
Apple Watch Adoption - shawndumas
https://david-smith.org/blog/2018/03/14/apple-watch-series-3-adoption/
======
taylodl
I don't care about your problems as a developer. As a consumer I expect a
watch to last 5-10 years. As a developer working in the consumer space you
need to get out of the mindset that everyone is replacing everything every 2-3
years. That's neither reasonable nor sustainable.

~~~
scarface74
I use a 10 year old Dell Core 2 Duo 2.66Ghz laptop with 4GB of RAM, a
1920x1200 display as a Plex Server running Windows 10 and it only feels when I
run too many things at once but that could be alleviated by putting in another
4GB of RAM.

It's a 10 year old computer that can take full advantage of my gigabit home
internet connection (940Mbps up and down) - something only dreamed about 10
years ago - can run the latest OS and can be upgraded to have the same amount
of RAM as most computers that are sold today.

In 2008, a 10 year old computer would have probably had these specs and be
unusable as a modern computer.

[http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/266641-28-average-1998-com...](http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/266641-28-average-1998-computer-
specs)

 _To sum it up, a decent compy around 1998 /early 1999 could look likte this:

400Mhz P2 64mb sdram running at 100 mhz one or two voodoo 2 cards (90mhz core,
8 or 12 mb EDO VRAM) a 2D card (voodoo 2 was a 3d accelerator only) ATA-2 HD_

In 1998 a 10 year old computer would have been less usable.

How fast improvements come to the smart watch will slow down in time but it's
a brand new product.

~~~
laumars
I get your point but none of your comparisons fit:

o Your Plex system is a home server, which have always typically been lower
powered desktops even 10 year ago (I know because I was building home servers
back then. In fact 10 years ago I was running ZFS off an old desktop PC with
some really budget consumer RAID controllers)

o and you're comparing that to a gaming machine which are systems which are
typically at the higher end of spectrum). To put things into perspective, in
1999 I most certainly did not have a 3D accelerator. Yet I was still using my
computer for software development and web development (including, by the way,
3D markup via VRML). In fact I don't think I even had a P2 considering my
upgrade a few years later was to Celeron. I have a feeling my '98 PC was a
Cyrix.

o It was really common even in the 90s to run old PCs. Even in 1995 I was
still seeing 386s and even the occasional 286 in use running Windows 3.x.

o Lastly you cannot really compare a watch to a PC. Sure, smart watches are
basically just computers these days; but the point the OP was making was
peoples expectations are different for watches. I mean we have digital watches
from the 80s that still work as well today as they ever have done, yet smart
watches made 2 years ago are already junk. Before people comment on the
difference in tech, yes I already know. But that's not the point. The point is
people's expectations - which frankly I think are more than reasonable. If
there's anything we have learned in the last 20 years it's how to futureproof
our products.

~~~
scarface74
_Your Plex system is a home server, which have always typically been lower
powered desktops even 10 year ago_

The Plex Server has to transcode all types of formats to H.264 in real time.
My old 2006 Core Duo 1.66Ghz Mac couldn't handle it. It is still being used by
my parents running Windows 7. I also tried using a 2Ghz Pentium Dual Core.

* (I know because I was building home servers back then. In fact 10 years ago I was running ZFS off an old desktop PC with some really budget consumer RAID controllers)*

They weren't transcoding 1080 video to H.264 real time in 2008.

 _o and you 're comparing that to a gaming machine which are systems which are
typically at the higher end of spectrum). To put things into perspective, in
1999 I most certainly did not have a 3D accelerator. Yet I was still using my
computer for software development and web development (including, by the way,
3D markup via VRML). In fact I don't think I even had a P2 considering my
upgrade a few years later was to Celeron. I have a feeling my '98 PC was a
Cyrix._

Would you still be using that computer in 2008? Could it run the latest
version of Windows? Could it take advantage of the fastest speed internet that
was available to home users in 2008?

 _o It was really common even in the 90s to run old PCs. Even in 1995 I was
still seeing 386s and even the occasional 286 in use running Windows 3.x._

My 2008 Core 2 Duo can run the latest software and the latest version of
Windows well. Could those 10 year old computers run Windows 98 in 1998?

 _Lastly you cannot really compare a watch to a PC. Sure, smart watches are
basically just computers these days; but the point the OP was making was
peoples expectations are different for watches._

How is a watch that runs a phone OS that makes phone calls not considered more
of a phone than a watch?

 _I mean we have digital watches from the 80s that still work as well today as
they ever have done,_

The difference is that my 10 year old computer can do the same thing as a
modern computer - run the latest OS and software, has just as much memory and
storage (HDD vs SsD) and has a slightly better display (1920x1200 vs
1930x1080). Can that 10 year old digital watch do the same as a modern smart
watch?

 _If there 's anything we have learned in the last 20 years it's how to
futureproof our products. _

The only reason that my old Core 2 Duo is "future proofed" is because useful
improvements have slowed down dramatically in the last 10 years. In 1998 the
typical computer was coming with 32-64Gb of RAM and couldn't be upgraded to
4GB. My computer from 2008 came with 4GB RAM, the same amount as some low end
computers today and can be upgraded to 8GB.

My 2008 computer has gigabit Ethernet. Which is still the fastest consumer
internet connection.

