
Inconvenient Truths About the Apple Watch - flyosity
https://medium.com/@flyosity/inconvenient-truths-about-the-apple-watch-11bafa44551b
======
JTon
> When Apple first showed off the Apple Watch, I was stunned. It looked
> glorious and larger than life. Shiny and precision-machined. Like an object
> from the future that time-traveled back to the present just to blow everyone
> away.

I too was stunned, but for the exact opposite reason. I thought, and still
think, the Apple Watch looks hideous. And no, I'm not exaggerating. I _really_
don't like it. This is coming from a non-apple user who thinks Apple makes
beautiful hardware.

~~~
MarkMc
Got to admit that the Moto 360 looks beautiful and classy while the Apple
watch looks like a cheap casio from the 80s:

[http://i.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz.png](http://i.imgur.com/V9YZ5Kz.png)

~~~
nostromo
It's way too big though.

[http://i.imgur.com/MAmL4a4.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/MAmL4a4.jpg)

~~~
grubles
That is just a really skinny arm. Here is how it looks on someone ~160lbs
(like myself): [http://imgur.com/Cejo1rl.jpg](http://imgur.com/Cejo1rl.jpg)

~~~
dhagz
I mean, it looks a little better, but I still feel that the watch face is
unnecessarily large. It doesn't look proportional. And while the rectangular
face of the Apple Watch is evocative of Casio watches, it looks proportional
to the band and the wearer's wrist.

------
SeanLuke
This picture is completely inappropriate.

[https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*cTTsFgbXbah...](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/2000/1*cTTsFgbXbahUyF8jDgRF4Q.png)

He's trying to claim that the watch interface isn't sharp. I don't know if
that's true or not (I have never seen an Apple Watch) but it's downright
mendacious to illustrate this claim with a grotesquely high-ISO, grainy image
which makes the watch display look as bad as possible.

~~~
delecti
I agree that that's a very unflattering image, but it's purpose is to
highlight the start difference between the marketing pics (which clearly show
vector interfaces) and the reality of a pixelated display. Also, I think more
of the unflattering-ness of the picture is due to the actually poor interface
than the quality of the picture.

~~~
7Z7
The digital crown looks about as pixelated and processed as the actual display
pixels. I'd like to see a much better picture before I trusted anything in
this image at all.

------
bryanlarsen
Something finally clicked for me. The OP disses the watch, but buys one anyway
so he can write apps for it.

Apple always hypes their products, but they usually lowball expectations. For
the Watch, they've really ramped up expectations, really setting themselves up
for a let-down. It's been obvious for a while that the Watch was going to be
more like iPhone v1 than iPad v1: showing lots of promise, but needing a
couple of iterations to nail it and really become a mass market product. So I
expect good numbers, but not huge numbers.

So why would Apple risk the Watch being branded a failure by missing
expectations? Apps. If devs expect a huge success, they'll jump in heavy. So
when gen 2 or 3 rolls around the news stories will be about this watch being
the one that rectifies the failure of gen 1, but it will be also be about the
killer apps that you can get.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
Much more like the iPod than iPhone, IMHO. An accessory, a fashion object,
very cool but totally optional and not life-changing in the way the smartphone
has been.

~~~
gdubs
Ah, but the iPod paved the way for the iPhone.

Where Apple succeeds is in creating products that people covet. White earbuds
were a status symbol for some time until the knockoffs came. They signaled
that you had enough disposable income for an expensive MP3 player.

Now they've made something you _wear_ \-- so there's no missing the signal.

And yes, I totally fall for it every time -- but as a developer I have a
convenient alibi :)

------
doe88
I don't understand this obsession with big sizes watches maybe it's because I
actually don't wear a watch but I've ordered the 38mm model (and I'm a man).
My reasonning is that the last thing I want is something big on my wrist.

~~~
RVuRnvbM2e
Exactly this. Why would you want a big watch? Mine is the smallest and
lightest I could find and I still feel it's a little too big!

~~~
sliverstorm
If I have a watch for telling time, I want it to be as small and thin as
reasonable.

If I have a watch as a fashion accessory/jewelry, being small is no longer a
design parameter, and in fact being larger might be seen as positive- like a
large diamond ring.

Watches are not always worn just to tell time.

~~~
nostrebored
Large diamond rings are also tacky. I've not met a single girl who prefers
grandiose rings. Ever.

~~~
flavaflava
Every 'girl' you've offered a large diamond ring has declined the offer?
Perhaps the problem is not the size of the ring but with you

~~~
nostrebored
Don't know how you came up with that interpretation. I'll go ahead and break
this down for you, since it seems like you've never actually proposed to
somebody. Typically you talk to your friends about rings, shop around, etc.
You've likely already been talking about getting engaged, and asked for your
girlfriend's opinions on rings as well. Throughout this process you'll get a
good estimation of people's opinions on what is aesthetically pleasing -- from
my experience this tended to be low set, solitaire or princess, moderately
sized diamond rings.

