Hacker News Reader

Comment by bitsoda | Hacker News Reader

Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids sending each other love taps, scribbles, and heartbeats was poignant. While the Apple Watch isn't for me, I can't begrudge those who decide to buy one. I think back to the late 90s and how I wouldn't have met my wife if not for IMing a screenname a mutual friend of ours passed along to me.

The internet, a crappy eMachines desktop, and AIM made this possible. Technically, I didn't "need" my own computer at the time, but it made interactions like this possible. Maybe the Apple Watch will create new interactions that could spark something great between people.

Shrug

View on HN

Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids was probably the worst thing he's ever written. There needs to be an annual 500-word short story writing competition, for best story turning on the sentence "But you both wore an Apple Watch".

I say this as someone who generally admires John Gruber's ability to sell me on 1000-2000 word blog posts on Apple minutia purely on the strength and clarity of his writing. This post was painful.

It certainly pulled my heartstring. It also was the first piece I've seen written that was forward looking about the purpose about a touch interface, and it's implication for the advancement of HCI. Not sure what it was that you disliked, but I guarantee you that an impartial observer would not say it was "probably the worst thing he's ever written." - perhaps it's fair to say it's "the piece he's written that you've most disliked?"

Perhaps we could have a competition here? Some childish teenagers likely flirted by nudging each other, pulling each other's hair to get attention or flicking elastic bands at each other.

Neither of them wore an Apple Watch.

Quite poignant.

(I didn't do these things btw).

>Gruber's scenario with the two high school kids was probably the worst thing he's ever written.

Which is beside the point, since it very well can, and inevitably will, be a reality.

My concern on this (connected watches generally) is the upgrade treadmill this might create. So a person would buy a ~$600 iphone + a $400 watch. How often would they upgrade the watch? Lots of folks upgrade phones every year or every other year. Will they do this with a watch? Will they need to? I have a Casio watch that I still wear that's 15 years old. And an old wind up that's 30 years old. I can't imagine that being the case for a smart watch. Apple and android watch makers are gonna want folks to upgrade as frequently as possible. Just seems both wasteful and needlessly expensive at the $400 price point. Consumerism gone a muck as twer.

  Lots of folks upgrade phones every year or every other year.

I question whether this is the bubble that geeks live in. Plenty of people don't know there are new phones to get until their old one breaks. In the case that someone's upgrading when their contract gives them a new phone, I can see more of a strain, but they rarely think of themselves paying $600 for a phone.

To an extent, Apple is producing the Watch to offset the slowing growth of smartphone sales, which tells me that people aren't buying them as often as you think.

> I question whether this is the bubble that geeks live in.

I have enough anecdotal evidence of people still using old iPhones all the way back to the terrible 3G :)

What we do know is that about 80% of iOS users are on iOS 8 (=iPhone 4S or newer), as per Apple's statistics or this website:

https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/ios_8/

And models older than the iPhone 4 seem to very rare:

https://mixpanel.com/trends/#report/iphone_models

So I guess most people update their phones at least once every four years.

What we do know is that about 80% of iOS users are on iOS 8

If that number is accurate (percentage of users on latest iOS), it seems to have fallen quite a bit, compared to earlier years.

You might be on to something that people are not upgrading as much anymore, since things usually are "good enough" at this point.

If so I'm guessing iOS will then too have to deal with "fragmentation" like it so vehemently has accused Android of being. Interesting times ahead.

I'm interested how long the average phone lasts before it breaks in your pool of anecdotal people?

My social circle sounds similar to yours. I have two phone junkie friends who seem to be moving to a new phone every year. Then a handful of geek friends who upgrade their phones at the end of their contracts, which is normally two or three version numbers higher.

That leaves the majority who upgrade when their phones break. These range from clumsy people who seem to end up keeping up with my phone junkie friends to some people still using iPhone 3's. But basically... the breakage upgrade cycle sees the majority of them upgrading every other year.

Good question. I think we're actually in the early stages of the cycle. Those people I don't think will upgrade for a while are still on their first smartphones, mostly iPhone 5. I've noticed significantly less breakage once they switched from dumbphones... they actually like and need their smartphone where a dumbphone was like any other phone - you lose some contacts and that's it. Obviously, that attachment has something to do with the ridiculous growth of smartphones.