~~~
laumars
> _The Plex Server has to transcode all types of formats to H.264 in real
> time. My old 2006 Core Duo 1.66Ghz Mac couldn 't handle it._

That that's more than 10 years old. Your original point was that you're using
a 10 year old system.

> _They weren 't transcoding 1080 video to H.264 real time in 2008._

Again you're comparing apples to oranges because most people wouldn't have had
a need for transcoding 1080p videos from home servers back then. Most
broadcasters still weren't sending HD streams or had only just started to. So
a 10 year old PC in 2008 doing HD would be like a 10 year old PC in 2018 doing
4k.

>* My 2008 Core 2 Duo can run the latest software and the latest version of
Windows well. Could those 10 year old computers run Windows 98 in 1998?*

The examples I gave were from around 1994/5 and as I had already cited they
were running Windows 3.x (Windows 95 hadn't been released at that time). So
yes, the latest OS.

 _> How is a watch that runs a phone OS that makes phone calls not considered
more of a phone than a watch?_

I'd already address that point as well. One word: "expectations". I don't
expect a watch to be obsoleted after 2 years regardless of the tech it
includes. If said tech means my expectations cannot be met then I simply will
not buy any more watches made by that company. After all, I already have a
phone; what I need is a watch.

 _> The difference is that my 10 year old computer can do the same thing as a
modern computer - run the latest OS and software, has just as much memory and
storage (HDD vs SsD) and has a slightly better display (1920x1200 vs
1930x1080). Can that 10 year old digital watch do the same as a modern smart
watch?_

I've already addressed that point too. Watches are not PCs (forget the
technology and thing about it's form factor and what it's actual usage is).
Thus comparing the two doesn't make much sense.

>* The only reason that my old Core 2 Duo is "future proofed" is because
useful improvements have slowed down dramatically in the last 10 years. In
1998 the typical computer was coming with 32-64Gb of RAM and couldn't be
upgraded to 4GB. My computer from 2008 came with 4GB RAM, the same amount as
some low end computers today and can be upgraded to 8GB.*

Nope. I've already demonstrated that software likes to keep up with hardware.
This it as true now as it was 10 years ago (even 20). What's changed is:

o we've moved back towards a time sharing model where processing is offloaded
to the cloud

o we've learned lessons about security after the mistakes of the 90s and 00s
where PCs were basically just honeypots for malware. Granted we still make
lots of mistakes even now (particularly around the area of IoT where we seemed
doomed to repeat past mistakes) but in terms of actual PCs the groundwork was
put in 10 years ago.

o software development processes have matured and also include better
automated testing frameworks making it easier to detect problems and test on a
wide range of platforms

o Microsoft also got their fingers burnt with the whole "Vista Compatible"
thing on backstock Intels that clearly weren't capable. So invested more in
the future releases of Windows to ensure that didn't happen again.

You could also argue that the pace of "useful improvements" in OS development
has sped up over the last 10 years because more time has been invested in
making platforms stable, secure and performant instead of just throwing new
shiney feature after new shiney feature.

