Comment by DiabloD3 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiabloD3 | Hacker News Reader

Honestly, I kinda feel sorry for Apple. Multiple Google Wear watches with better designs and what seems to be more supporting apps came out before the Apple Watch, just completely spoiling their party.

Since Google Wear seems to be the better platform, and I don't own any iOS devices anyhow[1], I wonder when I'm going to start seeing decent <$150 watches that have 2-3 day battery life and use, say, color eInk to get that battery life.

[1]: Compare my Nexus 5 vs the iPhone 5S (which both came out around the same time), my Nexus 5 has more CPU power, more RAM, faster RAM, faster flash in both IOPS and flat out sequential, a higher res and bigger screen, more brightness, better contrast, better performance (in speed/distance, latency, and energy usage while active and idle) with Bluetooth, WiFi, and Cell, and also will be supported for OS updates much longer by Google than the iPhone will by Apple, and the Nexus 5 has NFC while the iPhone 5S doesn't; and the price comparison of the 32GB model of both, the Nexus 5 was somewhere around $200 cheaper.

Now, compare vs the iPhone 6 that came out about a year later: CPU is about the same, I still have more RAM but about the same speed, flash caught up, screen is same size but Nexus 5 is still higher res, brightness and contrast are about the same, Wifi, Bluetooth, Cell performance is about the same, iPhone finally got NFC, but it still suffers from a much shorter support track for iOS updates, and it still cost a lot more.

So yeah, given all of that, I still don't understand why Apple refuses to compete with Android phones.

Edit: Downvoting me to Apple fanboy is not the correct reaction. Google, LG, HTC, Samsung, etc need Apple to compete with them, and vice versa.

I'm afraid phones will stop getting better if Apple keeps going down the path they're on.

I don't see how calling Google Wear a "better platform" than the Apple Watch is a defensible position at the moment. The Apple watch out sold all Google Wear devices sold in one year on the first day.

Apple Watches "selling out" is an unfortunate Apple manipulation (one, as a businessman, I agree with the use of as it is a valid tactic) that does not mean much.

I want to know how many they've sold in the first year vs all of the Google Wear watches their first year; that is a much better metric.

However, the metric I was using as a "better platform" was there seems to be more apps supporting Google Wear than Apple Watch, Google Wear seems to have more features out of the box in both software and hardware, and Google Wear seems to be less buggy.

>I want to know how many they've sold in the first year vs all of the Google Wear watches their first year; that is a much better metric.

The GP is making that sort of claim ("out sold all Google Wear devices sold in one year on the first day.")

Ok, I don't usually bite this bullet, but this is ridiculous.

I never bought an Apple product, because it is shiny or because everybody cool is getting it. I only bought Apple products because they were better. They were better because, they work reliably, have awesome support (infact, they are industry's best), are well thought out(UX wise, Apple usually beats everybody else) and hence intuitive. A shiny pig does not merit a second look. I understand this is anecdotal, but I don't wear any thing blingy(not even a ring), wear fancy clothes, or shoes. There are some of us who recognize and appreciate the qualities I listed above.

I also never bought an Apple product just because it has better CPU, memory or camera. For me, those are meaningless without a well working package. Android might have the latest/greatest features, but we know not every phone can get the latest OS, nor can you get all phones without crapware installed, nor can you find a local store that fixes your HTC phone(or others). Remember when only Android phones had NFC and no body used Google Wallet? Why is that? It is not about the features your gadget has, but what I as a consumer can do with it.

Your camera might have fancy lens, but the end of the day, nobody is impressed by your camera, but only by your photos. This usually applies to any tool. How consistently it performs, how easy is to use so you may use it in ways original, describes the quality of output. Good tools do this by getting out of your way and solving the problem completely. Steve Jobs understood this and hence Apple products work seamlessly. This, is Apple's contribution to society, not cell phone or a watch.

>Honestly, I kinda feel sorry for Apple. Multiple Google Wear watches with better designs and what seems to be more supporting apps came out before the Apple Watch, just completely spoiling their party.

Sorry for what?

Those "Google Wear" models went nowhere (besides being half-baked compared to it).

The Apple Watch sold out its production runs (several times over what those other watches sold) and is poised to be a big hit.

I'll bite: What makes it poised to be a big hit?

That it sold-out in record time? (And for those saying "of course it did, Apple produced fewer to achieve that", nope, it also outsold all other models combined. Samsung would have wished to have such sales for its smartwatches).

That it's already worn as a fashion statement by many stars?

That most reviews have been positive, including from influential pundits?

That there has been no media slashback against it (the way it has been with other Apple products in the past, or with things like the Zune).