In the time since I got my current phone (an S3), my wife's gone through 3 of them (though all S3s, and primarily through insurance replacement). The primary reason I haven't replaced my phone (as this is my third or fourth "smartphone") is because my carrier changed their hardware policies, making a new phone more expensive unless I move to an older phone (though I could still get a newer model than the S3 for a fairly low price). My particular S3 has been great, while my wife's have been less resilient.

As for anything really keeping me from upgrading, other than a slight fear that the new phone might not be as good as the current phone, I'm really not afraid of losing contacts or anything else. I think I've gotten to the point where the new models aren't really offering a compelling reason to upgrade (other than planned obsolescence as apps get more bloated and OS versions become unsupported).

As for the Apple Watch (and competitors), I think there are three primary demographics: 1. Boomers who look at it as the "Dick Tracy" accessory. 2. Those who like to wear a large, expensive watch primarily as a showpiece (especially since so many people stopped wearing watches when they started using their phones as a timepiece). 3. Those interested in the tech.

Anecdotally, my last iPhone broke in a pool of anecdotal water.

Yes, true. Working in tech, I'm probably seeing the end of the spectrum that updates their devices more frequently.

I have nothing against the apple watch per se other than price. Just a personal thing. But I can't see paying that much for a device with a) a rechargeable battery that may or may not be easily replaceable and b) has tech that will age out quickly (compared to for example just a digital watch of some sort). Just seems like extreme planned obsolescence. But I'll be happy to be proven wrong.

It may be the utility of such devices outstrips any such concerns.

No one in the general populace cares about replaceable/removable batteries, any more than they care about the increasing difficulty in fixing your own car. Samsung gave in with the Galaxy S6, and they're obviously following the numbers.

And every watch I've ever owned has a battery that's just as replaceable as the Watch's -- that is, you take it to the dealer.

I'm pretty sure when this Pebble I've got on my wrist needs a new battery, the answer is not going to be "send it back to Pebble", but "take to it with a Dremel then some epoxy". And I'm OK with that. (And, I've got a new Pebble on the way now, a cople of years after buying this first one...)

Not quite so sure I'd be as happy taking to a ~2 year old $400+ iWatch with a Dremel...

> I can't see paying that much for a device with a) a rechargeable battery that may or may not be easily replaceable and b) has tech that will age out quickly (compared to for example just a digital watch of some sort).

Nor can I, but I'm a Luddite with a cheap Timex and the smallest, dumbest off-contract phone I could find. Given that the $350 low-end model and the $17,000 high-end model have the same battery and guts, I expect/hope that Apple will offer some kind of trade-in or hardware update program. If I could pay $200 every couple of years to replace the non-jewelry bits of this thing, it would make a lot more sense.

When Apple Watch was first announced, while everyone else was busy rolling their eyes at Digital Touch, I immediately started looking forward to using it with my wife. We're both planning on getting the watch, and I fully expect that—even after the initial novelty has worn off—we'll be using Digital Touch repeatedly throughout the day, both as just a way to keep in contact, and as a way to non-intrusively request the other's attention.

Which is to say, I think Gruber's on to something, but I think he's actually understating it with the way he presented it.

From The Verge review, that feature actually sounds a bit painful to use.

I haven't read what you're referring to, but one Apple employee I know uses Digital Touch pretty often (he says he uses it to silently attract the attention of other people at meetings, and I've seen him use it to send doodles to his friends). Why do you think it sounds painful to use?

Verge review calls it "remarkably small-time" and "a weird thing to hype as much as it's been hyped" -

"But here’s the thing — it doesn’t happen in real time. I had assumed that sending a heartbeat meant that my recipient would just start feeling my heart on their wrist like some sort of cosmic love connection, but that’s not how it works. Instead, you get a regular notification which sends you into the Digital Touch canvas, where the message plays back: the taps come through, the drawings draw themselves, the heartbeats beat."

That love taps scenario also required you to have your crush in your contacts. I think that part was kind of glossed over.

Yeah, and hopefully weren't using an Android device?

People are already literally using your smartphone platform as a dating filter: https://medium.com/message/its-kind-of-cheesy-being-green-2c...

I'm kinda harping on the difference between us and the general population in this whole thread, as some HNers don't get it, but I don't blame them - the behavior of other demographics constantly amazes me. We'd do well to observe more.