------
bambax
As Daringfireball's review of the Apple watch said, there are two kinds of
people: those who currently wear watches, and people who don't.

The first ones have to be convinced to switch to the Apple watch because, as a
watch, it's a better watch than the one currently on their wrist.

The others just have to believe the Apple watch will answer a need that isn't
met by any other device.

I think the second proposition has a fighting chance (maybe) but the first is
an uphill battle. The Apple watch is ugly and, simply, not a real watch. Watch
people will probably never switch.

That may not matter much, since they're a small minority anyway; but it would
simplify Apple's marketing if it didn't try to talk to them at all.

~~~
ctdonath
Kind of person 2.5: those who don't wear a watch because the iPhone "pocket
watch" is an incredibly useful compact information device, and until 4/24/15 a
watch just tells time ... and who would jump at the chance to move the
iPhone's "at a glance" functionality to their wrist. (Ex.: me)

Not a real watch? Why, the same reason e-books aren't "real books" because
they don't smell like old paper? (not trying to be snide, it's a complaint I
hear often) It tells time, better than any mechanical watch (50ms accuracy,
change the face to whatever you like), _and_ includes all that functionality
you keep flipping your iPhone out of your pocket for every few minutes.

~~~
bambax
You should read Gruber's piece:
[http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch](http://daringfireball.net/2015/04/the_apple_watch)

The Apple Watch is not a real watch mainly because there's a lag between the
time you glance at it and the time you see what's on it -- if you turn your
wrist. If your wrist is already turned, or you can't turn it (for example,
because you're typing) then you have to _touch_ the face to turn it on.

It's not waterproof. I'm not sure it's readable in very bright sunlight.

It's very accurate, yes... contrary to the most expensive watches, which are
the less accurate of all watches. Believe it or not, extreme accuracy is not a
required feature of "real" watches.

~~~
ctdonath
I did read it. Like many other major steps in technology, it's a litany of
trivial imperfections. Golly, it might take a moment or trivial effort to turn
on! ok, that's not as instant as a normal watch, but the vast capabilities
(over mere time) more than compensate. Golly, it's not completely waterproof!
though washing your hands or showering with it (which few people do with their
watches) is actively encouraged. Golly, it's not perfectly readable in bright
sunlight! most people aren't in bright sunlight, and a little shade resolves
the problem suitably. Golly, it's very accurate! always irritated me that
hand-set watches are typically off by minutes (reality check: starting _right
now_ , wait 3 minutes before reading the rest of this post, then tell me how
that didn't annoy you), and though just twice a year DST adjustments are a
PITA.

You've got accurate time, weather, stocks, email, texting, photos, games,
health, etc info all on your wrist...and Gruber's complaining it takes a
moment to turn on and you can't go diving with it? c'mon, that's practically
proof it's awesome.

~~~
bambax
You're just confirming you're not a watch person. That's fine... and that was
my point.

------
aetherson
A consistent thread through reviews of the aWatch is that the sport band is
surprisingly awesome-feeling.

Which is a sign for hope from Apple. The truth of the aWatch is that only the
success of the $350-$400 models matters. If those sell well and summon up
customer enthusiasm, then the watch has at least a fighting chance to be
successful. If people don't like the $350-$400 models, then all the enthusiasm
in the world for the $1,000-$17,000 models will not create an ecosystem, and
the aWatch will be, at best, a tiny niche product.

If Apple has recognized that and not bought into their own marketing hype
about premium whatever, and focused all their attention on making the basic
model as good as possible, then they're making the smart play.

------
jff
Ever since reading that article about how dangerous it is to criticize Apple,
and how authors always start out by flying their Apple cred... man I notice it
all the time in any article that has to say something critical.

~~~
eridius
That article claiming it's dangerous to criticize Apple was complete bullshit,
but it did serve to highlight how anyone writing anti-Apple posts loves to try
and trot out their credentials as an Apple user as if that lends authority to
whatever they're about to write.

~~~
joshuapants
> as if that lends authority to whatever they're about to write

I think it does. Apple has a lot of True Believers and there are also a lot of
people who have never used Apple products but take every opportunity to bash
them. When I see a critical post written by someone who uses and likes Apple
products, I consider the points made more carefully than a positive post by a
brainwashee or a negative post by someone with an axe to grind.

~~~
eridius
It's really hard to take anyone seriously when they accuse Apple users of
being "believers" or being "brainwash[ed]". Do you honestly believe that
there's a large chunk of Apple customers out there (some even imply a majority
of them) that only use Apple products out of some religious fervor or slavish
devotion to the memory of Steve Jobs or whatever other justification you want
to use? If anything, all of the Apple users that I know (and I know a lot) are
more prone to be critical of Apple products than anyone I know is of any other
company's products.

(edit: That's actually a serious question. I genuinely don't understand why
people try to make this argument)

~~~
joshuapants
Can you point out where I suggested that all users of Apple products are
brainwashed?

