Hacker News Reader

Comment by n09n | Hacker News Reader

The reality distortion field and the ability to spin those negatives as positives are features, though.

A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry. How well it tells the time or does other things is much less important than how fashionable it is. Branding is one of Apple's strong suits, and you can't take that away by adding features as if consumer purchasing decisions are based on some kind of checklist-like RFPs like corporate drones are used to.

View on HN

I would argue with you on this point. A smartwatch is absolutely not jewelry first. There is literally no compelling reason to wear a smart watch unless you intend to use it for the "smart" purposes (information, navigation, communication, reminders, appointments, music, health). Otherwise, pick a "dumb" watch. Even I, who haven't worn a watch regularly since college (about 15 years ago), have grown accustomed to my Android Wear device. Not because it tells the time, which I frankly don't care much about, but because it replaces the need for me to carry a pad/paper for taking quick notes, let's me reply to Whatsapp & Hangouts messages via voice, shows me incoming email, alerts me to weather emergencies, gives me a way to easily fact check for my kids at the dinner table ("Ok Google... is buffalo mozzarella really made from buffalo milk?"), etc. You could certainly argue whether or not these things are valuable or important for the average person, but just like with so many other things, I think "smart" wearables will become ubiquitous in the next few years, just as cell phones (and no smartphones) have over the past decade.

The beauty of Android Wear is the absolute simplicity of enabling existing apps to have a Wear interface (http://developer.android.com/training/building-wearables.htm...). Perhaps it will be the same for iOS, but with the explosion of low end Androids in developing countries, my inclination is to think Apple is òn the path to slowly lose this battle.

That's only because smartwatches up until now have not been fashionable. That's also why they are so unpopular.

Ding ding ding. Apple is going to sell a shitload of these, because they are not only going to be something that does stuff you couldn't do before (since it's a smartwatch) but because they are going to look nice, be visible, and make a fashion statement.

Apple is approaching this just as much as a piece of jewelry as they are a piece of technology. It should be pretty revealing when it comes out to see it spread through the consumer market. My guess is that once it is out there you can expect people to crave these things more than they did the original iPhone, not due to the technical abilities or feature set but because they want to be the envy of their friends. If the thing is ugly, then it will bomb, but if it takes on the perception of an expensive, luxury watch then expect to see them everywhere.

If the thing looks good I can't even imagine how many of these things they are going to sell next christmas.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I think. I don't see how something so impractical (daily battery charging?!) that forces a specific user interface and user interaction could ever be considered jewelry, except in some abstract pedantic way.

I wonder if they will become fashionable in part because Apple has released a smart watch, thus proving that they are not a fad. I wonder if other non apple smart watches will now become more fashionable and see increased sales too.

Smartwatches are unpopular because they suck. Nobody wants to carry and charge an extra device, that adds very little to their life. The Apple Watch will live or die based upon its perceived utility, not based upon its design.

Ties suck. High heels suck. Ironing clothes sucks. Cuff links may not suck, but are at best, pointless. Sucking has never stopped people from wearing things that look good.

People do not wear ties because they look good. They wear them because of antiquated social convention.

That's part of what it means to look good.

No, it's part of what it means to conform.

Literally the same thing.

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to interact with someone who believes that.

You're welcome.

The wording in the video for the watch (narrated by Jony Ive) is full of strange phrases (I paraphrase): "the controls are vital"; "the watch is essentially..... (pause)...... a mini computer" (just like SIM cards then!) "The strap is infinitely adjustable" - that one made me chuckle, as it was referring to a strap that folds back on itself with a magnetic clasp. Of course, it isn't infinitely adjustable, as the strap isn't infinitely long.....

Interesting device though. Looks interesting.

> "The strap is infinitely adjustable" - that one made me chuckle, as it was referring to a strap that folds back on itself with a magnetic clasp.

I believe Ive refers to the infinite points between the base and the end of the strap and not an infinite length of strap. Ask a mathematician how many points are between 0 and 1.

Even my Casio got this right with a velcro strap. I have a Citizen that is either too high or too low on my forearm depending on the number of links I insert. My only options are to gain or lose weight until

Yeah, but we live in the physical world where there are actually finite number of positions that the strap could attach. "Infinite" is just marketing speak here.

No, the "infinitely adjustable" comment refers to the Milanese Loop:

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

It is, by definition, infinitely adjustable, since the band is sized continuously and attached magnetically (so that any part of the band works as a sizing point). It does not have discrete holes, like most watch bands.

I believe your parent was referring to the Plank Length when he said the physical world.

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

Of course, that's being super pedantic, because 10^31 is practically infinite, or at least more than you'll have time to try in your lifetime.

10^31 different positions is no closer to infinitely many than 5 different positions.

The strap may be finitely long, but the adjustment is continuous. This still allows for infinite values.

There was another: "The simple leather classic buckle references traditional watch vocabulary".

