Why I'm Breaking Up with the Apple Watch
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
Generally with jewellery you would expect someone to say something like "that's a nice ring," not "hey is that the new Apple Watch? Can I try it on?"
Of course the latter will fade with time. So if that's her biggest complaint then I imagine it won't exist in a few months.
I thought about it quite a bit before the launch and decided against it. The reason is the same reason I haven't gone for any of these: AW is putting all its effort into being something that it's not (a fashionable watch) instead of being the best of what it is (wearable arm tech).
The watch started out as a utility on the arm and evolved into the time masterpiece or fashion piece that it is today. These 'watches' are attempting to skip all of that evolution instead of defiantly re-evaluating what a modern utility on the arm could be.
I'm personally in agreement with the author but not for the same reasons. I think the AW, Android Gear and what-have-you are definitely going to fizzle out in face of some future revolutionary device, possibly before then: people are going to grudgingly realize that they have a phone in their pocket and that they don't need another one on their arm.
I'd have camped out overnight for something like this: http://toddham.com/blog/iwatch-concept/
That's technology! Exactly the type of revolution I was implying.
The right answer to wearable tech is less interaction. The value has to be in the device presenting you the right 1-second functionality at the right time. (ala notification triage, Apple Pay, and the laundry list of Home Kit integration that's still TBD)
It's possible to imagine an ideal Glass device (basically indistinguishable from normal glasses) and how that could be integrated into daily life. But it's hard to imagine how the ideal Watch, when it's finally implemented, would be drastically different than what it offers now; given its inherently small screen and its physical attachment to your wrist, what could a 5mm thin, 8-week-on-a-single-charge, heavily developer-supported Watch change how we use a watch-like device...and how would those changes compare in magnitude versus the changes brought by similar advancements in phone and eyewear technology?
BTW I know 5 years ago many people didn't wear watches then. I'm talking about the relative trend of significantly decreased watch wearing and buying coinciding with the rise of the smartphone.
How do you know you are wearing your Apple Watch?
Everyone will ask you about it.
And they are all looking for me to tell them that it's great, that it's wonderful, and that it changed my life. And when I don't, they inevitably have a glint of disappoint in their eyes.
It suffered from the additional issue of negative social interaction - some people (luckily none that I've run into) are really opposed to face-phone (Glass) as opposed to in-your-pocket-or-hand-phone. I don't really understand why people think you're invading their privacy just because of an unusual device form factor.
So it's not about the form factor, but the fact that in case of google glass, the camera is pointing on your head!
I think the Apple Watch is really cool and I want one. But I'm very much like the author. I hate being ostentatious and I don't want to wear something that will be very noticeable.
The author was still willing to risk it in order to give it a try. There's nothing wrong with that.
(Also, for me the usually-off screen is sort of a dealbreaker, because it really harms the aesthetics of the watch when the screen is off.)
I live in NYC
At best, they come off as immature ramblings.
If I have something which catches attention I don't want and want to end that line of conversation, I introduce the conversation kill switch. I found it at a garage sale, I got it at jc pennys or tj max. I have no idea what brand it is.
No, she's actually doing the inverse of what she claims to want to do. She's calling attention to herself by announcing how she goes out of her way to not call attention to herself.
Reporters, as if their life wasn't about small talk and schmoozing.
--"Granted, all of this would likely pale in importance if the watch were truly transforming my life, as my iPhone has"
--"And the small screen is simply too small to really read on ... when I saw a headline, all I wanted to do was find the rest of the story"
Those sounds like valid points to me.
Honestly, I've seen so few Apple Watches in the wild, despite owning one I'm more likely to ask people about their experiences if I see someone wearing one. Because it's led to some interesting conversations.
But, anyway. Many of the problems listed will be solved over time. Some won't. The Apple Watch as it stands is, in my mind, a beta-level product. It's very imperfect, but it's attractive if you're an early-adopter sort.
(Side note: For some reason the title of the article really bugs me. Like it's out to make a really dramatic moment out of the fairly mundane decision to stop using a gadget. When I replaced my old phone with a newer model, I didn't "divorce my old phone." When I rent a Zipcar I don't have a "torrid afternoon affair, after which we vow to never see each other again.")