>* My 2008 computer has gigabit Ethernet. Which is still the fastest consumer
internet connection.*

Another meaningless comparison because my 1998 computer had 100Mb ethernet,
which was several orders of magnitude faster than the then fastest consumer
internet connection. If anything I think the state of networking gear has
stagnated because I was handling gigabit switches back in 1998 (with AppleTalk
- yuk), which took _forever_ to reach consumers and still many ISP routers
only offer 1 complimentary gigabit port. Yet most offices / server rooms are
still only on gigabit switches some 20 years later and most home users are
probably on WiFi or Powerline adapters (neither of which will come even close
to 1GbE). So I guess the real question is, how fast does one actually need
their LAN to be? Either way, it's wildly off topic.

~~~
scarface74
_Again you 're comparing apples to oranges because most people wouldn't have
had a need for transcoding 1080p videos from home servers back then. Most
broadcasters still weren't sending HD streams or had only just started to. So
a 10 year old PC in 2008 doing HD would be like a 10 year old PC in 2018 doing
4k._

My 10 year old computer _is_ doing real time transcoding in 2018.

 _The examples I gave were from around 1994 /5 and as I had already cited they
were running Windows 3.x (Windows 95 hadn't been released at that time). So
yes, the latest OS._

Again. That's the point. My 10 year old computer is running the current latest
OS in 2018. A 10 year old computer in 2008 couldn't run the latest OS.

My major point being that in the first few facades of PCs, technology was
moving so fast that to run the latest software, you had to upgrade your
computer more frequently. Now, a 10 year old computer can run the latest
software.

The smart watch and the phone to a lesser extent is still seeing the type of
rapid improvements that you saw in computers until 10 years ago.

An electronic watch from 10 years ago can't do everything a modern smart watch
can. A 10 year old computer can.

As far as the actual usage. A modern smart watch is used for a lot of things
that a 10 year old watch wasn't.

~~~
laumars
>* My 10 year old computer is doing real time transcoding in 2018.*

Yes, I got that point. And I'm saying 10 year old computers in 2008 were doing
transcoding as well - just with standard definition streams rather than HD
(the "HD" part seemed important to you but I was making the point that you're
not doing 4k transcoding in 2018 with your 10 year old PC so why fixate on HD
recording in 2008 when HD was just as new as 4k is today)

>* Again. That's the point. My 10 year old computer is running the current
latest OS in 2018. A 10 year old computer in 2008 couldn't run the latest OS.*

Maybe I'm not making myself clear enough because this is the 3rd time I've now
had to say that I've used 10 year old computers both in 2008 and in 1998 - all
of which were running the latest OS. Like I said, in 1995 I was still
supporting Windows 3.x on a 286s.

 _> My major point being that in the first few facades of PCs, technology was
moving so fast that to run the latest software, you had to upgrade your
computer more frequently. Now, a 10 year old computer can run the latest
software._

And I'm saying that is bullshit. I have first hand experience - originally as
an owner and a support engineer; and then as a developer and systems
administrator - with examples over the last 20 years that directly disprove
your point. Examples I've repeatedly cited. Frankly if I've seen any trend
it's people replacing hardware quicker now that laptops have gotten so cheap -
which is the exact opposite of the point you're trying to make.

 _> The smart watch and the phone to a lesser extent is still seeing the type
of rapid improvements that you saw in computers until 10 years ago._

I've repeatedly demonstrated that your argument about rapid developments in
the PC landscape is completely baseless and given numerous examples why.

> _An electronic watch from 10 years ago can 't do everything a modern smart
> watch can. A 10 year old computer can._

Again you're comparing apples to oranges. A watch is not a PC. Hell why don't
we just compare it to cars and have the same meaningless discussion: a digital
watch is like a small hatchback and a smartwatch is like a campervan. What
we've now proved is that smartwatches have running water....oh wait.

 _> As far as the actual usage. A modern smart watch is used for a lot of
things that a 10 year old watch wasn't._

That is literally the only accurate thing you've posted. The real question is
whether the other stuff is enough to make people want to upgrade their watches
(as well as their phones) every two years. I don't think it is. I think those
kind of people are the exception and most people wouldn't want their
smartwatch to become obsolete so quickly. I think most people see their
smartwatch as a digital watch on steroids rather than a PC. And thus I think
most people's expectations would be for their watch to outlast their phone.

