Best argument for NOT buying the Watch?

[Night Spring]

No one is denying that? But 1st gen tends to be significantly worse than next gen.

Learn from the past, 1st gen is for suckers.

To be quite honest, first iPhone was hard to resist from buying it and so was the first iPad (which people "suckers" still use now days) Inevitably the succeeders had to be better. It's just the way things evolve.

I did skip the first iPhone, mostly because I didn't need a phone -- I got the iPod touch instead. But I did get the first iPad, and enjoyed it until the 2nd one came out, whereas people who skipped the first gen had no tablets that year. Or they were using one of the many lame tablet attempts put out by other companies, which were all pretty terrible. So I think if you buy a first gen product knowing that the second gen would likely be much improved, but that having it early is worth it to you even with the not quite perfect experience, then you aren't a sucker.

 

[MasterRyu2011]

let's revisit this when the battery life is announced. I think that will probably be many folks' focus. If it lasts all day, I think it will do well. If it dies in 8 hours with normal use, then watch out. The moto 360 was like that in the beginning until a software update fixed it.

 

[qcmacmini]

let's revisit this when the battery life is announced. I think that will probably be many folks' focus. If it lasts all day, I think it will do well. If it dies in 8 hours with normal use, then watch out. The moto 360 was like that in the beginning until a software update fixed it.

I can guarantee when Watch iOS 9.0.0 comes out, the early adopters will have terrible battery life, then you'll have to wait until iOS 9.6.2 comes out to be bug free, lag free and good battery life, at which point there is a keynote presentation and you immediately get shown the great features of Watch iOS 10.0.

 

[Abazigal]

No one is denying that? But 1st gen tends to be significantly worse than next gen.

Learn from the past, 1st gen is for suckers.

You are conveniently omitting the opportunity cost of giving up that user experience for a year. For example, while it is true that the ipad2 was a far better product than the ipad1 in every regard (cameras, more ram, a far more capable processor, more future proof), waiting a year also meant not being able to enjoy that wonderful touchscreen tablet experience for as much time.

It's like arguing - why queue to watch the latest movie at the cinema when you can rent it on DVD soon enough? Or wait for it to become a weekend feature movie on TV? Because then, you lose out on the whole viewing experience.

 

[emir]

Didn't read the rest of the thread but;

- That there's too much focus on notifications and not so much on fitness.
- Obscure battery life, probably less than a full day. (that could turn out to be not so bad if it is charged wirelessly and takes only ~10 minutes for a full charge)

I just want a JawBone UP3 (battery life, sleep, fitness, activity, heart tracking all day) with Apple Watch design(I love the design), a screen so that I can see the time and some other information at a glance.

Seriously though, who cares about sending heartbeats Jony?

 

[Piggie]

Come on...........

We all know the battery life is going to vary greatly depending on how you use it.

With all these new toys people tend to play with them when they 1st get them, and due to that have terrible battery life.

When you get bored, and just use the thing in the real world, for the time and a fee notifications then the battery life will seem a lot better.

 

[ET iPhone Home]

So back and forth I go.....
I tell myself over and over that the Watch isn't a good watch, unlike the pebble, which IMO is much better as a watch, and is what I'm getting for Christmas.
Common sense will likely prevail and I'll just get the iPad Air 2 (or mini 3) instead of the watch.

So as hard as not getting it may be, what do you guys think the best argument is for NOT buying the Watch? The biggest thing I can think of is waiting for the second generation.
What do you guys think?

I expect it will be a nice hands-free device for those who have cars without bluetooth connectivity and for those that prefer no to wear an ear piece device.

 

[magicMac]

I expect it will be a nice hands-free device for those who have cars without bluetooth connectivity and for those that prefer no to wear an ear piece device.

Yeah and a safer way to change music tracks via Bluetooth

 

[fitshaced]

You have no arms

 

[xArtx]

Not buying something is the default position, or we'd have to buy every product we could ever afford
So I need to be convinced I need something less than what is in my pocket on my wrist.

 

[Crazy Badger]

This > http://www.withings.com/us/withings-activite.html

Yes, it's expensive, but unless you knew otherwise you'd just think it was a nice looking watch. I've had mine for a couple of weeks now and think it's brilliant. Don't need to do anything other than wear it. No daily charging, no buttons to press. I don't need an iPhone on my wrist, as it's in my pocket.

