Hacker News Reader

Apple fan-boy here. I agree with the grandparent that Gruber didn't really make this point well. But:

    > If you look at the features of the Apple watch, they are
    > basically the same as every other smartwatch released by
    > Samsung and motorola

This is basically true of almost every Apple product ever, except perhaps the iPhone at launch. I'll go a step further, and agree that Apple generally lags on features comparisons.

Which leads to one of two conclusions: Apple fans are all idiots caught up in marketing bluster, OR, there's something qualitatively different about Apple's take on their products, enough to stump up the extra cash. And you're welcome to the former of those opinions, but I think it's the second.

Fundamentally, I buy Apple for the same reason I shop with Amazon. There is - to me - enough implicit guarantee of quality (for Amazon, of the logistics, returns, etc) that anything else seems needlessly risky.

I'd probably enjoy and find value in a Moto '360. But I might not. I think I'd want to use one for a few weeks before committing to the cash. But my experience of Apple products to date suggests to me I'm going to love my Apple Watch, enough that I'll stump up the cash sight unseen.

    > there's nothing revolutionary about this, and its
    > functionally the same as the 6 watches that Samsung has
    > released, and will probably be almost as underwhelming

History is not on your side with this one.

I also own some Apple products,and one thing that is substantially different has been build quality and ease of use.

iPods were fun to use, iPhones had enough UI differentiation with things like blackberries to be "different".

the Apple Watch doesn't seem to have that. As a cousin post commented, Android Wear's UI almost seems more Apple than Apple's own UI.

Maybe the Zoom-UI and the crown are it. maybe this will tackle people's issues with usability. But there seems to be little differentiation. I won't argue about it being the best on the market (it might be), I just doubt this changes the marketplace as much as we might want.

This might end up being like the iPad. A lot of people ended up buying iPads, but unlike the iPhone, we didn't get a very large new tablet market from it.

> Maybe the Zoom-UI

The ZoomUI looked terrible to me. After years of huge iPads with only 4 icons across on it, because that supposedly makes them easier to use, the tiny tight grocery fruit pack of the icons looks like a usability nightmare. Fiddling with the knob (it's not a crown, crowns have specific functions in watches) also looks like a terrible time with every interaction. There's so many other ways they could have gone with it, and it's like they chose the wrong way just to be different.

    > iPods were fun to use, iPhones had enough UI]
    > differentiation with things like blackberries to be
    > "different".

These things are true only in hindsight. When the iPod came out, how would it ever compare to the Nomad? How was a phone that had no keyboard going to compete with people's beloved Blackberrys?

    > the Apple Watch doesn't seem to have that

I'm wrong a lot, but I'll be amazed if that's a comment you can stand by a month after it's in consumers' hands.

> But there seems to be little differentiation.

The thing that's really interesting to me is that there's a million different ways Apple could have gone with their watch, and instead they just arrived at an Apple version of what's been going on in Android land for a while now.

Ars Technica recently did a comparison of (what we know of) the Watch software, and the Android Wear software:

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/09/smartwatch-wars-the-app...

Android Wear looks very primitive in comparison.

> primitive

In the same sense that 2010 era iPhone was primitive? It's a different design strategy on part of Google - given the limited screen real estate they want to keep the information density minimal. That's actually a Apple-esq stance whereas Apple is taking Android-esq stance of adding ton of involved stuff which frankly doesn't sound too right for a smart watch.

Kind of interesting to see Apple on the more information-dense side of the UI, I actually think that most of the Android Wear shots look cleaner (though maybe there's too little information), but I digress.

I'm still a bit confused on the ease of use of Apple's UI ,namely the Zoom UI. I'll have to try it to understand.

The fact that this comparison even exists shows that Apple's attempt is not "revolutionary" in any sense of the word: Every Wear screen was duplicated on the Watch. The functionality is the same.

But the main issues with smartwatches are still battery life, size, and general uselessness without the phone. These points were not tackled. So Apple Watch could be a local maximum for this style of watch, but it's not the second coming unfortunately.

To be clear, for people, who haven't read the article, it's making case that Apple and Google are taking "vastly different routes to getting a computer on your wrist" and that "we'll see who has the better approach in 2015".

> And we know that Android Wear kind of sucks. So if they're not that different, Apple Watch will probably not be that great.

that's really the salient point isn't it? Apple's playing catchup, but shooting for targets that probably aren't all that great to begin with.

What part is Apple playing catch up with exactly?

Based on what I saw, Apple Watch seems to me, a lot more than just a notification device that Android Wear is.

Additionally, there's nothing in Android Wear that I've seen that focuses on the watch being, well, a watch. All the straps sucked, we don't know if the time is precise (this is the first thing Apple said about the Apple Watch), and most importantly, none of the watches out focus on user experience at all. They just wanted to be first out.

> What part is Apple playing catch up with exactly?

Existing.