That polls show great interest from people in buying one?

That the second production run and then the X-mas period is ahead of us?

When apple enters a market, the preexisting offerings are known to not have existed anymore. Apple is always "first".

Yes, I've noticed that. There is nothing wrong with not being first, Apple should focus on trying to do it better, not faster.

In fact, many Apple executives describe their strategy as "Last Mover" quite publicly. And I think that holds up to scrutiny. Remember the Rio? And I certainly recall pre-iPad tablets. And of course, as cited above, many, many Android "smart watches".

That's because they were usually half-baked attempts that got obliterated in the market compared to the Apple product who went on to become the market leader in its category for years on end.

E.g. the sales of any smartphone before the iPhone compared to the sales of the iPhone. Or any mp3 player before the iPod compared to it.

And serious competitors took a while to arrive. It took several versions of BS mp3 players to get something like the decent MS offering.

The first Android phone was released one full year after the iPhone, and it took it several versions to be competitive.

With tablets it was the same. Compared the dreadful, lackluster selling, offerings before the iPad. It took them 2-3 years to even come close.

I am hoping they will come out with a e-ink display soon to solve battery life issues.

The Nexus 5 is the most disappointing Android phone I have ever owned: poor reception, poor call quality, and the plastic casing has recently broken just below the volume down button so that the button gets stuck always down making the phone hardly usable.

Really? Honestly, I feel sorry for Google in a way. Apple was fashionably late to market, as they often are, and yet the mainstream press continues to ignore Google Wear and treat Apple Watch as if it came first. I'm sure they're paying for a lot of this but Apple Watch is the first smart watch I've seen on the covers of fashion magazines, in articles on watch blogs and on the wrists of celebrities.

That said, I can't say I blame them. The Apple Watch got so much stuff right and was so fantastically well designed (not just in terms of aesthetics but in terms of how it works). It isn't just better than other watches in its price range, the build quality matches Swiss watches in the sub-$3000 range. The link bracelet, for example, is considerably better than some extremely high end watches.

I listened recently to a watch podcast where Ariel Adams of aBlogToWatch - a very popular watch enthusiast website - spoke about how he has trouble taking his Apple Watch off and that his traditional mechanical watch doesn't have quite the same feel now. If Apple is convincing watch enthusiasts to wear it, they're doing well. He also compared it to a Ressence watch (~$15,000) and said that, whilst the Ressence is different in many ways, the build quality and smoothness of the case was very close. This is significant and the Swiss low-end should definitely be worried. Version 1 of a product and they're doing better than many traditional brands.

One of the reasons I feel that Apple Watch has been embraced by watch enthusiasts (although many still dislike it, it has been a much warmer greeting than I would have assumed) is that the Watch is so clearly horologically influenced, with things like calling the widgets on the dial "complications", or the way the back of the watch has information about its materials and manufacture ("316L Stainless Steel - Sapphire Crystal - 38mm case", etc - you wouldn't see that on an iPhone). Apple clearly understands watches, and so they should: the team behind the watch are prolific collectors. Ive has worked with Jaeger LeCoultre, Phil Schiller is often seen wearing a Patek Philippe Nautilus (which, coincidentally, seems to have influenced the hands of the watch faces). Marc Newson co-founded Ikepod, a high end Swiss watch company, and the influences from Ikepod are clear. Bob Mansfield is known for his love of watches too, although I'm not sure what his preference is. This watch was made for regular people, of course, but it will also be worn by Apple execs. And they clearly made something that they knew could replace their Pateks.

Finally, you mention app support - all indications seem to show that Apple Watch is seeing more attention from major/important app developers. Luckily, now that the smart watch category has been validated, Android Wear should pick up too.

Let me also address your final points regarding specs of phones. Comparing the iPhone based on specs is missing the forest for the trees. The specs of an iPhone don't matter, this isn't a PC. What matters is how well it runs, how smooth scrolling is, whether there is lag, how good the camera is in low light, etc. There will always be Android phones with better specs in particular areas, but the iPhone is an overall great phone and that's all that matters. Even if the iPhone had triple the specs of the best Android phone, would you get it? You don't need to worry about specs and stats. (Also, your point about OS upgrades is flat out wrong - Android is well known to stop updating sooner).

Please don't claim that down votes are due to "fanboyism". It's insulting. Whilst I disagree with some of your points, I'm not going to imply you're basically a mad fan: I assume you have reasoning behind your thoughts, even if I don't agree with it.

If you haven't read the Hodinkee Apple Watch review, I recommend it: http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review

Reply on news.ycombinator.com