
A Watch Guy's Thoughts on the Apple Watch After Seeing It in the Metal - panic
http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review
======
pavlov
Nice article. I'm wondering about this bit:

 _On an emotional level, you can 't compare [Apple Watch and mechanical
watches], and that is why I don't believe many serious watch lovers (who,
again, would normally be racing to spend their cash on an Apple release) will
go for this._

I suspect that the "serious watch lover" market is one that doesn't really
figure in Apple's market estimates at all. On the contrary, Apple has
traditionally tried to go contrary to the expectations of the archetypal
"serious lover of X" user when entering the market of X.

The Macintosh was not for "serious microcomputer lovers". The iPod was not for
"serious MP3 lovers". The iPhone was not for "serious smartphone lovers".
(Those did exist back in early 2007 -- they were the rare people who actually
knew how to install stuff on their geeked-out Nokia N95 devices, or were in
love with the BlackBerry keyboard. They hated the iPhone almost unanimously.)

Personally I'm not going to get a smartwatch because I hate interruptions. I
hate OS X notifications; I hate it when the phone rings; I hate reading
Twitter (but it's an addiction that's sometimes hard to overcome). I certainly
don't want a blob on my wrist endlessly buzzing and tapping away, trying to
figure out my heart rate and mood and generally being a bothersome noisy
little electronic snoop.

But at the same time, I can imagine that the younger crowd wants exactly that.
I think the Apple Watch will be a hit, but maybe about 1 year after the launch
once the price of the low-end model comes down and a few millimetres get
trimmed off.

~~~
Terretta
This "serious watch lovers won't go for this" is debatable. I'm one.

He compares the Patek Philippe 3940G, along with a photograph. I have and used
to wear the rarer top model of that series, with several more complications
and digits in the price. I love and collect complication watches. I hate
digital watches -- I've kept only one in 25 years.

Since getting the Pebble Steel with leather band (preordered and meant to
cancel when I decided I wouldn't use it), I haven't worn the Patek or any of
the other mechanicals during my _business_ day.

The moment to moment difference liberating me from "devices" during my
business day is too valuable. I don't love it. But it changes my day.

Given your comment, it's an interesting contrast: I no longer wear any other
watch besides the Pebble Steel because _I hate interruptions_ even more than I
love mechanical watches. The Pebble's soft vibration and glance-ability is so
much less intrusive than checking a device, I'm unwilling to trade it.

Couple the manufacturing detail described here with the benefit to the flow of
one's day, and I'd argue the Apple Watch is the first digital likely to appeal
to mechanical watch lovers in highly connected jobs.

~~~
cityhall
You moved from high-end automatic watches to a smartwatch. In the long term,
it's worth considering whether people will move from smartwatches to
mechanical ones. If people get used to the features of an iWatch in their
20's, will they ever decide it's worth spending many thousands of dollars on a
piece of jewelry that displaces all that functionality? If not, automatics may
go the way of film cameras.

Whatever their merits as engineering marvels, expensive watches are Veblen
goods that are worn to display wealth. Similar mechanisms can be put into
pocket watches, but that's a much smaller market. Expensive watches have the
appeal they do because they fall on the same continuum as everyone else's
watch. Change the middle of the watch market and the current high end will
look as absurd as a Vertu brick phone.

~~~
mbenjaminsmith
> If not, automatics may go the way of film cameras.

I think you're missing the fact that the mechanical watch industry is already
post-apocalypse (i.e., the Quartz Crisis that started in the 70s).

The current mechanical watch industry does not exist for anything other than
emotional reasons and won't see that much of an impact from another $400
electronic watch.

As a collector myself I think it's an interesting development for the industry
and I'm sure I'll buy some version of the Apple Watch. I doubt it will replace
one of my mechanicals as a daily wear.

~~~
Aloha
I'd not go that far - look at the Seiko 5, which I find more attractive than
most of the Kinetic models anyhow, and gray market in the US, its much much
cheaper, several years ago I bought two identical ones for my 30th birthday,
should last me my lifetime.

~~~
user24
See also [http://www.seiko5finder.com](http://www.seiko5finder.com) (not
affiliated)

~~~
shellerik
Thanks for the link (41 yr old site creator).

I only recently got interested in mechanical watches. It's fun to have a
mechanical marvel on my wrist for those times when I don't want to reach into
my pocket to tell the time using an electronic marvel.

I'm not sure if I'd ever get a smart watch. Perhaps. I actually feel kind of
attached to my automatic. If I stop wearing it for more than two days it will
stop running. That just seems cruel to the little guy.

------
sfjailbird
Am I really the only one to think that the Apple Watch is just _ugly_?

A big clunky square box with a rubber strap. Some dim electronic display on
top. That's what it looks like at a distance. Honestly it looks like something
Samsung or Sony might turn out.

Most of the guesswork 'prototypes' were far more compelling:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch](https://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch+prototype&tbm=isch)

Even the Samsung offering looks better - we can finally do curved displays,
and is there a better place to put them than in a wristwatch?
[http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/](http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/gears/)

~~~
prawks
I've got to say, this picture makes it look pretty good:

[http://static.squarespace.com/static/4fa14d3ce4b08a53fa26468...](http://static.squarespace.com/static/4fa14d3ce4b08a53fa26468e/t/540fc9bae4b00c94d884d87f/1410320838953/?format=750w)

I think as with most watches, it's a piece of your outfit. It doesn't look
good on its own, and it's not supposed to.

~~~
silverbax88
I guess it's in the eye of the beholder - when I saw that picture, it was the
one I liked the least. But, hey, that's why people buy/wear different things.

This article gave me more insight into why someone might actually buy this
watch. But in reality I just don't see people clamoring for something like
this. Although I never thought Steve Jobs was really a visionary, I did always
recognize that he did have enough understanding of the market to see what
people were looking for and provide it better than anyone else. I mean,
digital music, smart phones, etc. all existed before Apple produced iTunes and
the iPhone, but nobody marketed it correctly or provided exactly what people
were looking for like Jobs and Apple. I just don't think people who can pull
that off come along very often, and I don't think Apple has anyone (at least
not facing the public) that can match what Steve did.

I'm not sure Jobs would be trying to produce a watch...I might consider what
Jobs did and think he might have moved over into self driving cars or
something like that. People would buy a self driving car from Apple, and it
seems the market is starting to build momentum.

~~~
gbog
> But, hey, that's why people buy/wear different things.

I often wonder if the motto let's have our own tastes and buy different things
is not just some recent invention intended to help us spend more money. I
wonder if in the past, e.g.in the middle age, people were that much obsessed
by external differentiating assets like clothes, perfumes, shoes and so on.
Maybe, just maybe, this is a vast scam. And maybe without ads and tv we would
be very happy to wear similar clothes, and let other things, more important
things like intelligence or knowledge, differentiate us from the crowd.

~~~
silverbax88
In the past when new fashions were introduced, it really sucked if you didn't
like them, because suddenly that's all you could buy. People didn't like it.
They just didn't have much choice.