At risk of repeating myself (but let's be honest, you've missed the other
points I made on 2 separate occasions) the hardware is irrelevant to most
people. Most people aren't techy. Most people will look at a smartwatch and
see " _something_ -watch" not "computer- _something_ " like you and I.

------
mark_l_watson
I surprised myself by buying a series three Watch recently: I had stopped
wearing a watch 20 years ago when my didgeridoo class instructor started
teasing me about always looking at my watch. He said that to master the
didgeridoo you need a different view of time.

Anyway, the series 3 with LTE wireless is incredibly useful. I often don’t
carry my phone when I want to be more offline, but I can get email and
messages as needed. Works OK as a phone also. I like that it takes about 1
second to switch between normal and airplane mode when I don’t want to be
interrupted.

I understand the article author’s viewpoint, but why not just write apps that
only support later models? Doesn’t Apple allow that?

~~~
danpalmer
Apple has historically allowed developers only to restrict to certain
features, rather than hardware speed or generation.

i.e. one may be able to only create a watch app for the LTE watch, if it
requires that, but one cannot restrict to the faster models, so apps on slower
models still have to run fast enough to be useful.

Also, I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple don’t allow you to restrict to LTE
watches, as I suspect their view would be that LTE is an improvement to
usability, not a fundamental difference, and therefore apps should be able to
function fully with no LTE. Not to mention user restrictions on certain apps
due to data usage.

The classic example would be restricting iOS apps to only 64bit devices, only
devices with Siri capabilities, only devices with the motion detection chip,
etc.

------
a9a
I bought the series 3+LTE hoping to get a device that would allow me to leave
my phone home when I went out at night. After getting stranded one too many
times when the Uber and Lyft apps both failed, I abandoned that dream.
Hopefully broader watch adoption and watchOS 5 fixes this (I’m not sure which
exactly is causing the problem). Judging from conversations with my friends,
I’m not alone. It seems like “ability to reliably hail a ride” is key
functionality for any technology that hopes to replace a phone in any
meaningful part of someone’s daily/nightly routine in a place like San
Francisco.

------
lokopodium
Not having to wear a watch is the best thing mobile phones did to me. Thanks,
but no thanks.

~~~
gambiting
As a man, my watch is the only piece of jewelry I get to wear - I'm keeping
mine forever, thanks.

~~~
DonHopkins
Nobody's forcing you to conform to outdated gender roles. It never stopped Mr.
T [1]. If you really want to wear jewelry, don't let your testosterone hold
you back. You know you can even pimp out your phone, too [2].

[1] [http://www.blazenfluff.com/mr-t-jewelry-starter-kit-
golden-c...](http://www.blazenfluff.com/mr-t-jewelry-starter-kit-golden-
chains-and-bling-rings/10391)

[2] [http://www.mobiletor.com/iphone-princess-plus-the-worlds-
mos...](http://www.mobiletor.com/iphone-princess-plus-the-worlds-most-
expensive-iphone-bearing-diamonds-costs-176400/)

~~~
coldtea
> _Nobody 's forcing you to conform to outdated gender roles_

Except good judgement.

~~~
DonHopkins
Outdated judgementalism.

~~~
coldtea
Out of date doesn't mean stale or bad, just that it's not the fashion du jour.

People should think better than using categories like "outdated".

Or "judgementalism" for that matter. Not sure when being able to judge things
(a prerequisite for not going through life blindly) went out of fashion.

------
pmarreck
So the Series 3 now has more apple watch marketshare than the previous
offerings; that's good (disclaimer: Series 3 LTE was my first Apple Watch; I
like it a lot)

~~~
220V_USKettle
It is being subsidized by several health insurance companies in the US.

It would be interesting to see adoption rates in countries with socialized
medicine (not watches).

