Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

cmChimera

macrumors 601
Feb 12, 2010
4,308
3,844
I'm sure if, many years ago you told people back then, there would be many millions of people playing games and watching video's on a 3.5" screen they would of called you nuts and it was a stupid thing to say.

but look what happened!

Game Boy?
 

Tanegashima

macrumors 6502
Jun 23, 2009
473
0
Portugal
I'm sure if, many years ago you told people back then, there would be many millions of people playing games and watching video's on a 3.5" screen they would of called you nuts and it was a stupid thing to say.

but look what happened!

For watching movies/Tv, it's still a stupid thing to do...
 

Piggie

macrumors G3
Feb 23, 2010
9,182
4,112
For watching movies/Tv, it's still a stupid thing to do...

So before the Ipad then, if you looked on some public transport, I suppose you would of called all the iPhone users, using their phones for such things, stupid then?
 

Tanegashima

macrumors 6502
Jun 23, 2009
473
0
Portugal
Maybe you need an eye exam. I can see fine on a 3.5 inch screen. I don't see why you'd need bigger. I can see why someone would like bigger, but "need" no. Nice to be able to watch movies or TV on a nice portable screen.

Watching a movie in such a tiny little screen?

God's sake... just because you can, doesn't mean you should!

Staring at a such a tiny screen for 1 hour, 2 hours? No!
 

TheAppleFairy

Suspended
Mar 28, 2013
2,588
2,223
The Clinton Archipelago unfortunately
Watching a movie in such a tiny little screen?

God's sake... just because you can, doesn't mean you should!

Staring at a such a tiny screen for 1 hour, 2 hours? No!


Well you have your opinion. I think people watch movies on screens that are too big sometimes and they miss things that are happening because their eyes can't cover the entire screen. I have no issue watching things on a small screen. I don't know why you think your dumb opinion should go for everyone.
 

Mascots

macrumors 68000
Sep 5, 2009
1,667
1,418
Well you have your opinion. I think people watch movies on screens that are too big sometimes and they miss things that are happening because their eyes can't cover the entire screen. I have no issue watching things on a small screen. I don't know why you think your dumb opinion should go for everyone.

I rarely agree with Tanegashima, but in this case I think he is correct. I don't think many people will be watching movies on  Watch. Once you get that small, you lose a lot of details. Plus you'll have an iPhone, with a larger screen, more storage, and a longer battery life along your side.

And with that regard, I don't think that it should be any measure in the usability of the device, especially not out of the gate. Maybe in the future as things mature, maybe one day we'll watch videos on our wrists... one day. And we will benchmark against that because then it will be relevant to our usage.
 

Tanegashima

macrumors 6502
Jun 23, 2009
473
0
Portugal
Well you have your opinion. I think people watch movies on screens that are too big sometimes and they miss things that are happening because their eyes can't cover the entire screen.

You're sitting too close to your TV set, then...

I have no issue watching things on a small screen. I don't know why you think your dumb opinion should go for everyone.

Yes, my opinion is so dumb.

So you buy a TV that's so big for your that you can't even see the entire screen, then you complain, they you watch an entire movie in a screen that's so small, that you can only only see it at less than an arm's length.

Perfect sense! /s

By focusing so close, you're stressing your eyes. DUH.

Unless you have miopia, and in that case, you need a pair of glasses, it's everything you shouldn't do.
 

tomo999

macrumors member
Sep 9, 2014
41
19
Bedfordshire UK
Apple's iwatch will be the first watch in this century that won't be able to display all the hours in one day due to its terrible battery that will last you at most 19 hours lol.

The last report I read about the battery life stated that we'd be lucky to make it until lunchtime without having to recharge it!

From 9to5mac website:-
Apple had originally suggested that the Watch would need to be charged nightly. Somewhat of a pain, but given that most people charge their phones each night, not the end of the world. Instead, the following has been cited:

– displaying the clock face alone (with ticking hand etc) will provide for 3 hours of use

– heavy app use will provide 2.5 hours of use

– standard app use will provide 3.5 hours

– using it as a fitness tracker will provide 4 hours of use


This will be a disaster if true!
 

DirtySocks85

macrumors 65816
Mar 12, 2009
1,441
82
Wichita, KS
The last report I read about the battery life stated that we'd be lucky to make it until lunchtime without having to recharge it!

From 9to5mac website:-
Apple had originally suggested that the Watch would need to be charged nightly. Somewhat of a pain, but given that most people charge their phones each night, not the end of the world. Instead, the following has been cited:

– displaying the clock face alone (with ticking hand etc) will provide for 3 hours of use

– heavy app use will provide 2.5 hours of use

– standard app use will provide 3.5 hours

– using it as a fitness tracker will provide 4 hours of use


This will be a disaster if true!

This is constant/active use of these things. For it to be dead by lunchtime you'd basically have to spend your entire morning doing nothing but interacting with your watch. I don't know what you do at your job, but at mine I'd probably get fired if I spend half of the workday playing with my watch.
 

tomo999

macrumors member
Sep 9, 2014
41
19
Bedfordshire UK
This is constant/active use of these things. For it to be dead by lunchtime you'd basically have to spend your entire morning doing nothing but interacting with your watch. I don't know what you do at your job, but at mine I'd probably get fired if I spend half of the workday playing with my watch.

That's not how I read it, doesn't it say that showing just the clock face alone with a moving second hand gives you 3 hours of battery life while 'heavy use' gives you 2.5?
 

Exile714

macrumors 6502a
Jan 14, 2015
717
1,175
That's not how I read it, doesn't it say that showing just the clock face alone with a moving second hand gives you 3 hours of battery life while 'heavy use' gives you 2.5?

The watch won't display the time constantly, but will supposedly know (via arm position, motion or both) when you look at it and display accordingly. That's where the 19 hour figure comes in.

Anyway, aside from people complaining that a blank watch looks bad, this strategy does come with a valid criticism: the kind of motion/position sensing which allows this system to work has never been truly successful in other products. I can attest that Pebble wasn't perfect with the backlight initiation. If the watch turns on too frequently it will hurt battery life, and if it's not sensitive enough people will have to contort themselves to see the time.

If Apple nails this aspect of the UI, then I'd call that innovation. If not, it's going to be one of the biggest complaints people have about the watch. But considering the same sensors claim to know when you're standing as opposed to sitting, I'd say there's at least a chance Apple's got the tech to pull it off.
 

Tanegashima

macrumors 6502
Jun 23, 2009
473
0
Portugal
The last report I read about the battery life stated that we'd be lucky to make it until lunchtime without having to recharge it!

From 9to5mac website:-
Apple had originally suggested that the Watch would need to be charged nightly. Somewhat of a pain, but given that most people charge their phones each night, not the end of the world. Instead, the following has been cited:

– displaying the clock face alone (with ticking hand etc) will provide for 3 hours of use

– heavy app use will provide 2.5 hours of use

– standard app use will provide 3.5 hours

– using it as a fitness tracker will provide 4 hours of use


This will be a disaster if true!

So stupid.

Apple would never release a watch with like that. It won't be s Moto 360.

Apple has a reputation to maintain. And they don't desperatle need money from a watch. They need a watch to don't lag behind competition.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.