This is what Apple should have been aiming for

 

[Julien]

This > http://www.withings.com/us/withings-activite.html

Yes, it's expensive, but unless you knew otherwise you'd just think it was a nice looking watch. I've had mine for a couple of weeks now and think it's brilliant. Don't need to do anything other than wear it. No daily charging, no buttons to press. I don't need an iPhone on my wrist, as it's in my pocket.

This is what Apple should have been aiming for

While I'm sure it is a nice watch (I have WiThings scales and BP monitor), it is just a conventional analog watch with some very limited fitness tracking. It's not a smart watch and can't use Apps or be modified in any way. Apple is an electronics/computer compony so there is nothing about it that Apple should be "aiming for" (other than waterproofing).

 

[Crazy Badger]

While I'm sure it is a nice watch (I have WiThings scales and BP monitor), it is just a conventional analog watch with some very limited fitness tracking. It's not a smart watch and can't use Apps or be modified in any way. Apple is an electronics/computer compony so there is nothing about it that Apple should be "aiming for" (other than waterproofing).

I just don't get why people want a smaller iPhone on their wrist, but each to their own. For me one of the mandatory requirements from a watch (smart, or not) is that I don't need to worry about powering it. It also needs to accurately tell the time. Beyond, that you could argue everything is smart.

I never saw the need for one of these either, as there were better tools for the job!

 

[DamnDJ]

The battery will have to last at least a week for me to buy one. To be fair, this applies to any "smart watch". The idea of charging a watch every day/other day is absurd.

 

[rossy100]

The battery will have to last at least a week for me to buy one. To be fair, this applies to any "smart watch". The idea of charging a watch every day/other day is absurd.

I agree - the idea of having to charge a watch that only tells the time every day is absurd - so in which case buy a watch that only tells the time and so doesn't need charging. If however you want to take advantage of the additional functions of a smart watch (like Apple Watch) then the trade off is having to charge regularly.

This is no different to having to charge my iPhone every day (which I use for calls, texts, emails, web, apps etc.) vs my old Nokia which would last a week (but was only used for calls and occasional texts).

I honestly don't see the battery life changing significantly over time either - not because the battery capacity won't improve, but because we will simply find more things to do on the watch, and therefore consume more power. Battery in an iPhone 6 is significantly better than the original iPhone, but I still charge it just as much. Why? because the IP6 needs more power to run and I simply do more on the device than I did with original IP.

 

[Tycho24]

You are conveniently omitting the opportunity cost of giving up that user experience for a year. For example, while it is true that the ipad2 was a far better product than the ipad1 in every regard (cameras, more ram, a far more capable processor, more future proof), waiting a year also meant not being able to enjoy that wonderful touchscreen tablet experience for as much time.

It's like arguing - why queue to watch the latest movie at the cinema when you can rent it on DVD soon enough? Or wait for it to become a weekend feature movie on TV? Because then, you lose out on the whole viewing experience.

Valid points!
I would further add that extremely high resale value of Apple products makes a HUGE difference... I sold each of the 1st two gen iPads for $440, after using them for a year. So my out of pocket expense for getting the 1st gen, instead of waiting was $60 ($5/month)... I scarcely feel like a "sucker" for that!

 

[kalt]

Not waterproof. "Water resistant" means nothing (the iphone and ipad are water resistant), and is certainly not good enough for a watch. It doesn't have to be a dive watch that can handle being under water at 1000 meters, but i need to be able to take a shower with it, wash my hands, be out in the rain, and go swimming with it. If I can't do that with a watch, it's useless.

Big mistake by Apple. It's supposed to monitor fitness, among other things. Sweat alone may mess it up. I don't get why Apple would make a product like this and not have it waterproof. I mean, my Oral-B electric toothbrush is waterproof. I figured the whole purpose of having inductive charging (rather than a lightning cable) was so that it could be waterproof. Apparently not.

I wouldn't pay $50 for this without it being waterproof.

 

[Night Spring]

Not waterproof. "Water resistant" means nothing (the iphone and ipad are water resistant), and is certainly not good enough for a watch. It doesn't have to be a dive watch that can handle being under water at 1000 meters, but i need to be able to take a shower with it, wash my hands, be out in the rain, and go swimming with it. If I can't do that with a watch, it's useless.

Big mistake by Apple. It's supposed to monitor fitness, among other things. Sweat alone may mess it up. I don't get why Apple would make a product like this and not have it waterproof. I mean, my Oral-B electric toothbrush is waterproof. I figured the whole purpose of having inductive charging (rather than a lightning cable) was so that it could be waterproof. Apparently not.