~~~
oakesm9
The UK has socialised health but Vitality Health are also offering an Apple
Watch as part of the health insurance:

[https://www.vitality.co.uk/rewards/partners/active-
rewards/a...](https://www.vitality.co.uk/rewards/partners/active-
rewards/apple-watch/)

------
cyberferret
Odd question - but how does one tell which 'series' watch they have? I
received mine as a gift a few years ago, and curious as to whether it is
series 0 or 1 etc.

~~~
tunesmith
It doesn't help that Apple has been inconsistent about their terminology. This
page doesn't even mention "Series 0", which I guess is supposed to be the same
thing as "Series 1 (first generation)":

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204507](https://support.apple.com/en-
us/HT204507)

~~~
wlesieutre
"Series 2" added a GPS, brighter screen, and better water resistance compared
to the original model.

At the same time, they dropped the original "Apple Watch (1st generation)" and
replaced it with "Series 1", which as far as most users were concerned is
basically the same thing, but it has a slightly faster processor than the
original.

I wouldn't be surprised to see "Series 0" get dropped sooner rather than
later. The iPad analogy is a good fit, the very first one is stuck at iOS 5,
but anything newer than that gets iOS 9 at a minimum.

Re: terminology, "Series 0" is definitely not an official name for it, just a
convenient shorthand that feels easier to understand than its official name to
me.

~~~
soneil
It is much easier. There's "Apple Watch", "Apple Watch Series 1", Series 2,
Series 3 ..

So we end up with a classic fence-post error, where if I say I have the first
model, most people could assume I mean Series 1. So we've taken to calling it
Series 0 (a term Apple never used/uses). Otherwise if I just call it "Apple
Watch", you have no idea if I'm implying a version number or not.

I get their problem. "Series 1" is less "2nd generation" and more "revision
1.1". If they'd called it a 2nd generation, they'd overpromise and under-
deliver, which is never popular. But calling the 2nd revision "Series 1" is
all kinds of confusion.

------
whoisjuan
I have a series 0 and I haven't felt the urge to change at all. Is the series
3 that much better? Like life-changing better?

~~~
minimaxir
I upgraded from a Series 0 to a Series 3 last winter.

It's a huge difference if you use your watch for anything other than a
clock/notification machine.

~~~
carlesfe
What else do you use it for?

I also have a series 0, and maybe I'm self-constrained because of its
limitations, but I use it mainly as a simple PDA in my wrist. Notifications,
workouts, Siri, calendar, weather and messages. Works fine though a bit slow,
but I don't mind

Are there really any other uses for the watch?

~~~
graeme
I use it for:

* sleep tracking * displaying todos on my watch face * Creating reminders * timers * pomodoros * step counting * music playing * phone calls * Logging my weight with the workflow app * apple pay * music and volume controls

You can probably do all those? The series 3 will just be a lot faster in all
transitions. Also has connectivity even if you go phoneless. (Though not all
apps work)

~~~
carlesfe
More or less. I do more PIM but occasionally play music and do calls.

I'm in Spain, so no LTE for me. Otherwise I'd bought a Series 3 it in a
heartbeat. Most important feature IMO.

~~~
graeme
Yeah. That is exactly what convinced me to buy. I hadn't even cared about any
of the stuff that I listed.

Now that I have it, I love those features and would not want to go back. And I
use the LTE less than I expected. But I am extremely glad to have it.

------
paul7986
Never wore a watch.

Apple's new marketing push showing health and life savings benefits to
having/using a wearable is pretty compelling, but yet and again I have lived a
few decades without ever wearing a watch. It would annoy me!

If Apple built health and life saving tech into clothing or shoes then it's a
no brainer.

~~~
OberstKrueger
Before the Apple Watch, I hadn't worn a watch ever either. Adjusting to having
something on my wrist took a week or two, but it seems like just any other
article of clothing to me now. I don't even notice it there.

------
smoyer
If the life-cycle of these devices, and therefore your software, is that
short, why bother fixing bugs? Now that I think about it, this __DOES __seem
to be the mindset of many mobile developers!

------
victormustar
api sum articles

------
hprotagonist
This should probably link to the source at [https://david-
smith.org/blog/2018/03/14/apple-watch-series-3...](https://david-
smith.org/blog/2018/03/14/apple-watch-series-3-adoption/) , unless i'm missing
something.