As far as a 'recent' invention, humans have been building completely unique
building, architecture and paintings for our entire known history.

------
beloch
A Timex might last over a decade if you replace the battery occasionally. A
mechanical watch will offer inferior time keeping accuracy but, if maintained,
can operate well for centuries. A quality mechanical watch is an heirloom
item, which is one reason why watch aficionados can rationalize spending
thousands on a single watch.

The Apple watch will be totally obsolete and incompatible with everything
inside of five years. It's soldered-on and nearly impossible to replace
battery will likely run out of charges in far less time than that. These are
not heirloom items. They're _disposable_. As such, I don't expect the same
kind of build quality from an Apple watch that I would from a mechanical
watch. That they do offer good build quality for the money is therefore
totally unexpected and rather nice.

That being said, I'm still waiting for the killer app that makes me want one
of these. As a fitness tracker and GPS watch they're inferior to what's out
there (chiefly because the Apple watch relies on your iPhone's GPS). I don't
do workouts with a phone in my pocket. Also, so far it's unclear if the Apple
watch is waterproof, and it had better be to have any use at all in this
market! For almost all other applications, the effort of working with such a
tiny screen and different interface outweighs the trouble of reaching into
your pocket and pulling out your phone. If I want eye candy on my wrist, I'll
dust off a mechanical instead of buying something that will be junk in a few
years.

~~~
bobbles
A rotary phone will be bolted to the wall and work for 100 years. An iPhone
needs to be replaced in a few years once the battery starts to go.

This is essentially the same scenario, people wont care about them being
disposable, because they wont necessarily be using it as a watch as the main
feature any more. (Just like how people hardly use their phones for talking
any more)

~~~
EpicEng
People who buy mechanical watches for 3k+ buy them because they are
beautifully engineered and finished works of art. Trust me, I'm one of them.
Most of us will not swap out our Tudors, our Omegas, our Patek's, or our VC's
with one of these. It's just a different market.

~~~
SapphireSun
The thing is though, once a watch can do more than tell time, the market is
going to expand dramatically. If a killer app comes out, I expect the original
market to get crowded out.

~~~
EpicEng
Well, I just don't think that most of the people who wear watches as _jewelry_
(like myself) care for a watch to do any more than it already does. I
appreciate the beauty of a watch and the (old school) engineering behind it. I
don't want something like this. Just a different market.

To give you some perspective, I'm a bit of a watch freak, certainly not the
norm. Hell, I visit and participate in more than one watch forum on a daily
basis. Mine is the general sentiment being expressed in those forums.

~~~
derefr
It's not a watch doing more than it already does; it's other devices
converging onto your wrist.

You used to have to carry a camera around if you wanted to take pictures. Now
that's part of the hunk of silicon in your pocket. Similarly, you used to have
to carry a bunch of plastic cards in a wallet. Now that's part of the hunk of
silicon on your wrist.

The hunk of silicon on your wrist isn't a "watch that does more" any more than
a device that's both a camera, a PDA, a GPS, etc. is a "phone that does more."
It's a convergence of several orthogonal devices that isn't a phone, or a
watch, at all.

Thinking of the Apple Watch as primarily a watch obscures the value
proposition. It has the _form factor_ of a watch, but it may as well not tell
time at all, for all people will care about that feature of it. In fact, maybe
it's better to pretend it _doesn 't_ tell time, to help you cut through to the
real reasons people would want one on their wrist.

~~~
EpicEng
The problem is that it competes with something that I love. I have to chose
one or the other and, as a watch collector/enthusiast/lover/obsessor (I
seriously love watches) it will never win. Ever.

~~~
IBM
I'm willing to bet that Apple doesn't care about watch enthusiasts who will
never buy anything but a mechanical watch.

~~~
EpicEng
I bet the same, but that's not what we're talking about here.

------
julianpye
We here on HN are mostly looking at Apple Watch as Android Wear vs. Apple
Watch. This article is interesting since it shows that Apple is successful at
completely ignoring these competitors and promoting Watch in a totally
different market and environment, where all that matters is Brand, Design and
Build. No matter if Android Wear is as good or even better, none of their
manufacturers can compete in the luxury space as well as Apple may be able to.

~~~
scep12
Apple wins on hardware, loses on software.

~~~
rstupek
Loses on software based on what? The software looked pretty well thought out
so far

------
arh68
Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a
'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A _new aluminum alloy_?
"that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the sapphire
crystals? Or the _strengthened Ion-X_ glass? As a watch guy, that's what I
want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a stainless
watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the _ceramic back_? I'll be
honest, this reads like a crap review.

I'm impressed by the sweeping, of course. The display looks very nice for a
watch at any price range. I wish the author actually compared some $350
mechanical watches, instead of a $28,000 hourglass, a $15,000 watch too big
for his cuff, a $150 mechanical Swatch, and a $700 mechanical Tissot. Instead,
we get vague, non-specific swaths of comparisons:

> _Apple got more details right on their watch than the vast majority of Swiss
> and Asian brands do with similarly priced watches_

> _In many cases, its offerings make what is coming out of Switzerland (or
> Asia) look amateurish._

Again, no specific mention of better-than-X. Too bad. I do like that Tissot he
mentioned.

I'm quite impressed by Apple's (relatively) vast array of superb finishes:
other watch manufacturers could step their game up in this regard, but they
would have to consolidate their designs. Also, the bracelets look _quite_ nice
and I hope that competition improves things analog-side.

~~~
coldtea
> _Wow, what a crazy review. No mention of materials, which seems odd for a
> 'watch guy' review. I have to go to apple.com to read: A new aluminum alloy?
> "that’s 60 percent stronger than standard alloys"?? No mention of the
> sapphire crystals? Or the strengthened Ion-X glass? As a watch guy, that's
> what I want to hear about. Is it lighter than titanium, or heavy like a
> stainless watch? Is the crystal domed? Reflective? What is the ceramic back?
> I'll be honest, this reads like a crap review._

That wouldn't be a watch review I'd want to read, that would be the analogous
of what we say in the photography forums "pixel peeping"/"measurebation"
review (which, like the reviews you describe in watch circles, all too
common).

~~~
snogglethorpe
Yeah, but I think "watch fans" are quite different than photographers in that
respect.

Watch fans are generally pretty up-front about the fact that they like watches
mainly because they're beautiful/elegant/cool artifacts. As long as a watch
keeps OK time, they don't seem particularly concerned with the nominal
functionality.

I think in reality, many people like cameras for similar reasons, but it's not
quite as acceptable to _admit_ that. Even if someone really bought that
expensive Leica because it's a beautiful jewel of precision manufacturing and
high-quality materials (a perfectly fine reason if you ask me), they often put
up something of a front, trying to emphasize all the ways it takes great
pictures and helps their photography style...

