
Why I'm Breaking Up with the Apple Watch - adam
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/fashion/why-im-breaking-up-with-the-apple-watch.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=0
======
clarky07
This article felt very weak and empty. The biggest complaint seemed to be that
other people noticed she had it, and started small talk about it. Oh the
horror. It's an article in search of minor reasons to not like the watch. I
don't care if it wasn't life changing to you. Not newsworthy.

~~~
edgyswingset
I think there's some substance here. My impression from reading it was that
the watch was purchased as a fashion device, but it's still too much of a
gadget to really be one.

~~~
matwood
A fashion item means the wears _wants_ people to see it worn. If people are
asking questions it means the watch did the job the user wanted.

~~~
pcurve
That's partially true. But it's also about how it makes you feel. Will most
people be able to tell $250 Thomas Pink shirt from $25 shirt? Probably not,
especially if the $25 one has good fit. But plenty of people plunk down
$150-$250 for a shirt because they appreciate its feel, workmanship, fit, etc.

------
chasing
For what it's worth, I've been wearing an Apple Watch from the start and have
never been "defined by a talking point on my wrist." Most people seem to
either not notice it or not care.

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.")

~~~
joshstrange
The reviewer was full of shit, I've had mine for over a week and most people
don't even notice and I'm more than happy to answer any questions they may
have even though I'd just as well prefer that it was completely ignored. This
headline is just one of many click-baity headlines by people that never gave
the watch a chance or just want to get as many eyeballs as possible regardless
of their actual experiences.

~~~
omni
> The reviewer was full of shit, I've had mine for over a week and most people
> don't even notice

Do you realize yours is not the only perspective in the world?

------
spotman
TL;DR - The watch is too flashy for the user. It didn't wake up reliably when
the user looked at the watch. The user prefers to unlock their phone to do
mundane tasks. The user feels like the step tracking and health functions of
the watch are a burden.

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.

------
jewel
My wife has been wearing the LG G Watch since October. She has a petite frame
and so it's pretty big on her. Occasionally people will ask her if it's the
Apple Watch (this started happening as soon as the Apple Watch was announced,
long before it shipped), and when she tells them it's the "G Watch" they lose
interest. So at least for her there's not a "conspicuous consumption" problem
like the OP is worried about.

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.

------
feintruled
She mentions that a lot of cool stuff about the watch is moot as it is
generally in screen off mode. A lot of the value in a watch is being able to
cast a sly glance towards it to see what time it is without anyone else
noticing (e.g. in a boring meeting).

Having to do an ostentatious mime to awaken the screen rather defeats this
purpose.

~~~
jewel
I can understand that it'd be frustrating to have a blank screen. It's
surprising that Apple couldn't keep the screen on all the time like the LG G
Watch series has been able to do. I get 24 hours of battery life with the
feature enabled (it's on by default).

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.

~~~
oniony
It would be interesting to see what Vanessa Friedman would make of the Pebble.
It's still too large, as that's one of her complaints, but I imagine it won't
jar like the Apple watch as. And it's pretty nondescript too.

------
stygiansonic
Sure, the smartwatch or fitness tracker is not for everyone - I would never
consider someone a luddite for not wanting a smartwatch or even a smartphone.
And true, for some people, the statistics/tracking does indeed descend into "a
numbers-driven neurosis", but for others it's a great way to provide an
incentive to remain active, even if it does feel like a cheap gamification
trick.

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.

------
hharnisch
> I gravitate toward clothes that are not identifiable by season or designer
> and do not appear in any advertisements I have ever seen.

I don't understand why someone who goes out of their way to find
unidentifiable things would even consider buying an Apple Watch.

~~~
nilkn
Probably because it's a pretty unique device that she really wanted to try.
She was willing to take the risk.

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, [...]").

------
ChikkaChiChi
A person who self-admittedly is uninterested in branding in her fashion buys
the most readily identifiable product in years from the largest brand in the
world and she's upset about it?

It's not the Apple Watch, it's her.

~~~
josefresco
While a bit crude, I think you summarized the _primary_ reason the Apple Watch
was not a good fit. The author specifically shies away from displaying brands
which doesn't fit well with the Apple approach of memorable design+branding.

Also, unless you're referring to a specific bug, it's always going to be "him"
or "her" and not the watch.

------
useerup
The article touches upon something I've thought about - and the reason I don't
really believe in the Apple Watch: A phone is something you pick up, work with
and then put back - in the pocket, on the table or similar.

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.

~~~
chasing
> 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.

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.

------
stephengillie
> The watch threatened to drag me back into a numbers-driving neurosis, and
> that's a temptation I'd rather not have.

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.

~~~
walterbell
Private wearables would benefit from open software that can be customized to
reflect the local agency of the human person.

Replace remotely authored committee nudge policies with asynchronous versions
of your past or future self.

------
random28345
> Because 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 still looks like a gadget.

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).

------
arihant
I don't have an Apple Watch, but I'm using Android Wear for 6 months now -
Yes, it takes a while to get adjusted to forming a relationship with your
watch. But you get there. The bond you form with watch _feels_ to be deeper
and more trusting. That maybe intimidating at first.

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.

------
morkfromork
People are too distracted by my Google Glass to notice my Apple Watch.

------
druidsbane
To her point on fitness, even if I know exactly how much I'm doing and whether
or not I'm in shape I actually do want something unobtrusive recording my
vitals so that I can have a baseline in the future to compare against in case
something truly is wrong, especially knowing what factors have changed over
time and maybe being able to correlate them.

------
tlrobinson
"I do not want to be defined by a talking point on my wrist"

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.

------
freddealmeida
It was hard reading that article. I really didn't like the anthropomorphic
structure of the article at all. So weird.

The potential of the tech is clear with WatchOS2. There will be interesting
times ahead.

------
tomsun
So the writer didn't like it because it's too geeky? She's too cool for tech
gadget.

------
EugeneOZ
Now I really want to buy them. I like when things looks geeky and beautiful
simultaneously.

------
heimatau
Well, that was a short date.

------
ddingus
This seems a fair critique to me, in that the clash between fashion and tech /
geek / gadgets is real. For some people, blending all of that will make sense.
I don't think it makes sense for enough people for the watch to mainstream
like the phones have.

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...

~~~
lam
Interesting thoughts. We're building a device along the line of what you're
thinking. PM me and we can talk more.

~~~
ddingus
I don't see that option. Perhaps you can PM me?

~~~
lam
Sorry, my mistake forgetting that HN does not have PM capability. You can
email me at hackernews.pm@gmail.com, and we'll continue from there. Thanks.

------
joshstrange
> Like, for example, that I do not want to be defined by a talking point on my
> wrist.

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.