Do you realize yours is not the only perspective in the world?
If there was ever a product that was not right for a consumer, I think this writer has found one...
Personally I love my A.W. I have had 1 single person ask me about mine, that is it. (Which is good, because I didn't purchase it to be flashy)
Also, I think it would be a bummer if it didn't show its watch face when you look at it. I have heard mixed reports on this functionality. For me, it works really good, I never feel like I'm waiting for it to wake up. Maybe not everyone looks at their wrist in the same motion that is enough to trigger it. Definitely happy it doesn't activate while typing here.
Lastly, if wearable activity technology is not exciting, it seems like a significant portion of the "reasons" to buy one diminish. I was an avid fitbit/jawbone user before the A.W.
She wears it because it's indispensable [1] for her, as a busy mother of small children, to know when someone is calling or she gets a message. She doesn't carry her phone on her person around the house, it ends up on a counter or table somewhere. In addition, she uses the find-my-phone feature at least once a day.
[1]: The other mothers in the neighborhood use SMS to ask her to send their child sent home if they are over playing and it's time for dinner, or what-have-you, so there are communications that are time-sensitive.
Having to do an ostentatious mime to awaken the screen rather defeats this purpose.
Does someone have insight into why Apple can't do what LG has been doing for a year? Is it patents, a larger battery, better software?
On a related note, I hope that someone will release an android wear watch with an epaper screen. I miss being able to see the screen easily in direct sunlight like I could with the pebble. Maybe some sort of hybrid (multi-layered) screen would be possible.
Higher resolution screen, and more modern (and power hungry) processor.
I don't buy this part though:
“Why is that more embarrassing than endlessly looking at a phone?” my friends said when I complained.
It’s a valid question, but after some contemplation I think the answer is simple: A phone is hand-held, and we are used to seeing people read things held in their hands. Like, say, books. But seeing somebody staring at her wrist (or merely sneaking a surreptitious glance at it) telegraphs something else entirely: (1) rudeness or (2) geekiness.
The "rudeness" or "geekiness" aspect is entirely contextual. When you're meeting with someone face-to-face (for dinner, an interview, whatever), constantly glancing at your {watch, phone} is an indication you'd rather not be spending time with them or that there is something else more important on your mind. The exact device through which your inattention for someone else is conveyed is of less concern than the human behavior underlying the action.
I don't understand why someone who goes out of their way to find unidentifiable things would even consider buying an Apple Watch.
There are other smartwatches on the market, of course, but it sounds like she doesn't like the appearance of any of them, so the AW was the only viable option for her ("no matter how attractive the Apple Watch is in the context of other smartwatches or smartbands, no matter how much of an aesthetic advance its rounded corners and rectangular display, [...]").
It's not the Apple Watch, it's her.
Also, unless you're referring to a specific bug, it's always going to be "him" or "her" and not the watch.
A watch is something you choose to wear. That'e the reason that watches have almost always also been seen as a fashion accessory. And you choose to wear a fashion accessory because of the statement it implicitly make about you (for wearing it). And that statement needs to be highly individualized exactly because you choose to wear it.
When everyone wears the same, we call it a uniform. That goes counter to the inherent desire to express our individualism through what we choose to wear. While a specific accessory may signal that we're part of a certain group or belong to a certain segment, few modern people want to be viewed as primarily uniforms. A uniform is something that some of us accept to wear in certain situations, under certain circumstances. But it is generally taken as something that erases individualism. Indeed that is the purpose of a uniform.
There is a risk that the Apple Watch will be viewed as a uniform - something that signals lack of individuality rather than ideals about independence and confidence. If Apple Watch become something that is perceived to be worn by people who are seeking acceptance from belonging to some imaginary club, it becomes a uniform. And a uniform will be shunned by the fashion-aware who want to express ideals such as individualism, confidence and freedom.