------
fillskills
"Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For" -

Thats what I feel when I hear about any tech company launching a watch, be it
Samsung or Apple. Maybe its just me, but since owning a smartphone, I feel I
don't really need a watch. None I know wears a watch anymore. Werent watches
one of the main things replaced by smartphones. Also, how many more screens
can I handle? Laptops for work, tablets for browsing, smartphones for on the
go tech.... and a smartwatch to do what exactly?

Maybe I am missing the whole point of smart watches. I am hoping its just not
me.

~~~
tvanantwerp
This is my experience going from watch, to smartphone, to smartwatch:

The phone replaced my watch because it completed the same task while also
completing many more. Why bother with a watch (for me, at least, just another
thing to remember) when the phone works just as well?

A phone is not a perfect replacement, however. I constantly have to pull it
out of my pocket, input a code to unlock it for various tasks, etc.

My Android watch has replaced the action of pulling my phone out of my pocket
and unlocking it for basic tasks. It tells me the time, lets me dismiss phone
calls, can pause and play my music, take notes, remind me of things, and
display texts--and I no longer have to fish around in my pocket for a phone
that takes seconds to unlock and navigate through.

As the smartphone replaced a repetitive task (remembering to wear my watch),
the smartwatch replaces another repetitive task (wrestling with a phone stuck
in my pocket).

~~~
enlightenedfool
yeah...people somehow manage to justify buying anything that apple makes. And
nothing wrong with that, just interesting observation.

~~~
icebraining
Apple makes Android watches, now?

------
MCRed
Apple is historically the kind of company that says "you can have it in any
color you like, so long as it's black" for new products... and then when the
product has been around for awhile, they start accessorizing it.

The iPhone is a good example: it wasn't until last year that you could have
more than 2 versions (black and white)... and the 5c added many possible
combinations with the off color cases. That's a product that had been on the
market 6 years at that point!

So, actually offering all these different variations is quite a departure for
them.

One argument for the Beats acquisition I heard was that Beats did this as
well- they had many SKUs and many color combinations for each model of
headphone and the argument went that managing selling a product line like that
took a lot of special skill.

I wonder if this is the thing that Apple was really buying with Beats? (or
more realistically, a big part of Beats value to Apple.)

~~~
r00fus
Another explanation for color choices - the austere Jobs is no longer at the
helm, it's Tim Cook, and Tim clearly wants to steer Apple into the fashion
market - he recently hired many top execs from fashionable brands. Beats
acquisition ties in as well - wearing Beats is more a fashion statement more
than a technical selection.

~~~
nl
I remember the shock and lust the original coloured iMac was greeted with.
That was the first comeback Jobs hit.

Jobs was fine with colors.

~~~
lord_quas
Also the iPod minis.

~~~
tlrobinson
Don't forget these guys:
[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lCcb-07Pmcc/TwXJDjDeNJI/AAAAAAAACF...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-lCcb-07Pmcc/TwXJDjDeNJI/AAAAAAAACFs/Zup0sci6-_M/s1600/KeynoteScreenSnapz001.png)

------
balloot
My issue with the watch is the crown control. It just feels lazy to me to take
a control mechanism made 100+ years ago for winding mechanical watches off
your wrist, and repurpose it for digital control of a watch on your wrist.

Is it possible that the best possible UX solution for winding a mechanical
watch and controlling a digital OS is exactly the same? Perhaps. But that
seems improbable to me. It's hard to know until the thing is out in the wild,
but I would expect a lot of people fiddling awkwardly with the top half of
that tiny little dial as the bottom of the dial digs into their wrist. Doesn't
seem terribly fun.

Or to look at it differently, both of Apple's other consumer hits (iPod,
iPhone) introduced a navigation interface that was completely novel and way
better than anything else on the market (iPhone => finger navigated multi-
touch screen, iPod => rotary dial). A crown on a watch is definitely not
novel, and I'm thoroughly skeptical it will be way better than its
competition.

That being said, it's unlikely that this thing bombs. But as a test of
innovation post-Steve, I'm just not seeing it. And over time, the luster of
Apple will fade if there's no innovation.

~~~
MBCook
The control mechanism that's lasted over 100 years obviously works well. We
are not too far into the touchscreen era, and when the thing is only 1 inch on
each side the touchscreen isn't going to work especially well.

Someone made a mockup a week or two ago that used the ring around normal watch
face as an input mechanism. I actually thought that was kind of a neat idea.
I'd kind of like to see one of the Android watchmakers give it a try. But it
was more of a 'watch with some interaction' (like the old Timex Datalink) than
a 'smartwatch'.

~~~
balloot
Crown mechanisms worked well for a completely different purpose. They are the
easiest way to set and wind a watch that is not on your wrist. Totally
different use case than controlling the watch's screen while you're wearing
it!

------
larrys
I liked this:

"But for me, it's all about the Milanese bracelet, baby. The fact that Apple
even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not a single other tech
company in the world would've spent the time to make this admittedly outdated
looking option. But I absolutely love it."

Specifically "The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable."

Apple knows?

Obviously Apple didn't develop the watch in a vacuum. And they have the money
and resources to hire and consult with the best people in the world. So the
surprise isn't that they did this what's surprising is how other equally rich
companies don't tend to do things like this. In other words they seem to be
lacking the motivation and creativity to even hire the right individuals.

------
lumens
The smartwatch represents the beginning of a new era: the unbundling of the
smartphone. Like Marc Andreessen pointed out with his last tweet in this storm
([https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/481554165454209027](https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/481554165454209027)),
"Unbundle X from Y, but then use the liberation of X as leverage to do amazing
new things with X."

This thought framework has me convinced that watch-like wearables have a
place, but I think the fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the
shirtsleeve" as OP points out is a major ding: form is as important as
function for such a jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the
Apple Watch will get /everyone/ on board.

~~~
adnrw
> The fact that the Apple Watch doesn't "fit beneath the shirtsleeve" as OP
> points out is a major ding: form is as important as function for such a
> jewelry/tech hybrid. A 2x slimmer second generation of the Apple Watch will
> get /everyone/ on board.

I agree. I think they will sell a boatload of the first generation, but two or
three years down the track it will get its equivalent of the iPod-on-Windows
or App-store-for-iPhone moment and take off. Everything will suddenly click
and everyone will want one.

------
mladenkovacevic
Here's one thing I realized about the famous Apple "reality distortion field"
with the release of this watch.

The reality distortion doesn't start with the consumer once the product is
released. It starts within Apple while the product is being developed. I mean
they really believed when they were building the Apple Watch "We are building
a $350 device". Wheter you love the design or hate it, it's hard to deny the
effort that went into designing this device, from getting the dimensions
right, to the curvature of the screen and bezel camouflage to the bracelet
selection. This reality distortion field only then gets transfered to the
RIGHT customer who has no problem paying $350.

I still think it'll be a tough slog to get the watch through the early adopter
curve and over the early majority hump simply because it has no compelling
features as of yet, but that might change with a wider ecoaystem. As of right
now, the main selling feature of this watch is the built in reality distortion
field.