I see digital touch as "the killer app". The reason for this is communicating with my wife will be much easier. I think contextual based communication can be really powerful, for example coming home with a huge box of stuff from Costco it would be nice to be able to tap on the watch to get her attention to open the door for me as she does not always hear the knock and I'm there fumbling with my keys while trying not to drop the box. (or maybe get a smart door lock that is activated by the watch) This happens on a weekly basis and is just one example of the many ways that it'll make communication more seamless.

Or maybe get a smart door lock that is activated by your phone, and save $400.

I mean, I kid. But I think that you're overestimating the amount of truly useful stuff that you can do where the only input is a tap or two and contextual environmental information, versus the truly useful stuff you can do with no taps and contextual environmental information.

Or just put the box down, open the door, pick up the box again

:-\

I had actually thought of visually or audio impaired people being able to chat. Maybe that was in the keynote?

What's cool, is that it would allow visually and audio impaired people being able to chat.

I can already see how this might be useful in meetings with people who know morse code. :-)

Really, it made me cringe. I can't imagine being fond of the feature.

Two high school kids each with a $400 watch. It may be poignant[1], but it won't be common.

[1]It could also be eye-roll-worthy bourgeois douchebaggery depending on your socio-economic perspective.

How many high school kids have iPhones? Isn't it millions? I would not be surprised that huge numbers will have a $400 (or more) Apple Watch.

Now if that happens, it might be a sad commentary on the allocation of resources in our society - globally. But if the Apple Watch is successful, I would be surprised if it isn't common (>20% adoption) in thousands of USA high schools and lots of other high schools around the globe.

I would imagine high school ownership rate could well be higher than overall society ownership rate. Though I'll admit that is just a wild guess by a uniformed individual on this matter.

How many high school kids have iPhones? Isn't it millions?

Yes, but cellphones are different - family plans, paid for by parents, will often get a free iPhone 5C or whatever.

Kids also get hand-me-down technology from parents. Dad buys a watch now. Two years later he upgrades to the new model and gives his old watch to his 16-year-old kid.

You're still paying for the phone when it's "free".

While this is true, most people don't realise it. I often hear people saying they have a free upgrade to use, but haven't got around to it so may get something for a child. Or even get something free and sell it on Ebay... nuts I know!

If you're paying for the same plan regardless of whether you upgrade, then it is nuts not to get a free upgrade.

Sort of true - if you are on a plan, and you are going to have to pay the same amount regardless of whether you get a free phone, then the phone effectively is "no extra charge."

I agree with you - people should differentiate between "free" (as in air, I don't have to pay anything and I can have as much as I want) versus "no extra charge" (as in, I have to pay a bunch of money for something, but then can get (usually 1) of something without paying any more.

Yes, but you're not paying $400 upfront. Psychology is important.

Wait a year for Watch 2.0 and see how many kids get the earlier version.

Iphones and smartphones in general are subsidized , Apple Watches are not.

A $400 watch _and_ a $?00 iPhone (possibly on monthly payments). Still, I think and somewhat fear it may become more common than both of us think.

There is a huge group of users that put a high value on continuous connectivity.

For the high school kid, a limiting factor may be that schools will forbid them from wearing a watch in class.

Could go the other way. Would you bet against Apple already having people pushing iWatches and HealthKit/ResearchKit data as being mandatory parts of sports training? They _know_ the nerds are going to buy smart watches, but quite likely Android Wear or Pebble ones. If you wanna make expensive Apple ones cool, make sure every football player has one on his wrist, and all their girlfriends are giggling away in class getting "touched" by them. then see how the school administration goes trying to ban them...

Since the iPhone and watch have a tight coupling I wouldn't be surprised to possibly see the iPhone and watch get bundled together in the current subsidized phone carrier services.

Maybe in Palo Alto.

> You’re 16.

And you, and your crush, each have both an iPhone, and an Apple Watch, both charged, both connected to the internet.

> You’re in school. You’re sitting in class.

Do, or will, many high schools actually allow students to use smartwatches while in class?

> You have a crush on another student — you’ve fallen hard. ... You’re afraid to just come right out and ask, verbally — afraid of the crushing weight of rejection.

But I assume you already have this crush's phone number or information in your contacts to send them a heartbeat or drawing?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com