This is why Apple's being pretty aggressive with the selection of watchbands and metals on the device itself. Right now the fashion side of the Watch is being hindered by technical constraints: It's got to be kind of thick and bulbous just to contain all the guts and battery. Apple will slim it down to just a thin screen given a few years. It'll probably still be rectangular, but the watchbands will be what people see more than anything. And there will be a million options for individuality.
People individualize their iPhones pretty well with cases and lock screen backgrounds. They'll do similar things with watchbands and watch faces.
This is why I stopped using MyFitness, and I stick to rather unobtrusive pedometer apps for my phone. My personality has a very strong rebellious streak, and the phone becomes a parent-by-proxy, scolding me for not doing what it (or society) told me to do.
Replace remotely authored committee nudge policies with asynchronous versions of your past or future self.
Which is why I wear a Moto 360 with a metal band. Because it looks like a watch. And it's not a conversation starter unless someone sees me using voice control (it's pretty good at picking up commands sotto voice, but I still look like a fed talking to a microphone in my sleeve).
The author gave up a great device because of peer pressure, and came online to rant about it. Yes, it does start conversations, people ask you what is it that you're wearing. That problem would be slimmer with Apple Watch than Android Wear.
So what? It's an amazing experience to own a smartwatch. And people are genuinely excited about your new gadget, not judging on you. From my experience, they really want to know, and find out how I got one.
It is not yet a fashion statement, but the upsides outweigh the downsides.
Meh, this won't be an issue in a few months, depending where you're located. In San Francisco, for example, Apple Watches are not a rare sight, so it's unlikely to prompt conversation. It happens to me maybe once or twice a week.
The potential of the tech is clear with WatchOS2. There will be interesting times ahead.
Take some of the commentary below as just my own idle thoughts, fantasy as to what might actually make sense. We aren't there yet, but we are close to taking some steps...
For me personally, it's compelling as an advance in what a watch can do. Of course, I was the geek back when I wore watches too. Had multi-function ones, and the best features were solar, with sensor to display light level (rare Seiko), and the variety of increment timers, alarms, and such. Had a calculator one for a while too. Used it a lot.
Some of those have aged well. I've an old Seiko that just screams "80's era peak digital tech", and it's beautiful. Machined case, reasonable display, nice band, etc... Once in a while, I'll wear it for fashion today. I no longer care about the functionality.
When I got past the simple pager and decided to carry a phone, I realized I don't like a lot of personal tech dependency. Having a phone and a watch, along with other potential things to carry around was too much. Something had to go, and that thing was the watch.
I've also realized the real appeal of wearables to me would be some sort of other interface, sci-fi at present (I think), where I can interact without looking at the thing somehow. It having a display is nice, but as a primary use case, not attractive to me anymore. I've a phone for that, and my Note 4 is a powerful phone! There are days when it's my only computing device, and I'm very happy about that development.
Someday, when the wearable can interact on a more personal level, say by stimulating nerves, or doing some other kind of thing, I see the potential for that private comms channel being really useful. Maybe meet somebody, query the phone for some info, get it, and all the while being able to engage them personally without having to pull out some tech, or interact with a thing they can see. Or maybe, it can notify me when somebody I really need / want to interact with enters the room, or is present via some other means. Maybe I could just quietly ask for help too, a 911 call without announcing it's been made.
To me, that's where wearable needs to go; otherwise, why not just have it on the phone where every other thing is?
Long ago, I learned morse code for a HAM radio license. Honestly, if I could get a wearable that would pulse to me at some reasonable rate, and I could pulse back at some reasonable rate, it would be enough to be super useful with the right software. Think text / command line type interface, with some data ending up on the display for various reasons too. Yes, this idea is primitive, and not something most ordinary people would find appealing, but I can't shake it due to my own experiences.
For people who have mastered morse, they can take it in nearly any form. Blinking lights, sound, vibration, taps on the shoulder, whatever. It just works, and they get 30-60 words per minute doing that. I've been around these people, say at a camp fire or some other event, and they literally are following a conversation via a blinking light nobody else there is aware of. I got a sense of what it would be like to be deaf, and found that potential compelling. The idea of having a comms channel with a device like that, personal, private, non intrusive to other interactions is where things become part of us, not just some thing mounted for handy interaction.