With the right offer though it might have an easier time. If you got the watch
for $100 extra when upgrading your iPhone anyways that might be an easier pill
to swallow than paying $350 outright. Whatever the offer may be, Apple needs
to find the equivalent of the carrier subsidies which propelled smartphone
adoption at the end of last decade.

TL'DR: What Apple realizes is that the way to sell their watch is to
communicate to their customers that they want to wear the watch because
they'll enjoy wearing it - no other reasons or features are needed. In fact
many of the truly novel features (payment, identification, keyless entry...)
will only scare away mainstream users. Just put in on their wrist first.. And
show them the true functionality slowly and in stages.

~~~
Gracana
I don't really follow what you're saying. How is designing something to match
its price point distorting reality?

~~~
mladenkovacevic
Because the mark-up on the actual price of producing a product is inflated due
to the reality distortion field. Apple is not in the business of selling a
collection of electrical conponents, silicon and labour. They are selling
admission to the experience of owning an Apple product.

Apple superfans won't wear this watch because of some feature that makes their
lives easier somehow. The first buyers will wear it because they enjoy wearing
it from a physical and psychological standpoint.

~~~
adnrw
I'm not sure your follow up clarifies your point, but it's entirely possible
I'm misunderstanding it.

Are you saying that the only way Apple can sell their products for such a
profit (over the raw cost of materials) is because of the Reality Distortion
Field? We know that they've been working on this for years with all of the
associated costs of designing and developing a product in that time.

~~~
mladenkovacevic
No what I am saying is that the much talked about "reality distortion field"
is nothing Apple specific. It's simply the ability of a company to charge a
higher mark up due to premiumness of its brand.

People don't buy Mercedes cars because of the high tech in the cars (although
that's a bonus). They but them because they're Mercedes cars.

In the same way people don't buy Rolexes to tell the time (although that's a
bonus). They buy them because they want to wear a Rolex.

As easy as it is for some of the snobbier techies to dismiss Samsung's or LG's
R&D I am pretty sure their smart watches didn't come out of thin air. They
simply end up charging less for them because they never imagined them as
premium products but rather utilities. They didn't start with a "reality
distortion field".

------
lispm
A watch which does need charging once a day with a special charger, which is
not very robust, very clunky, with a UI for kids for 350+?

No way.

Apple targets the fashion market. Material might be great, but the form factor
is horrible: big, clunky, ...

Basically Apple tries to sell a very tiny computer add-on in a jewelry case.

Currently I'm only using watches for training a Garmin 310xt and now most of
the time a Suunto Ambit2 S. The latter is the more modern and it does the
training stuff very well. I can swim with it, it has GPS and it has very good
heart rate monitoring functionality (it gets the oxygen consumption and energy
using heart rate variability data).

For Apple I would hope that the new Apple Watch is the equivalent of the first
iPhone, which also wasn't very good on the hardware level (slow, limited
connectivity, ...).

~~~
solnyshok
How is Ambit 2S at monitoring HR in water? Don't you need the strap for this?

~~~
zimpenfish
From the canonical source of all questions fitness watch related:
[http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/04/suunto-
ambit2-review.html](http://www.dcrainmaker.com/2013/04/suunto-
ambit2-review.html)

> Note that the ANT and ANT+ transmission protocols that the Ambit2 utilizes
> to transmit heart rate don’t transmit well underwater (about 1-2”), thus,
> you won’t get any heart rate data.

I believe Polar's ultrasonic sound transmission is still the only one which
works reliably underwater.

------
grecy
Great article and photos.

 _Imagine a man who grew up in the middle class, went do a decent school, got
an okay job, lives in a nice apartment in some metropolitan town, maybe drives
a German car and occasionally splurges on something nice for himself. Do you
see him wearing the Apple Watch? I don 't._

I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to
that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20
year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget
to connect to it and play with.

 _Market Leader In A Category No One Really Asked For_

Which is _exactly_ what the iPad was. _Everybody_ said it was stupid and
nobody would buy it, and now the sales figures speak for themselves.

~~~
_red
>I honestly don't think Apple are too concerned about not selling a watch to
that man. The watch is targeted at the hundreds of millions of teens and 20
year olds that are already attached to their iPhone, and want another gadget
to connect to it and play with.

You are exactly right, which is why this is so worrying from an investment
perspective.

No matter if you like it or not, the wealthy drive fashion and taste. The
reason why we think of BMW, Porsche, Ferrari's as "luxury" is primarily
because the rich buy them.

No stock trader is going to trade his Philippe Patek for a $350 watch that his
pool-boy wears.

This is something that is not getting talked about. No one buys watches to
tell time. They are almost exclusively used as status symbols.

This is the miscalculation in Apple's plan. No one needs a watch anymore.
Trying to make one relevant for a purpose _other_ than status symbol is going
to be tough.

They should've made a "smart band" that connects to any watch face. That
would've been a clever strategy.

~~~
lukeqsee
> No one buys watches to tell time.

I do. I don't go anywhere without my watch (I have two, in fact). I purchased
a $300 watch (after numerous Timex watches dying in a year) in high school
that I've worn daily for 5+ years; I don't see that changing anytime soon. I
hate pulling out my phone just to check the date / time—I always get
distracted by something. If I need the time or date quickly, I look at my
wrist.

~~~
Anderkent
And if that was the only reason you had a watch, you'd have a $5 casio.

------
seanflyon
Interesting that he assumes all the strap options are available at the
"starting price" of $350.

~~~
knodi123
To a guy who own an hourglass that cost more than my prius, I suspect that all
of the options for the apple watch are so negligibly priced as to be "free".

~~~
seanflyon
He specifically states that the straps are unusually high quality for the $350
price point.

------
jasonwilk
Good article. I really agree with his comment:

"It's directly competing for the same real estate (i.e wrist), where as if we
had seen a bracelet of some kind announced yesterday, those early adapters,
myself included, would be begging Apple to take their pre-pre-pre-order"

I really did want the apple watch to be more of a bracelet and something that
could be complimentary to an analog watch with all the messaging,
notification, health aspects in tact. More than anything, the health tracking
seems to be the most relevant for myself, and for that, I see a JawBone Up or
something comparable that I can rest next to my analog watch as a potentially
better option.

The design is brilliant, it's just not for me. However, iPhone 6 looks great
so not like Apple won't be taking my money :)

------
cnbuff410
I'm sure the author is very knowledgeable on the watch industry and by no
means I'm challenging his taste and feel of fashion.

I'm just curious that when he made claim of "The Apple Watch is by far the
best smartwatch", what is this claim based on? Did he try all the other high
end smart watch like Moto 360 or G watch R? If not, is it really fair to make
a strong public claim like this?