One look at the Macrumors forum shows you that these people exist in some
number (just like one look at a guitar forum shows you that Gibson has some
believers). I work with one person who is absolutely insufferable with Apple
evangelization.

I didn't make the argument you thought I did, and while your weaving skills
are admirable, I don't really need any strawmen.

~~~
eridius
> _Can you point out where I suggested that all users of Apple products are
> brainwashed?_

I never accused you of saying _all_ users of Apple products are brainwashed.
Misrepresenting my comment isn't a very effective strategy when my comment is
right there for everyone to read. And you very specifically used the term
"brainwashee" in the context of Apple users, so yes you did in fact accuse
_some_ users of Apple products of being brainwashed.

> _I didn 't make the argument you thought I did_

You said the Apple customer base has "a lot of True Believers" and having
people you think are "brainwash[ed]". That's not a description I'd expect to
see anyone use for any company other than Apple (even if you personally think
there are customers of other companies that exhibit the same traits, you
almost certainly wouldn't think to apply those specific labels). Which is why
I asked my question. Why do you think those labels are appropriate, and what
portion of Apple's customer base do you think they apply to? If you think that
this description is only appropriate for a very small number of people, why
even bring it up? If you think it applies to a large number of people, what
justification do you have for describing Apple's user base as if it were a
cult and do you really think that this does anything other than make anyone
reading your comment dismiss it out of hand (which is the same general
reaction to a comment including the word "fanboy").

> _I don 't really need any straw men._

Do you actually know what a straw man argument is, or are you just using the
term to try and shut down conversation?

~~~
joshuapants
>I never accused you of saying all users of Apple products

> when they accuse Apple users of

I did not accuse Apple users in general, just a set of them.

> even if you personally think there are customers of other companies that
> exhibit the same traits, you almost certainly wouldn't think to apply those
> specific labels

Yes, I would, and I do.

> Why do you think those labels are appropriate

Because they accurately describe the groups I apply them to.

> what portion of Apple's customer base do you think they apply to?

A significant portion of their vocal user base.

> If you think that this description is only appropriate for a very small
> number of people, why even bring it up?

Because they are the loudest ones and they lower the signal-to-noise ratio
considerably. Why do you care that I bring it up?

> Do you actually know what a straw man argument is

Yes, you are deliberately misrepresenting my argument so you can appear to
have successfully attacked it. And now you are trying to belittle my
intelligence by accusing me of not knowing what a strawman is and that I'm
attempting to "shut down conversation" (which is laughable, here in a public
comments thread, where I have no ability to shut down anything). Given your
defensiveness, intellectual dishonesty, and inability to read a dissenting
opinion without exploding, I have to imagine that you are one of the _True
Believers._

 _edit: just so we 're clear, that last line was sarcastic, so please don't
have a conniption_

~~~
eridius
I thought we were having a debate in good faith. It's clear that you're not
interested in doing so, and instead are attempting to "win" on technicalities
(such as your continued insistence that I claimed you thought _all_ Apple
users were brainwashed), and have now resorted to personal insults and gross
misrepresentation of my words. I don't understand why you're behaving this
way. I thought my question was fairly straightforward, but you seem to be
doing your best to avoid having to answer it. If you don't want to answer,
then just don't reply.

------
antidaily
That picture of the screen makes it look like a Sega Game Gear. Yikes.

~~~
robmcm
Fear not the Game Gear had a PPI of 67.27, the Apple Watch is ~250.

Game Gear 160x144 pixel resolution 3.2 inche screen 67.27 ppi

~~~
Joeri
At least the game gear had crisp pixels, which I remember appreciating about
it. Contemporary pc screens had blurry blotches instead of pixels, unless you
were lucky enough to own a trinitron.

------
feld
I just viewed them in the apple store and thought the interface was incredibly
fluid, screen was very crisp and bright, and the touch screen was impossibly
accurate.

I still don't want to buy one as the battery life is too short and I would
rather wait for the apps to catch up so it can be more useful, but I don't
think it's the failure this guy is setting it up to be.

------
ctdonath
I just tried one on a few minutes ago. It's bright, sharp, large, responsive,
...just right. While the author is spending time complaining about the leather
being so good it's in an uncanny valley of feeling wrong (akin to e-book
naysayers complaining about missing the _smell_ of old paper), I'm amazed at
how far advanced the core functionality & responsiveness (what you're actually
paying for) is beyond other smartwatches.

Perfect? maybe not. But way better than anything else out there.

------
azinman2
I don't know what he's talking about re size. I tried on both and the 42 felt
plenty large to me. I wouldn't want it any larger.

The screen also isn't nearly as bad as his photo. I have no idea what's going
on there. Yes it isn't as sharp as my iPhone 6 but it's not blurry at all.

The only thing that I agree with is that apples bands all look like crap.
Their buckles on the leather look very feminine, and everything has a cheap
feel. The one that doesn't is the Milanese loop. It looked gorgeous. Too bad
it grabbed my arm hair and the sales guys said that was very common. Oops.

I got the cheapest band and will wait for the 3rd party market to do something
decent.

