offer newer models will with more features at stable price points.

If prices do drop (e.g. the 5s) it's because an older product is still being sold alongside a newer one at the standard price.

This is not the case with first run products. The original iPhone's price was $599 (8GB) and $499 (4GB) when it was released in June 2007. Then in September of the same year they discontinued the 4GB model and dropped the price of the 8GB down to $400.

I'm not saying that they will drop the price of the watch but there is a history of them doing this with the first run of a product. Also someone mentioned they did something similar with the MBA in this thread.

Good point, though I think that few people paid that directly. From what I recall, base models have been $200 with a two year contract from the word go.

Nope, people who paid $600+ for an iPhone still had to have a two-year contract, they didn't even get compensated for it with a subsidy. And at the same time that you paid $600, AT&T was giving Apple a cut of the contract, something like 10 bucks a month from your AT&T bill went straight to Apple in the beginning. So Apple was really getting around $840 per iPhone over the life of the contract, $600 up front and $10/month for 24 months.

> I don't know any person who is into serious running ... who would spend $350 on the Apple Watch

People will spend that much money on the Apple Watch. Because it's Apple.It might seem like a ripoff to you but the price was calculated to maximise Apple profit.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com