~~~
to3m
A watch is more jewellery than timekeeping appliance. Appearance and
provenance/authenticity seem key. (You can tell this is the case, because
people will spend thousands of dollars on wind-up watches that stop telling
the time entirely after 2 days or whatever - even though they could instead
have bought some cheap digital POS for £5, that will require adjusting about
once a year.) And there's not much in the way of provenance for a computer-
powered wristwatch from Apple... so the review focuses, and quite rightly I
think, on what the watch looks like, and how it feels on the wrist.

The timekeeping aspect is purely secondary, since, thanks to modern
technology, we know it will keep the time. My phone keeps the time, my laptop
keeps the time, my TV keeps the time, my fucking _oven_ keeps the time.
Keeping the time is a solved problem.

~~~
voltagex_
There are only a couple of options in your list that's synced to a reasonable
timekeeping source - keeping _accurate_ time is something we only solved
"recently"*

*Although, in the US, wasn't there a timekeeping radio broadcast?

~~~
mosheroperandi
There still is:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWVB)

I remember having a cheap Timex in the mid 2000s that synced off this. I found
it a great improvement to the watch experience; my synchronization source of
choice before that was a wall clock also powered off that same signal. I also
have vague memories of a phone number you could call to get the accurate time.

------
maigret
One thing the author is missing: the prices _begin_ at 350$. The milanaise
strap he shows might be worth as much alone. For 350$ you probably get the
cheap sport watch, while the beautiful ones might cost a good 1000. Which
makes the wealth argument less strong. But let's see how this comes out.

~~~
probably_wrong
Well, keep in mind the author mentions that he saved and bought an Ikepod
Hourglass, which according to this link[1] costs $28,500. He also posits
(rhetorically) that a 25-years-old would typically want an Omega watch, which
typically starts at $2500.

His article makes some great points about the watch itself, as he clearly
knows what he's talking about. But I would take his non-strictly-watch-related
opinions with a bit of skepticism, as I don't think he's playing in the same
league as the rest of us.

[1] [http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-
hourglass-...](http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-by-
marc-newson-quite-possibly-the-coole.html)

~~~
maigret
Right. I know the Hodinkee blog well actually, and I agree with you. I was
just pinning on the first part of the article, where he compares the Apple
Watch with sub-350$ watches.

------
capkutay
Apple is a marketing/sales retail machine. This watch is just another thing
for them to sell with a high-end, glossy look and feel that fits with their
strategy of dominating the sectors they want to control. I'm not surprised it
doesn't do all the things HN folks were looking for (e.g. requires pairing
with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet connectivity/gps).

On the other hand, I think they delivered a nice product that will fit
perfectly in an Apple store, engaging swarms of shoppers with lots of
disposable income.

~~~
r00fus
> requires pairing with iPhone, not a standalone device with its own internet
> connectivity/gps

Standalone GPS is fine (even preferred - not replacing a forerunner) but
another multi-band cell-radio? Simply sounds like a bad idea - the form factor
is too small to make that feasible or interesting - for now.

~~~
vidarh
Aliexpress is overflowing with Android devices with multi-band cell radios.
Some of them even dual-SIMs.

------
pimlottc
Another site with an always-present header that completely fails keyboard
paging. It is really frustrating how many pages break such a basic function.
Forcing the user to manually adjust the positioning every time they page is a
really great way to make them lose interest and go somewhere else.

~~~
asadotzler
You should switch to Firefox. With Firefox, we take those headers into account
when keyboard paging and everything "just works."

~~~
sjwright
And I appreciate it. But it would be nice to have some built-in way to nix
them. Right now I'm browsing on a MacBook Air 11" which has just 768 pixels of
height. Between the menu bar, firefox UI and fixed site header, I'm left with
a claustrophobic slit to view the content in.

And then I love to browse many websites by zooming in and leaning back; but
once you zoom in a few steps these headers magnify to the point of absurdity.

------
serve_yay
I like this, because it dispenses with the "Apple lover" angle and instead
focuses on the existing watch market at the $350 price point. It should be
clarified, though, that $350 is the base price and some configurations are
probably going to go up to double and triple that.

~~~
slantyyz
Here's something that's different from the existing watch market and Apple's
watch. Most people who pay $350 or more for a watch will wear it for years and
years.

The Apple Watch, as beautiful as it is -- is still an electronics/computing
device that has obsolescence built into its life cycle (I'm also curious if
the battery can be replaced).

Unlike an analog watch, people will want to upgrade to watches with faster
CPUs and other new technology. And if you use mobile phones and tablets as a
model, that could translate to every couple of years.

While I believe that initial sales will be impressive, it'll be interesting to
see how a premium product like this will perform in the long term.

~~~
serve_yay
Yeah, that is a big difference. Dropping $600-ish on a watch (figure pulled
from thin air) is one thing, but usually when people do that, it's gonna be
their watch for many years.

------
drivingmenuts
I know many people who will happily spend $350 on an iWatch who wouldn't even
consider a mechanical watch at any price. I think this watch is for them.

I also think mechanical watch makers are going to wake up one day and realize
their market is getting old and dead.

~~~
Igglyboo
I myself, and many of my friends, fall into that category. I realize for some
that a mechanical watch may be a fashion icon or status symbol but for most,
it's utterly useless. It tells time and my phone already does that.

~~~
gaius
Ironically, when you get your phone out to check it, you're doing exactly the
same as people did 100 years ago with pocketwatches,

Pocketwatches were replaced by wristwatches the instant it became possible to
do so.

------
tlrobinson
_" and in fact, to my left is an Ikepod Hourglass (designed by Marc Newson)
that I wanted from the minute I laid eyes on it. I saved up and bought it
because it's a perfect object, and even those people who don't care about
time, or design, agree that it's beautiful."_

By "watch guy" he means someone who dropped $28,500 on a hourglass.

~~~
ohitsdom
I cannot understand this "Watch lover" crowd. That hourglass looks ridiculous,
I wouldn't buy that at a garage sale. And even with all the things he didn't
"love" about the watch, he still is going to buy one (but might not daily
wear). I'd say that's a win for Apple with version 1.0.

That said, I am not the market for a smart watch at all. I don't wear jewelry,
and my phone already does a great job of telling time and showing me messages.

------
scald
I think the point about Swiss makers being in trouble with the younger
generation is valid. I'm 28, and have always had a great appreciation for fine
watches. This is mainly because I grew up seeing my dad appreciate them, and
many of the people I'd classify as successful were appreciating them. I wonder
though, how many in my generation will teach their children - intentionally or
not - that a reasonably successful individual owns the best smartwatch to
control their Tesla and their smart home, and not a Rolex? It isn't a stretch
to think Rolex could partner with someone to be that brand of smartwatches.
Today, smartwatches aren't competing with classic timepieces. In 10 years,
there's a real chance that they will.

~~~
jacquesm
A Rolex is a complete waste of money. For less than a very small fraction of
the price of a Rolex you can get a watch that will perform just as good or
possibly even better.

The only reason Rolex owners have Rolexes is to show they can afford one. And
they can't wait to tell you about it.