~~~
astrodust
Maybe if you're a civilized silverback gorilla looking for something classy to
wear you might be out of luck.

------
S_A_P
His claims may or may not have merit. However the formula of 1) establish your
apple cred by naming how many devices you own since the history of ever 2)
tell people how excited you are about this product 3) trash it

is tired. For the record, Im not interested in a watch from anyone, I don't
like things on my wrist hands or face that didn't come with me from birth. I
think it was inevitable that Apple entered this market, and Im sure that for
some people it will exceed their expectations, and for some, disappoint.

~~~
dothething
You didn't follow the same formula by distancing yourself from watch
ownership?

------
lumisota
tl;dr: "If you’re interested in the Apple Watch and are considering buying
one, go to an Apple Store and try it on."

------
spikels
Pretty devastating review. I don't know about the sizing but if the screen
really looks that bad this is a bait and switch. Where are all the "screen
images simulated" disclaimers? I bet only a tiny fraction of buyers see the
watch in person before they buy it. Seems like there might be a lot of
disappointed owners.

~~~
eridius
Good news! It doesn't look like the picture. Something is very wrong with that
picture; either he intentionally took it badly or his camera has issues.

~~~
gigq
I'm sure he took it with an iPhone 6 cause that's the phone he has but it also
looks like higher than usual ISO probably due to bad lighting.

The bigger issue is think about how close you would have to hold the watch up
to your face to make it that big in real life. If you did that you'd be able
to see the pixels but you wouldn't hold it that close.

[http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-
review](http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/hodinkee-apple-watch-review) has much
better real life shots that mirror what I saw at the Apple store.

------
TheCapn
I think this product is an interesting one. When the iPhone, iPod, or iPad
came out you didn't have reviewers establishing their credibility as a "MP3
Player" or "Tablet" enthusiast in order to give their perspective merit.

With the Apple Watch you have watch enthusiasts though who come out and
discuss why it is a poor comparison to industry standards established for the
market. Ultimately I think a lot of "watch enthusiasts" will see through the
marketing and be displeased while tech enthusiasts will judge the product on
different standards.

------
lambdaelite
I'm very curious to see how the Apple Watch holds up in daily wear, especially
the Sport version. I am having a hard time imagining an aluminum and glass
watch looking nice after a couple months of daily wear on a wrist. Same goes
for the leather bands: if they're like the leather iPhone cases in any color
other than black, they look pretty shabby after a short time (and I love
broken in leather!).

------
kstrauser
Yes, it's narrower than watches which have to be round by the nature of their
engineering. Someone made the design decision that a rectangle looks nicer on
your wrist than a perfect square, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

------
pbreit
tl;dr: The Apple Watch is different from what I'm used to.

------
plongeur
It's so "Apple" to that obsessed with pixel densitites ...

------
ExpiredLink
Convenient Truth #0: A smartwatch isn't a watch.

Don't compare apples and oranges. Just because you can wear this device on the
wrist doesn't make it a watch.

~~~
robmcm
It is a watch, clues in the name. However it's not a conventional watch.

~~~
derefr
To put it more precisely: it functions as a watch, but the design is not meant
to status-signal through the traditional means by which watches status-signal.
Apple don't care about "big for the sake of big" (more like "remove until you
can't remove any more"); Apple don't care about leather that looks like
artisanal leather with stitching et al, just that the material has the
physical properties (e.g. sweat absorption) of leather while still having all
the features they promised.

Effectively, Apple is trying to replace traditional watch status-signalling
with more smartphone-esque status-signalling, where a product looks more
expensive the more like a mysterious featureless glowing glass bead it manages
to seem.

------
Animats
The article has a real-world picture of the watch face in use.[1] The display
looks blurry and low-resolution. (It's not the photo; the knurls on the knob
are sharp.) It's so different from the ads that Apple may be in trouble with
the Federal Trade Commission for misleading advertising, for showing renders
on their site that look much better than the actual product.

[1]
[https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1330/1*cTTsFgbXbah...](https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/1330/1*cTTsFgbXbahUyF8jDgRF4Q.png)

~~~
baddox
It is the photo. It's an extremely low quality grainy photograph. The Apple
Watch display looks much better than that.

~~~
Animats
The bezel, the hairs on the guy's arm, and the knurling on the knob are in
clear focus. Only the screen looks fuzzy. It's not a photograph problem.