I wouldn't pay $50 for this without it being waterproof.

I don't think iPads and iPhones are water resistant. Splash water on them the wrong way, and they go kaput. I understand that you can wash your hands while wearing an Apple Watch, and sweat shouldn't be a problem. I agree it's too bad you can't go swimming with them, but should work well for runners, dancers, fitness workouts, etc.

 

[Michael CM1]

$350 for a device that isn't able to stand on its own and which nobody outside of Apple has used in the wild. At least with an iPad we knew it was like a larger iPhone and had the iPhone apps that could suffice before iPad versions were developed.

This is a new device with no iPhone apps to fall back upon. Plus you'll want to let the early adopters figure out what the battery life will really be like.

I really liked my FitBit up until I got one of those rashes. It was with the Flex, not the bigger one, so no recall. I've tried wearing it since, but I'm still wary of that and now my phone does all that it did.

Honestly right now I would rather spent $350 on a car stereo with CarPlay, but alas no such device exists. My new car's unit is OK with Bluetooth, GPS and all, but CarPlay looks nice.

 

[Piggie]

I still do not understand the concept of trying to tell people that a watch can be used in the pouring rain whilst running, and yet you can't take a shower.

So you go to the Apple store and tell them it stopped working, they check and fine water damage, and you tell them you were running in the rain and it died.

And they are going to say what?

No you are lying, you were in the shower, not in a rainstorm ?

 

[Night Spring]

I still do not understand the concept of trying to tell people that a watch can be used in the pouring rain whilst running, and yet you can't take a shower.

So you go to the Apple store and tell them it stopped working, they check and fine water damage, and you tell them you were running in the rain and it died.

And they are going to say what?

No you are lying, you were in the shower, not in a rainstorm ?

I think it would have to be really seriously pouring before being in rain gets the same amount of water on your watch as showering with it. When showering, there's nothing between the watch and the water. When you are out in the rain, you are likely wearing a coat or jacket that at least partially shields the watch from water.

If you like to go running in heavy rain in just your t-shirt, well...

 

[Julien]

I think it would have to be really seriously pouring before being in rain gets the same amount of water on your watch as showering with it. When showering, there's nothing between the watch and the water. When you are out in the rain, you are likely wearing a coat or jacket that at least partially shields the watch from water.

If you like to go running in heavy rain in just your t-shirt, well...

Also showers are fine droplets that are under high pressure and at a higher temperature. If it's IPx6 we should be fine in the shower, just not recommended.

 

[cmChimera]

This > http://www.withings.com/us/withings-activite.html

Yes, it's expensive, but unless you knew otherwise you'd just think it was a nice looking watch. I've had mine for a couple of weeks now and think it's brilliant. Don't need to do anything other than wear it. No daily charging, no buttons to press. I don't need an iPhone on my wrist, as it's in my pocket.

This is what Apple should have been aiming for

This does less than an Apple Watch and costs more.

 

[Piggie]

I think it would have to be really seriously pouring before being in rain gets the same amount of water on your watch as showering with it. When showering, there's nothing between the watch and the water. When you are out in the rain, you are likely wearing a coat or jacket that at least partially shields the watch from water.

If you like to go running in heavy rain in just your t-shirt, well...

Well, I'm taking about sports people which the sports watch is aimed at.
Sport people don't generally go out for a long run or cycle of a few miles, perhaps even out for the day on the bike, and wear a coat.

Fact is, Apple will have no way on earth to know you were in the shower, or were in a rainstorm.

So it's all a moot point. If they are saying you can use it in sports, and in the rain then you can use it in the shower as there is no way to know if there is water damage.

 

[Night Spring]

Well, I'm taking about sports people which the sports watch is aimed at.
Sport people don't generally go out for a long run or cycle of a few miles, perhaps even out for the day on the bike, and wear a coat.

Fact is, Apple will have no way on earth to know you were in the shower, or were in a rainstorm.

So it's all a moot point. If they are saying you can use it in sports, and in the rain then you can use it in the shower as there is no way to know if there is water damage.

Well, I just don't think it is all that common for rain to be so heavy that it is the same as being in a shower. Unless you live in the monsoon region or something, it happens only a few days a year. And if it really is a problem, wrap a plastic around it or something. I'm sure accessory makers would be happy to sell waterproof covers for the Apple Watch.

It just doesn't feel like a deal-breaking issue to me, other than for people who want a watch to go swimming with.