Parents that teach their children that successful people buy overpriced
trinkets are losing an opportunity to teach their kids the difference between
'good enough' and conspicuous consumption.

~~~
easytiger
Tell that to every girl wearing ear rings or a diamond ring or a guy wearing a
necklace. People accessorize. Get over it. For less tha the price of a mid
range rolex you can also buy a rubidium atomic oscillator. I'm failing to see
your point?

~~~
jacquesm
The point is, to the point of being pointless: that you can buy stuff because
it has utility or that you can buy stuff for signalling purposes.

A Rolex is signalling stuff masquerading as utility stuff.

The utility value of a Rolex is approximately $50 (the price of a half-decent
watch that will tell the time accurately for many years to come, assuming your
phone doesn't already do that for you). The rest is signalling value (and in
the case of a gold one some intrinsic value).

I'm perfectly ok with you not seeing my point. In the end the guy with the
jeans and the t-shirt is quite possibly a lot wealthier than the guy with the
Ferrari and the Rolex. (Especially when they're not bought with cash.)

~~~
nzp
I'm not sure it's always just about utility vs. signalling. I have no care for
social signalling at all, but if I had money to throw away I would probably
buy some things which you classify as signalling devices. For sure, though, I
certainly wouldn't buy a blinged out gold Rolex (hideous) but rather something
like a Speedmaster (on which I'd probably put a NATO or a velcro strap), and
certainly not a sports car you can drive on public roads. Sure, both of these
machines don't have that much practical utility, but they are engineering
works of art. Just as some people collect art to show off their money, or
store capital, some collect it because they appreciate good taste and amazing
craftsmanship. It's still irrational but I wouldn't put it in the same bag as
signalling.

------
NicoJuicy
I thought Apple would say: the market ain't ready for a smartwatch. Nobody
wants to pay for a watch that has to charge every 24 hours (or less).

That's immediatly the biggest mistake from the Moto360, the watch looks
awesome... But the battery life is too short :(

~~~
bobbles
I only ever charge my iPhone at night next to my bed, if I just have to put
the watch on the charging stand (or whatever) at the same time as my phone I
don't think people are going to care too much.

They will need enough battery life though to go from morning to the next
morning I would say, as you don't exactly want to have your watch stop working
after a night of drinks after work...

~~~
solnyshok
you do not want your watch run out of juice around midnight, at the nightclub,
or on the dark road

------
debt
In one of the photos I could see a reflection in the Apple Watch of the camera
man taking the photo. I can't help but think that that big honking camera will
be replaced one day by the very thing he's taking the photo of.

~~~
jff
Seems unlikely if you know anything at all about optics.

~~~
bing_dai
I believe one day software will be advanced enough to reduce the number of
necessary lenses for quality photos.. "Software eating DSLR".

~~~
krschultz
Is that belief in any way based on physics?

~~~
bing_dai
No. It is based on the advancement of software that can de-blur images.

For example:
[http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/leojia/deblurring.htm](http://www.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/leojia/deblurring.htm).

------
klochner
The hourglass referenced in the article costs $28,000, here's the start of his
review about it:

 _Let 's begin this post by letting you know, right from the start, that this
hourglass costs $28,500. Now, as you continue to read, you will notice how
that number becomes more and more rational in your mind._

Not quite for me. It's still seeming absurd.

[http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-
hourglass-...](http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2011/3/29/the-ikepod-hourglass-by-
marc-newson-quite-possibly-the-coole.html)

~~~
aeturnum
A lot of the high end watch world is focused on craftsmanship. Think of it
like buying a painting, but instead of oil & canvas you get steel, gears &
springs (or glass and...nanoballs in this case).

Anyone can buy a clock - you have one in the corner of your computer right
now. People who spend this level of money are more interested in time keeping
sculpture.

~~~
klochner
Both watches and the hourglass seem closer to a lithograph than an original
piece of art, and I wouldn't pay $28k for a lithograph.

------
sanoli
I'll bet 5 bucks with someone here that it will flop (as in, won't become a
regular product). My reasons for winning the bet:

-Although it looks great, it doesn't look like a great watch, it just looks like a beautiful Apple product. The thing is, on this specific product, as opposed to all their other products, Apple is competing with an established design lineage that goes back for _decades_ , and wristwatches have _always_ been about good taste and good design, so the competition on the aesthetics front is not so easy for Apple as it was on their other products (meaning computer hardware/software makers suck tremendously in regards to design, but watchmakers are champions of it).

-Extending on previous reason: it's as if Apple decided to go the eyeglass route and take on Google. Easy, because Glass is downright ugly and too geeky. So Apple makes its own beautiful glass, which is still a little geeky, and then they have to compete with Ray-Ban, Gucci, Prada, wathever.

-Short battery life sucks for a wristwatch.

-People already have the functionality on the iPhone, and the iPhone is already pretty portable.

-Short battery life sucks _a lot_ for a wristwatch, come to think of it.

 _edit:_ formatting.

~~~
cubicle67
You might want to define "flop" and specify a timeframe if you're offering a
bet like this

Some suggestions:

* will sell less than x units in the y months after it becomes available

* is discontinued within y months

* will not make it to version n

* will bring in less than $x revenue/profit in [timeframe]

* will lose its link at the top of the apple website within y months

It's also hard to tell what Apple's internal expectations are. They may expect
to only sell 100, or they may be expecting to sell 100 million. My guess is
it's a "feeler" product to guage demand while they work on v2

------
zobzu
Personally I dont want any watch with at least 1 week of battery time with
heavy use.

My current watch has 5 fucking years of battery time. Some are more or less
working indefinitely.

I like that my watch looks nice, but I also like that its functional. Running,
on a bike, what not, its actually much more convenient than grabbing a
smartphone.

What I don't get, is why current watch makers don't make a smartwatch from
their point of view:

a regular watch, with connectivity to the phones, that can do a couple of
things like vibrate in a variety of ways - OK - citizen actually tried that
and it sort of work but there is no attention to details.

You want the watch to reliably vibrate if u get a msg or notification that you
setup. You want it to vibrate differently for navigation depending if you
gotta go right or left according to your phone (so you dont need to grab the
phone while on a bike for example!).

Neither work well on the citizen, and the connection eventually times out,
that sort of stuff. Too bad.

~~~
jvagner
Do you take your watch off at night.. leave it on a bedstand?

How much harder with it be to tap the magnetic power thingie on? Not at all.

When Apple Watch 2.0 comes out, will battery life be longer? Quite probably.

This is just the beginning. If people can get used to charging their phone
1-3x a/day, they can plug their Watch in at night. Not perfect, but I don't
think this is a deal breaker.