~~~
dang
Yes. Changed now from [https://sixcolors.com/link/2018/03/apple-watch-
adoption-numb...](https://sixcolors.com/link/2018/03/apple-watch-adoption-
numbers/).

------
jacksmith21006
Would love to see the numbers of how many purchased and now in the drawer
never to be worn again.

------
nkkollaw
A friend of mine buys everything Apple releases, and the Apple Watch is
probably the most useless piece of electronics I've ever seen.

He used it for a couple of weeks, but I don't think I wouldn't have lasted
more than 2-3 days having yet another thing I have to charge every day.

Do a lot of people actually use them and download and use apps? Why would I
want to carry a smartwatch besides for exercising (where I'd personally want
something much lighter and a lot cheaper) when I have my cell phone with me at
all times?

I'm not making fun, just curious.

~~~
rrdharan
The other day I went out for a 10 mile run (from Brooklyn to Queens) with my
Apple Watch and wireless earbuds. I was running to my mechanic to pick up my
car which had been serviced.

I listened to a couple of podcasts I had downloaded offline with Watch Player.
Then I switched to streaming Apple Music. About 5 miles into the run I got a
phone call from the mechanic which I answered, to confirm that I was still
coming to pick up the vehicle. I also stopped in to a pharmacy and bought an
energy bar using Apple Pay.

When I got to the mechanic, I picked up the car, and used Apple Maps driving
directions to navigate home, while listening to Apple Music, connected to the
bluetooth stereo in my car. I was also able to make a phone call to my
girlfriend to tell her that I was on my way back and make dinner plans.

So yes, people actually use them, and download and use apps.

~~~
alexashka
The thing I find interesting about these stories is: the 500$ watch, is in
essence a flip phone, plus an iPod Shuffle, in one.

A flip phone and an iPod Shuffle cost me 100$, and a 25$/mo plan, unlimited
talk/text, almost 15 years ago.

Now we have a flip phone + shuffle on your wrist, for 500$, plus you almost
certainly have an iPhone - 50-100$/mo plan, plus what, 200-500$ flat fee for
the phone? Oh, how much are those airPods? Add 150$ to that bill.

The same functionality from 10-20 years ago, should cost less, not more, if we
are to use a little common sense. It feels like Apple's fantastic feel for
aesthetics and horrid android offerings, have led people to believe it's
reasonable to spend roughly a thousand dollars a year if not more, to do the
same things you did 15 years ago for 1/5th if not 1/10 the cost. We're getting
the same functionality, in a SLIGHTLY more convenient (arguable) wrapper, and
it costs way more! This is the opposite of progress.

Before anyone jumps out and tells me how useful their 'smart'-phone is, let me
remind you the most used apps on there are pure empty entertainment (social
media, games), with very questionable long-term costs (I predict an epidemic
of neck and shoulder problems hitting the developed countries in the next
20-30 years)

~~~
brownbat
I've run a few miles with a phone and a shuffle before.

I don't think it's the same experience as running with just a smartwatch.

There's less dread that you're going to drop and destroy an expensive heavy
device if you focus on your run.

I also didn't and don't pay anything near your prices, and don't find Apple's
aesthetics that great, or Android's offerings that horrible.

~~~
michaelt

      There's less dread that you're going to drop and destroy
      an expensive heavy device if you focus on your run.
    

I run with a phone all the time - I just make sure my shorts have decent
pockets. I can get a lot of pairs of shorts for the $400 list price of a GPS +
Cellular Apple watch :)

~~~
brownbat
I found it annoying to strap a weight to one of my legs, or have it pound
against me when sprinting. So cuffs and straps come into play, and the fun of
choking off circulation, all while making it difficult to access any controls.

And again, 400 is a silly price to pay for small tech, but that's not a
criticism of watches, it's a criticism of Apple. Did you see the teardown of
Beats headphones and their cheap components? There are lots of lousy ways to
conspicuously give Apple too much money without watches.

You could get a cheap smartphone and an entry level watch for a third of the
price of some people's iPhones, and if you share my somewhat odd preferences,
have a better experience for it.