Yes, that made me chuckle in a disappointed way. I wonder if they sit and think of things to say to brighten up the dullest of details / non-features?

Contact me off HN (it should be easy to find my email address).

Ive's voice is very robotic; It was like being told about the watch by Siri.

"Jony Ive is not available"

Turn on your wifi and he's there!

>>A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry.

Not actually though. A watch is still a watch. There are so many places where you can't carry or even have the opportunity to use your smart phone to check time. Students can't carry it to exam halls, people who are driving cars, workers, there many professions and use cases where a simple device strapped to your hand is indispensable when it comes to keeping track of time.

A watch is not just a watch to many people. Otherwise companies like IWC, Brietling, Rolex etc wouldn't be making as much money as they do.

Anything you put on your body that is visible to the public affects how people see you. Whether you care about this influences if you think a watch is fashionable or purely functional.

There are still professions where it's a requirement. Telling the time can be very important for divers, pilots, service men, etc.

He didn't say a watch is "just a watch", he said a watch "is still a watch".

Its a bit of both.

But when it comes to utility. A simple watch has not been replaced by smart phones yet. That is because there are places, instances and people where/who just can't pull out their phones and check time.

Why do you think anyone cares whether phones replace watches? How is that at all relevant to the purpose of watches?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Are you saying we don't need watches at all? Or that some how modern day humans don't need to keep track of time? Watches started going out of fashion when mobile phones came along with Real time clocks, so people just didn't feel they should have a wrist watch when they check the time on their phones.

But that didn't cover all people and all use cases. There are many use cases where you can't use your phone to check time. And in such places a wrist watch is a indispensable utility.

The poorly dressed nerds you hang out with may not wear watches as often as they did in the 20th century, but that has little to do with fashion.

It is pretty funny how you continue to bring up timekeeping as if you believe that matters.

Your examples are not really strong. Most cars have digital clocks, exam halls usually have wall clocks also cannot imagine plane without clock. I would say scubadivers, parashuters would need it but how many are there? There are also workplaces where you cannot wear jewelery and watches (working with food, machinery) but company phone is permitted or must. I would say that in places where keeping track of time is needed there are already placed clocks, otherwise it is not indispensable.

I would say that it is primarily a piece of jewelery.

> I would say that it is primarily a piece of jewelery.

Disagree. I've been too lazy to replace the battery of my 12EUR retro Casio watch for a couple weeks now and my girlfriend's getting sick of me asking all the time "what time is it". When I'm walking around outside or when on my bicycle, pulling my phone out of my pocket to check the time is a pain. When I'm in the shower I really want to know the time to the minute cause I know I have to leave the house at exactly 7:30.

So I would put you with scubadivers and parachuters so you are special case. If I take you and my four co-workers then it will statistically be primarily piece of jewelery. You are writing about yourself. That is why I described vast population of people who cannot wear watches while working as contrast to finding people who need. Besides I shown that a lot of those who were indicated as people who need watches, really don't need those. Like drivers who have dashboard clocks.

I use it to know when I need to start running to catch the bus. There are not so many clocks outside. Anyone who works outside or spends a lot of time outside and needs to keep track of time will find a watch useful.

And sometimes you need to use your necklace to strangle someone because the security people took away your garrote. It's nice that it can be used that way, but if you think that's what it's for, you're probably mentally ill.

>A watch is primarily a piece of jewelry.

or saying a watch is for time keeping is not very forward thinking IMO. Its like saying 10 years ago, a smart phone is just a phone. Less and less people actually use it to make calls and use it more for many of other functionality it provides.

I wish that Apple would make their phone better as a phone. Calling my wife on her iPhone is a goddamn catastrophe, because she has never once in her life heard it ring, because its ring volume is roughly the volume of a very polite British salesperson saying, "Excuse me, ma'am," and its vibration is apparently made with the first concern being that it could be placed on delicate spun-sugar constructions without worrying that the harsh vibrational waves would cause a dessert collapse.

And I know, I know, it's so second-millennium of me to actually want to call my wife, but she doesn't hear the text notifications either, and sometimes I need to figure out whether we already have cinnamon[1] before I buy yet another container of it.

[1] We do. We now have about six hundred containers of cinnamon, a spice that we use roughly once a year. This appears to be a failure mode of my brain.

If you buy her an Apple Watch, she'll get haptic notifications when you call. Apple is solving your problem.

That would be a valid point if people actually wore unfashionable smartwatches for their usefulness. Their lack of mainstream adoption up until now says that's not the case.

My Nike+ SportWatch GPS is not primarily jewelry. It combined with Strava is primarily a fitness motivation and management tool.

Watches in general, obviously. There's an exception to every rule.

Normal watches are jewelry because they no longer have any other purpose for most people. Those who aren't interested in the fashion part of watches have largely stopped wearing them.

This seems similar to those who said that smart phones were for corporate e-mail when the iPhone came out. The iPhone changed the whole purpose of a smartphone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com