~~~
glandium
And when you go on a trip, you have to take one more charger...

~~~
bobbles
Presumably the inductive part of the charger will be accessible as an adapter
to a lightning cable.

There were mentions at the event that the gold/rose gold version of the watch
come in a 'charger stand' box that takes a lightning cable at the back.

------
nzp
With the risk of sounding like an elitist prick (not the intention, and I'm
really not) that photo of a Patek Phillipe and Apple Watch side by side on his
wrist to me screams: This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a
digital picture of a fake butterfly. A masterpiece of craftsmanship, good
taste and skill, side by side with a mass market simulation of those all those
things sporting a tacky, pointless image of an animal.

I'm not an Apple fan but I do appreciate their mostly good taste and design.
However, this watch is hideous. It's the first object they produced since
their resurrection in 1997 that I instantly find ugly. Really, really ugly. If
it was an aeroplane it wouldn't fly well. I wouldn't bet it will be
unsuccessful though, there's a lot of people with bad taste out there.

------
Shivetya
While I have only a few watches I certainly am not on the level of a collector
nor do I own any beyond the five hundred range. I appreciate a good watch but
I appreciate good design and great function as well and I just don't see it
here.

I do not need a slaved device. To me that is a redundant device. If anything I
would love a wrist mounted phone and would willingly give up much of the smart
phone functionality I have now. Simple text messages, voice mail, gps, and
similar would be needed. Full on email, taking pictures, and browsing not so.

Besides being boring, ugly, whatever, the worst offense here is that you
cannot buy it. Apple should go back to announcing products you can buy today,
not next year.

Slaved device, I guess we should be thankful it isn't cable attached

------
LeicaLatte
Looks like this is not a fight just between Apple and Android. So many
players, so much history, so much subjectivity that...

Apple and Android are sure to win! :)

But seriously, only these two have the tech. We never wanted those old watches
these smart watches are being compared with. And we sure as hell are not going
to buy them now!

None of these so called watch makers make phones. Or tablets. Touch screens.
Voice recognition. They are clueless about ecosystems. Watch companies have
managed to have a strap ecosystem, that's all. That's laughable and lazy for a
"big" business. I continue to believe watch incumbents are obsolete. If
anything, this is their last chance to jump onto the bandwagon now that tech
companies have put our interests back into watches.

~~~
kitsune_
I think you underestimate watch makers. The watch industry already survived
the 'quartz crisis' back in the late 70s and early 80s. Companies like the
Swatch Group own semiconductor subsidiaries specialized in ultra-low power
integrated circuits, micro controllers, lcd displays, sensors, tablets and so
on. They also own battery manufacturers and have years of know how in this
field.

~~~
LeicaLatte
Thanks I didn't know this

------
conradfr
My only question with those watches is the screen, i.e does it look like one ?
I have a friend with a LG watch and the back light is annoying.

Years ago I thought digital photo frames were an excellent (and still
relevant) idea but ultimately a failure because they looked like screens. And
screens are distracting, eyes are drawn to them.

I hate TVs in bars, people unconsciously watched them even if they don't care
about what is broadcast and forgot they are with people.

------
hyp0
A specific-purpose accessory _can 't_ be as big or as revolutionary as Apple
][e, Mac, iPhone or iPad.

More like apple TV, iPod, console, kindle. Still scope for a multi-billion
dollar market though.

Just the kind of thing Sony might have made in its heyday, and Apple can
dramatically improve it iteratively, limited only by the wrist-space form-
factor. Replace your wallet (payments, ID, memberships), car keys, TV remote;
monitor blood sugar, home-automation etc.

------
neonkiwi
My thought after reading this—a great product would be an actual analog watch
(quartz or mechanical) with the same styling and finishes that the Apple Watch
has, with a much thinner case, that customers would use with Apple's bands.
Take advantage of the immense design effort that went into the watch, but set
aside the smart watch idea.

I'd buy that watch today for the same price as the Apple Watch.

~~~
bobbles
I wouldnt be surprised if deal extreme has a 'watch body' that will be
compatible with apple watch bands before the apple watch even hits the market

------
cpr
Isn't anyone else bothered by the lousy typography of both the logo
(<apple>WATCH) and the typography on the screen?

The fonts are too loosely spaced, and the screen layouts looked amateurish, no
better than the Android-based wearables.

I know this sounds like a nit-pick, but it's not. It's not like Apple to blow
it at this level. They need to get it right at every level, especially the UI
(and the brand).

~~~
serve_yay
Literally everyone I have seen remarking on the typography has said the exact
opposite. And I concur with them, I think the type and the new typeface is one
of the best parts.

------
Aldo_MX
Dear mankind:

I don't want a smartwatch to be the complement of a smartphone.

I want a smartphone to be the a complement of a smartwatch... actually, a
smartphone sans the phone, like an ipod touch or a tablet.

My idea for a smartwatch is to have the modules that make a smartphone
possible there: cellular antenna, gps, bluetooth, fitness tracking, etc.
Baterry-unfriendly modules like Wi-Fi must be discarded.

The use case for a smartwatch as a standalone device would be the following
one:

\- Connect a Bluetooth headset to listen to music (extra points, if a micro sd
slot is included)

\- Receive messages and answer to them with predefined text (ex. I'm on my
watch, I'll text you later)

\- Receive calls and call to existing contacts/emergency numbers, a proper
dialer is not required at all

\- Basic GPS directions to predefined locations (ex. Home/Work/Gym/School)

\- Fitness tracking

\- Wireless charging

For the rest of features, and to enjoy a proper dialer, proper texting, proper
navigation, etc., just connect the ipod/tablet/whatever to it via bluetooth.

The killer feature: Having to carry no smartphone at all.

You can use the multimedia system of the car to take advantage of the watch,
the steering wheel could have a wireless charging module next to it.

Another accessory could be a desktop keyboard with a wireless charging module.

And at home, you could have a proper charging dock.

~~~
nardi
Man, the sense of entitlement. They can't fit all that stuff in there yet.
Give it a few years, man. It's amazing what they can fit in there already.

~~~
Aldo_MX
Few years? The Chinese already have done it since many years ago, although
pre-2014 models were bulky:

[http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2014-New-Design-GPS-
Tr...](http://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/2014-New-Design-GPS-Tracker-
Android_1780923094.html)

------
hnriot
What about privacy? There's something reassuring about putting an iPhone into
one's pocket. Messages showing up for anyone to see doesn't really appeal to
me.

I ran this page through NLTK's Sentiment Analysis and the the score is
NEGATIVE 0.8, Stanford's never finished!

------
fla
This is not a watch, it's a communication accessory's accessory.

------
josu
If Motorola were able to release iteration 2 of the Moto 360 by the time the
Apple Watch comes out, and make it iOS compatible, they could single-handedly
kill the Apple Watch.

~~~
Bud
There's zero evidence so far that Motorola can even last 12 months in this
market, and lots of evidence to say they can't, like their abject failure in
the cellphone market. Ludicrous to say that their lukewarm Moto 360 effort,
featuring a CPU that's 4 years old, terrible performance, cheap look-and-feel,
and extremely poor battery life, could even be a serious threat to Apple's
engineering efforts.

------
deweller
The Apple Watch looks beautiful when photographed by itself. It looks absurd
to me when photographed on someone's arm.

In time perhaps history will prove me wrong.