Using a watch still takes my sight, and sometimes my sound, and my hands. Using a watch with voice interaction is cool in some contexts, like when I'm using my hands, but not so cool in a social context, where using hands can work because one is speaking, etc... It's all a distraction, or rude, or public. Besides, a phone can do that stuff now.
And in that sense, forget the wrist! Just gimme something I can interact with on a more basic level, and I'll gladly learn that technique just as I did code, and would use it frequently enough to be worth the bother... or more realistically, the implant or whatever it takes to make it happen.
On that note, a friend has the little magnet implanted in their finger. It was done in a bio-compatable way, and they've had it for a long time. You can simulate this by wrapping a small, strong magnet in tape around a finger, or some other part of the body. It only takes a little while for your body to self-identify with this new thing, and it becomes a sense quickly. Feeling fields, invokes visuals much like thinking about things does. The minds eye opens up a little. This experience was compelling enough to make me very seriously consider getting one. No joke.
Say that magnet was in the wrist, or near it, just as a point of discussion for how intimate tech could work?
Now, that watch can communicate a lot of things, and do so quickly. Vibrate, pulse, low frequency, high frequency... those all become distinct, easily differentiated things quickly. Of course, it's mostly one way, unless it were near a muscle, or the watch could pick up signals for fingers, or some other basic movement... Pulse it in specific ways, and directions / vectors can be communicated too, due to the small motion of the magnet, and how one's mind tends to map that sense point in space and with relation to the body. Think Google navigation with no visuals. Just walk around, and get the nav data streamed a piece at a time. Turn left, go faster, turn right, look one way, look the other, as it gets closer, pulse stronger, etc... I would use something like that near constantly.
That's where this stuff needs to go IMHO, and we just aren't there quite yet. Just having a spiffy touch gadget on a wrist really isn't all that compelling to me, given I've got one that is more powerful, easier to interact with and higher throughput comms wise in my pocket, that I can set on a table, share with friends, and so forth. Perhaps it makes really great sense to pour more R&D into the watch / skin interface. People can learn a lot and adapt quickly. Maybe a light zap, or a grid of things that can zap might be expressive enough to be useful. Now that I write this, I'm seriously tempted to make something and try exploring what can be triggered with a simple metal to skin interface.... and what can be sensed too.
Don't get me wrong either. The tech in the watch is clever, and I'm very seriously impressed with what Apple has done in terms of packing power into small places. Damn cool. Just not useful enough to commit to wearing.
Plus, it's just another thing to recharge. I've already got a computer and a phone to manage...
Ok stupid reason
> But when I started wearing the Apple Watch (the 38-millimeter case with a Milanese Loop band, which is the smaller size with a flexible stainless steel bracelet), it became a subject of conversation no matter where I was: in meetings at work, at the bagel store, at my son’s track meet. It has been so everywhere, marketed to so many people, there was just no mistaking it.
So buy the sport, I've had mine for over a week and only people who knew I was getting it even noticed. I wore a pebble for over a year before so that might have some impact but even then very few people asked about that. That said owning a pebble was made me fall so hard for the Apple watch. Everything the pebble did (other than battery which I don't care about, if it lasts a day I'm fine and mine is consistently at 50% when I go to bed) the Apple watch does better. It's equal parts just better UI/UX and Apple being able to "cheat" by having direct access to the OS that pebble never got.
> Not only does its face effectively span the width of my forearm, but the cool little screen saver that so many reviewers have lauded — the Mickey or the butterfly or the galaxy (which is the one I have) or the pseudo-watch hands (the one that, notably, is always on in every picture of the watch, and actually makes it look like a watch) — is also functionally sleeping most of the time.
So you just bitched about calling out the fact that "look at me I have an Apple watch" and now you are mad that the display isn't on constantly so that.... you can show it off?
> Not that it would do much good. Typing doesn’t awaken the picture. Even when I rock my arm back and forth energetically, it often takes a few tries before up the earth pops. The default position is blank.