------
P3KLb82AhB
this watch is an add-on to a phone when people are extending their contracts
(you know "extend your contract with a new iphone and you get an apple watch
for free" kind of deal) to get some of android base back, other than that it's
useless.

I would not wear one even if it was given to me for free in every
configuration possible.

------
totalrobe
Was the battery life announced? Cannot find a reference anywhere which makes
me wonder...

~~~
MBCook
No, but the keynote made a mention of how easy it is to charge every night.
Rumor is that it's about a day and Apple is trying to optimize it before
release.

~~~
totalrobe
Gotcha, did not see it due to technical issues. Apple brags about battery life
in every other product they release. IMO reviewers need to hold off until real
life battery life is released.

------
sebastianavina
I'm still not sure what kind of information I want to be delivered via my
watch...

------
minusSeven
meh, Why are all this kind of watch reviews focusing on the looks rather than
what you can do with it. Dunno I would be far more interested in what you can
do with how you want to use it rather than how incredible wonderful it looks.

------
_pmf_
The digital crown will snap off, and people will be pissed.

------
smrtinsert
This is the best ad ever for a Patek Philippe 3940G.

------
lazylizard
now we just need a dumb seiko 5 or casio g-shock with a dim LED to do 'less
intrusive' notifications..

------
LeicaLatte
Nice photos of the watch in there

------
marincounty
I think I was too initally hard on the watch, or expected too much? After they
thin it out it might just get younger people wearing watches again?

------
zindlerb


------
Thiz
Apple Watch is not a watch.

It's a computer on your wrist that will be used for special tasks where little
but precise information is required.

It's all about presence, NFC, iBeacon, sensors, iTags, etc.

~~~
laichzeit0
Yes, let's just completely ignore the aesthetics of the device and focus only
on the technology. It's almost as if you didn't read the article and the finer
points about the design of the face, straps, etc. that the author went into
such painstaking detail about.

He didn't even mention _any_ of the things you just talked about, instead
deferred it to another article.

------
mmxiii
I understand how a watch guy would have strong feelings about the emotions and
ideas behind a watch. But I think he is missing the greater context.

When an object has a permanence in utility and form, we have a certain
relationship with it. This is the kind of emotion and relationship we have
with watches. But the world changes, and very soon it will be competing
against a different type of relationship. Our relationship with wearables may
be skewed more to utility than heirloom. But that's OK because wearables
represent the mesh of software with hardware, and software gives the ability
to evolve. We will no longer have the singular relationship with one watch,
but a broad relationship with a series of evolving wearables that slowly
become more and more essential to our lives.

So no, we won't have the same emotions and same relationship with wearables as
we did with watches. But that's just where the universe will be going.

------
Ar-Curunir
This article is just falling over itself to praeise the Apple Watch.

The Apple Watch doesn't look particularly sleek or modern, instead it looks
like someone shrunk the iPhone 3GS and put a strap on it.

The author picks up random watches that do not look nice as a comparision for
the Apple Watch, but ignores watches in roughly the same price range that do
look better?

For instance, look at [1] or [2], both are from Tissot, both look elegant and
classy, and both are the same price as the Apple Watch.

The article obssesses over Apple's decision making regarding straps, but uses
really, really biased sounding words. For instance:

> The fact that Apple even knows what this is is remarkable. I promise you not
> a single other tech company in the world would've spent the time to make
> this admittedly outdated looking option. But I absolutely love it.

Anybody who visits a watch store will find watches with that sort of strap a
dime a dozen.

Further evidence of Apple fanboyism can be found later on in the article, when
the author states that the new iPhone 6, which is not available for use yet,
as "the absolute best offering in the category in both form and function".

I am not implying that liking Apple products makes one a fanboy (I own and
really like my MBPr), but this article isn't of any really journalistic
standard, and yet has reached the top of HN.

~~~
robert_tweed
I for one am impressed by your categorisation of the 1957 Speedmaster and
Patek 3940G as "random watches that do not look nice". You're probably not the
target audience for Hodinkee.

The article acknowledges some of the shortcomings of the watch, but one thing
should be obvious: this author is someone that understands the little
differences in quality that differentiate a $350 watch from a $35,000 one.
When it comes to the points he makes about build quality, I believe him. I'm
also quite impressed by what I've seen of the bracelets, especially the ultra-
thin deployant. If you've ever worn a deployant strap you'll understand what a
big deal that is.

I do not think Apple has got everything right with this, but I'm increasingly
realising they've done again what they always do well: completely ignore
conventional wisdom about what makes a good product and focus on the
"ownership experience".

As with other new Apple products, the first gen isn't very good. By the time
it hits 3rd gen, all the initial complaints will have been resolved. They just
need to find a market in the meantime, which is neither the Casio owner nor
the Rolex owner, but I have confidence the market exists and this will do well
enough to survive and evolve.

------
smaili
Call me cynical but how do we know that Apple didn't secretly just pay him to
write this review?

~~~
cheald
Call me cynical, but how do I know that Samsung didn't secretly just pay you
to cast doubt on positive articles about the watch?

~~~
MCRed
Well, there is evidence of Samsung astroturfing blog authors. One fellow I
followed had a rather obscure blog, and then one day he talked about samsung
and suddenly had hundreds of negative comments (and not of the american pro-
android kind you see here.) So, he checked his logs and found they were coming
from a limited IP range in Korea.

Anecdote, of course.

But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about
watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily
bought.

~~~
cheald
> But I think assuming that someone who posts a blog posting in a blog about
> watches with a history of writing about watches is probably not so easily
> bought.

That was, in a roundabout way, my point; it seems silly to cry "omg, Apple
shill!" with no evidence beyond "he said something nice about the iWatch" (and
it is equally as silly for me to cry "omg, Samsung shill!" on nothing but the
basis of "he said something unkind about Apple"). I'm afraid absurd tone
doesn't come through well on the internet.

This is precisely the kind of article I'd expect from a watch aficionado. One
can look at it with a suspicious eye, but unless there's something to indicate
that they were bought, it's silly to call them out as such.

------
dchuk
It's interesting to me that there has been very little mention of the fact
that the Apple Watches (at least the watches we've seen so far) are purely for
right handed people who wear watches on their left hand. If you tried wearing
these on your right hand, you'd be reaching across the face to use the digital
crown.

There are two logical solutions for this:

1) Sell a left handed model as well. You can expect there to be a 90/10 skew
for righties just because of genetics, but that can be accounted for in
manufacturing runs.

2) Allow the watch to be flipped upside down for the right wrist. While
technically this would work, I highly doubt Apple would design something to be
worn upside down.

Or they can just say fuck it and only make watches that make sense for right
handed people. I guess we'll find out in a few months.

~~~
refulgentis
We already know – they went with #2. [http://www.iclarified.com/43778/apples-
iwatch-is-reversible-...](http://www.iclarified.com/43778/apples-iwatch-is-
reversible-for-lefthanded-users)