I was used to the wrist shake to get the pebble backlight to turn on which doesn't work on the Apple watch but it took less than a day or two to get the gesture down to turn the screen on. This is not an issue as far as I'm concerned. I can rotate my wrist ever so slightly while typing to see the screen just fine and 99% of the time when I look at my watch it turns on. On rare occasions I have to "re-gesture" but I'll trade e-ink and always on (I've seen the new pebble screens in person) for this gorgeous display with much sharper colors and text.
> Just as my default position when trying to read an email or the text of a headline on the small screen involves raising my wrist to near eye level
Are you joking? Get some glasses, you have a problem. I can read my screen perfectly and often better than I could my pebble.
> or, if a phone call is involved and my actual phone is not reachable, talking into thin air. If your children or acquaintances come upon you, it’s pretty much an invitation to ridicule.
Get over it, either don't answer calls on your wrist when with company (sounds like you deserve the ridicule). I rarely answer calls on my watch and only do it when I'm alone and my phone isn't right beside me which is rare.
> It’s a valid question, but after some contemplation I think the answer is simple: A phone is hand-held, and we are used to seeing people read things held in their hands. Like, say, books. But seeing somebody staring at her wrist (or merely sneaking a surreptitious glance at it) telegraphs something else entirely: (1) rudeness or (2) geekiness.
Wow... is this supposed to be a big joke? Glancing at my watch is WAY less rude than pulling out out my phone while talking. As for geekiness again, get over it, it will be commonplace soon enough this is what you have to deal with as an early adaptor. Poor you, you bought a $600+ device and you have to deal with people poking fun at you, get over yourself.
> This doesn’t seem to have bothered the tech writers, most of whom wrote persuasively positive reviews of the gadget, primarily based on what it could do for you. And it is certainly more subtle than Google Glass, though I am not sure that is saying much.
.... The only thing these devices have in common is they are both "wearables" that's where the similarities end. Don't even try to saw wearing an Apple watch is akin to wearing Google Glass.
> And the small screen is simply too small to really read on, so I’ve been more annoyed than happy when it alerted me to texts from my loved ones; and when I saw a headline, all I wanted to do was find the rest of the story.
It's the best screen I've seen on a watch yet and I have no issue getting the info I need from the text displayed or using the digital crown to scroll down
> Besides, the busywork the watch’s apps can replace — handing over airline boarding passes, opening hotel room doors — seems less like an advance than a loss of control. Call me a Luddite, but honestly, I don’t mind unlocking things with my actual hands. The new watches announced this week may change the situation, but I am not sure I have the patience to wait.
Ok, you're a luddite. The less I need to pull out my wallet or phone the better.
> Likewise (and I know this will be heresy to anyone really excited about the coming Fitbit initial public offering), the fitness-app aspect — the tracking of my steps, the measuring of my heart rate, the telling me to stand up when I am in the middle of an article — seems more like a burden than freedom.
I disagree, it reminds me to take a break and walk around the office or if I'm at home I'll get up, move around, do some jumping jacks, etc. All things I didn't do before. Sometimes I'm in the middle of something so I wait till I'm done before I get up but over all I'm very pleased with it reminding me to get up and move around.
> But here’s the thing: The watch isn’t actually a fashion accessory for the tech-happy. It’s a tech accessory pretending to be a fashion accessory. I just couldn’t fall for it.
And as someone who doesn't give a shit about fashion I am on cloud nine. I was utility not some vain attempt to show off I have an Apple Watch. This reviewer complains about people noticing and asking about the watch and then complains that it's more of a tech device than a fashion device... You can't eat your cake and have it to.
The reviewer doesn't even mention things like siri on the watch which I have found to be one of my favorite features and coupled with the advances siri is going to be making in iOS 9 really makes the watch shine. Even now for reminders, timers, unit conversions it's awesome and I don't have to walk across the room to where I left my phone while cooking, I just raise my wrist and ask my question.
Overall this is a terrible review with straight up inaccuracies and focusing on things that to an average user are either not an issue or not a big enough one to outweigh the gains.
I plan on wearing a smartwatch of some kind until some other tech ellipses it and right now (at least for iPhone users) the Apple Watch is the best option on the market.